Someone criticizingly mentioned that Corrupt was "anti-nerd" in the comments section. This seems to a point of recurring misinterpretation: generally taken as an espousal of empty machismo. Based on my cursory understanding of Corrupt's take on "nerd culture," I have to venture that it comes under attack for being a perfect demonstration of deflecting individual responsibility -- a continuing consequence of liberalism.

Nerds, to me - and this just might be a semantic point - in addition to being intellectual, bask in their social victimhood status. I study on a campus of 60 000 people who mostly identify as nerds. They all have a quest to be different and they wear their social defects as a badge of pride. Being socially isolated, or awkward, is no longer a mark of distinction when 59 999 other people suffer from the same issues.

Being a nerd isn't even a form of social rebellion so much as it is a form of social acceptance. It is a perverse source of happiness only found in relation to society at large. If nerds were able to re-structure the world as they saw fit, a world where sitting in basements and playing computer games all day were the societal norm (even though I would argue it already is), they would invent new ways to further differentiate themselves, more cripples to rely upon as a personality crutch.

The few intellectuals here in Toronto who seem to be well-adjusted, happy individuals - and I suspect elsewhere also - are often accused of being intellectual populists, as if their happiness was a bad thing. I fail to understand why perpetuating, or worse yet, creating, social weakness is positive. It certainly is not inherent to being intellectual, which I think is an important form of personal development!

Note that being socially awkward is often used as a funny replacement for being actually intelligent. It's as if playing particular computer games, wearing certain clothing brands, enjoying certain technologies are substitutions for the essence of being a nerd -- being smart.