558
Please don't tell me to get off of it, I have old Livejournal friends to keep in touch with and that's why I'm there.
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
558 points (95.0% liked)
memes
16453 readers
2575 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure why you're struggling with this so much. Of course it makes sense to consider what is normal for the people we are talking about.
If you would've wanted to make your first sentence really clear you could've said "it's normal for them but not for me" or something.
I'm not struggling, I'm telling you how it is based on your own parameters. You could have argued that normalcy is relative, but you didn't you got stuck on the dictionary definition and decided that the set of expectations that apply are the expectations of the group and not my expectations.
I'm saying either you have a logical reason for that set of priorities or your argument doesn't follow. There was not problem with clarity on that sentence, the ambiguity was introduced by your caveat.
To be clear, this is irrelevant and a waste of time. We established that up top. We both understand what I was saying and why your response is what it is.
But I've explained to you many times how it is relative. It's just that they live in place where it is normal and you don't. So you don't feel what they're doing is normal but for them it is
No, you've said many times that it being relative means the bar for normalcy that takes precedence is theirs and not mine. Which doesn't follow from your premise. And whenever I tell you that you just repeat the wonky premise.
Alright, that's harsh, you just quietly backed away some by moving from "it's normal for them so it's normal" to "it's normal for them but not to you", which is not the same thing you were saying before. I guess I'll take the small compromises in a conversation we both knew was a waste of time from the first post.
I mean it's simple as if you are talking about them, then it's their context that matters if it is normal for them or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If they were talking about you it wouldn't be normal even if they considered it normal since they were talking about you and your context.
It's just how normalcy works...
I'm not sure how you've understood it like this. It's normal for them has been the thing the whole time. You said it's not normal but it is normal for them though, you can't decide normalcy for their context
Same as I can't say it's not normal for people in Peru to eat guinea pigs. But it is normal for them, it's just not normal where I live. Do you see now?
But you've never explained why that is. You just... kinda like it that way. Their normal takes precedence (it didn't for a bit, but I called you out on it and now it does again) only because you say so. No definition you put forward included whose normal goes first when two normals happen at once.
To be clear, normal doesn't work like that, it's not what I meant and you fully understand this. But if we play by your definition, nothing in your definition decides which normal is the more normal. I say my normal goes because I'm the speaker and my set of expectations define normalcy in my speech. You have provided no argument against this.
It's just the definition of the word. What is typical etc. for some context. Those people consider it normal to do that because to them it is normal 🤷♂️
For example if these people would be from Finland then yes it would be normal. It is just what people in Finland do which makes it normal.
Not by your definition. By your definition it's "what's expected or usual", it doesn't say anything about who decides what is expected or usual.
It's not my definition, friend. It's straight from a dictionary. But I think it (pretty reasonably) assumes the person reading it knows it's context dependent. See their example:
Of course the context here is how that office typically is. That's the normal.
In that context it's the speaker who has an expectation for what is normal for that office. The office normal and the speaker normal are the same.
There is nothing in the definition that demands normalcy to be defined by the object.
If every language on the planet put the verb at the end of a sentence and only one language set the verb in the middle of the sentence would you say it is incorrect to say speakers of that language are doing things the normal way or would you get nitpicky about it and say that's inaccurate?
Which, again, not the point, you get what I was saying, you're mostly trolling. I get it, you get it, we established this at the go. We're just trolling around the relative inaccuracy of the trolling here.
It's just that what's normal is defined by the actual situation in the office. So the office normalcy is just what's normal in the office, even if we think it's abnormal or disagree with their office whatever.
I mean if I was talking about how speakers of the verb in the middle language consider it normal then in that context yeah that's their normal.
Did that help to understand the situation? You can ask about other scenarios too if it helps
But I didn't ask if you would say it's "their normal". I asked if you would say it's "normal". Not qualifiers, no possessives. Also, I wasn't talking about how women being socially expected to alter their identity based on having sex with a man as a habit "consider it normal", I was talking about how I don't consider it normal.
