[moate]

>>No one says "I want to be a nerd!"

No, we do at this point. There's plenty of people who like it, but I will also accept that there's plenty of people who don't. I consider myself a nerd, and use the term "nerd" to or "nerdy" to describe myself and many of my hobbies. I mean there's websites out there like Nerdarchy that are clearly owning the phrase.

Similar to how plenty of LGBTQ+ people use "queer" and there's no chance in hell you would ever here me self identify as that personally, despite fitting the commonly usage of it.

[pb7]

Like I said to another commenter: you would still probably have a problem if I were to call someone queer when they don’t identify themselves as such though. I think that’s where the issue lies for me.

[moate]

Sure. But that's not what you said originally, or what I quoted and addressed. That's a very different point to make. You said "nobody". I'm pointing out that "somebody" disagrees with that assessment. You might have been able to get away with "many people don't".

I agree with your point (which I also made in my previous post) that forcing someone to identify as something they don't identify as would be a problem. But in that case, you can also argue that if you're not a "nerd" you shouldn't be working on projects looking for "nerds". The same way some people might have the qualifications of a "rock-star developer" but move away from companies who put statements like that in their hiring materials.

Either way, this is the Verge's language use we're talking about. They're not exactly the highest of brows.

[pb7]

> You said "nobody". I'm pointing out that "somebody" disagrees with that assessment. You might have been able to get away with "many people don't".

You are right, but if we’re splitting hairs here, I also said want to be, meaning that a person that isn’t one doesn’t proclaim this as a goal because it is very vague and can be “implemented” so to speak in many different ways. Maybe a bad analogy but it’s something like “I want to be busy!” — many things can accomplish that. It’s a vague goal.

Anyway, this conversation has gone far from my sole original point that it’s not a nice word to call people that happen to be good at their technical jobs.

[moate]

No offense, but your original point was semantics. If you don't want to argue semantics and don't expect semantic discussions to get semantic, IDK what internet you've been using previously, but we have very different user experiences.

We agree on whether nerd is good, bad or neutral. That's fine. Just pointing out that there's another side. I can see why that phrasing would be used (especially by a publication that is written by/for a "younger" audience), and wouldn't even bat an eyelash over the headline. I believe people when they say something is offensive to them, but this wouldn't have even registered to me as possibly being offensive.

Good talk though.

[pb7]

It’s about as semantics as “people of color” vs. “colored people” but I’m guessing you feel differently about that one. Words matter, especially ones with well-established definitions.