[ SECRET POST #4096 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4096 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Undertale/Super Smash Bros]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Wicked Tuna: Outer Banks]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Ojisama to Neko]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 06 secrets from Secret Submission Post #586.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

http://toogeekyforyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/geek-hierarchy.bmp

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

No.

It's a little hard to put my finger on why but basically those traditional well-defined structures around science fiction & fantasy & fandom just don't exist anymore. Everything is much less silo'd off and distinctive and much more amorphous and omnipresent in the mainstream.

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

Is Pokémon really that uncool? ;_;

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

DA but I'm going to say no it's not that uncool? Plenty of people played Pokémon Go when it came out. It might be considered more uncool to religiously watch the show and movies, but it's definitely not incredibly uncool.

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

This chart is not super recent and reflects a time when Pokemon hadn't been around long enough to be something adults fondly remember watching as kids, but was just a kids show and it was a little weird for teens and adults to admit to enjoying it sober and unironically. It also was years before Pokemon Go.

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Mostly true in structure, although I don't know if furries are still universally at the bottom of the ladder.

The SFF line probably needs some work. Piers Anthony really isn't that much of a thing these days, and neither is the TV->novel space. Go to Buns and Noodle, and there's more Warhammer, D&D, Mass Effect, and Shadowrun paperbacks than Star Trek. Maybe there should be a slot for puppies vs. anti-puppies along the lines of the anime track.

There probably should be a line for TV Fans -> Real-Person Fiction -> Tinhatters. I'd suggest that there's likely a line of People who Play Games -> "Gamers" -> Gamer Gate. The Pokemon thing seems really dated as well.

I'd also add an arts and crafts chain. Hobbyists -> Makers -> Scrapbookers -> Amateur Radio.

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

There probably should be lines for audophiles and sports geeks.

Watches YouTube -> Subscribes to YouTube Channels -> Has a Vlog -> Let's Play.

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

Where do people who make podcasts fit in? (It's interesting, because that was not a thing when thus was first made!)

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

Furries are still at the bottom of the ladder, but the bottom is higher than it used to be.

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

I have definitely encountered SF&F fans who have published a novel and seem to expect everyone to be in awe of them now and want an autographed copy and soon they will be invited yo a con as a guest of honor... but in reality no one knows who they are because they aren't in that 0.01% of first-time authors who hit it really big right away. The pro/amateur divide definitely still exists in some people's minds.

I think that line is a lot more blurry now, though. Consider that things like Doctor Who and Star Wars are being made by people who grew up as fans of those franchises. Consider how many fans become professionals producing the fannish media and remain fans. Not all fans are pros, but pros often are fans.

I can't comment on all the sub-hierarchies, except I don't think I've heard anyone say "Japanimation" in at least 20 years.

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

You mean as soon as I self-publish this erotic gay sci-fi I've been working on for the past year I won't be suddenly a celebrity and invited to cons as a guest of honor and people won't want my autograph?

*throws laptop out the window*

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

I have no idea, but if so, out of the 3 or 4 pathways that apply to me, 3 or 4 of them stop right at the box before furries. :/ and idgaf about furries. Are they really that bad? (I'm obviously not talking about people who are into bestiality)I remember as a kid the most attractive Disney princes to me were the Beast (not as Adam), Simba, and Shang. I felt bad about finding John Smith attractive.

Re: Is this geek hierachy still true?

[(Anonymous)]

I’m wondering where exactly antis would fit in a modernized version of this chart. Probably pretty close to the bottom, but I personally don’t know where.