[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.