So that's kind of a lot of sneaky adjustments you made there. Wanna try that again?
But it's them we are talking about. Same as your original comment. Otherwise it wouldn't be the same scenario. For the people in question it's normal yes.
I know. It's normal but you don't find it normal. I feel like we've covered this before, but it has been a long conversation so I'm not 100% sure.
I noticed in some of the replies you seem a bit upset. I hope this conversation isn't the cause of that. I know it's been a long and probably frustrating journey.
No, we are not talking about them. I said "they think it's normal, but it's not normal". That's not what you say it is.
See? Now the fact that you're misrepresenting the conversation for trolling purposes becomes a problem, because we have to talk about what I was actually saying, so the whole thing falls apart.
I'm confused. It does seem like you're referring to some third party in your comment ("they")
You are confused. In theory, for the purposes of this conversation in the way it's being carried out.
The key to your confusion would be apparently lacking an understanding of the word "but" and how it works in a sentence, though, which may be a bridge too far.
I just thought you were referring to some third party and saying how their normal isn't normal, even though it's normal for them
That's exactly what I was saying. Which is not the same as what you've been implying I was saying but is the same as what I was saying I was saying earlier.
Hopefully that clarifies it.
I'm confused on what you thought I was implying. The point has always been the same afaik
You
Me
I was maybe too optimistic with that last line.
Oh, cool, this is the easy part of these dumb things where we get to just copy paste the original conversation and go down the loop. Hold on:
I wouldn't call it stupid, you were under the assumption that I implied something different or changed it during the conversation so I just showed what I was saying right at the start to show that it's been the same.
You always need context to describe normalcy.
Geography is one context, but it's more about societal norms in this case, which don't strictly follow geographical bounds. So yes and no. In this case if the people in question live in a place where it's typical or expected, it's normal.
You have context to define normalcy. I'm the speaker and I'm from a place where it's not normal, so it's not normal.
But of course that's not the point and has never been, because the line isn't about whether the practice is standard in some regions, which it obviously is, it's about whether it makes sense to the general principles of general mores on gender for modern society, which it doesn't.
Which you understand fully and always have. Because this is one of these dumb ones, so we're now on loop two.
Man, social media sucks and is so not normal.
If you were talking about the other people the context would be their surroundings.
Oh, we're back to copy pasting and out of the "calling out the real conversation that's happening" tangent? Cool.
No the person speaking doesn't determine it when speaking about other people. You can't decide normalcy for someone else.
That is literally what you do every time you use the word, unless you add "for them" afterwards or you're talking about yourself.
I was going to bring in another copypasta here, but this one is so obviously wrong I kinda need to call it fresh.
When you're talking about other people you sorta don't need to keep repeating the fact. And you were talking about some third party ("they").
And no, you can't just decide what's normal to someone else. I can't decide it's not normal to go to sauna in Finland, even if I so furiously disagreed with that.
You absolutely can decide whether something someone else does is "normal" and do all the time. "I can't believe how often people in Finland go to the sauna, man, it's just not normal" is a perfectly acceptable statement nobody would have an issue with unless they were deliberately pretending to misunderstand it to be obnoxious and trolly on the Internet.
You can find it abnormal but it still is normal to Finns. It doesn't change the actual reality. That's just what it means.
You can caveat it with their perspective all you want, that's an aditional statement that has nothing to do with the original perfectly valid, perfectly understandable statement that you understood.
You said "they" though.
Finns and Americans are both "they". Everybody who isn't you or me is they.
Keep it up, we'll descend all the way down to pure formal logic this way. Breaking new frontiers of semiotics, I tell you.
It's normal for both Americans and Finns. But that's kinda duh, you spoke about they who find it normal so of course they would be people who find it normal.
That is not a sentence.
I mean, I know what you're saying because... you know, but if we're going to do this dick measuring thing you're going to at least have to approximate language.
I'm sorry but what do you mean?
That's my exact question, actually.
You don't know what you meant?
See, that's not how pronouns work. You keep getting the concept of language wrong. It impacts suspension of disbelief, man, it's just sloppy.