MudMan comments on Yes Facebook is a dumpster fire, but this is always interesting if you are on there.

[+] MudMan@fedia.io -6 points 1 year ago* (48 children)

Every part of that statement is arguable and every argument would be a bit of a waste of time, so we can probably leave it there.

It's definitely not what most do where I'm from, though. It's not a thing at all.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 48 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (47 children)

Normality: the condition of being normal; the state of being usual, typical, or expected

Typical and even expected in a lot of places. There it would be considered normal

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 47 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io -3 points 1 year ago (46 children)

You added "a lot of places". It's not typical or expected here, so it's not normal here.

So "normalcy" on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?

Told you it was a waste of time.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 46 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (45 children)

It's normal in those places because it's usual, typical or expected. If it's not those things where you live, it's not normal where you live. It's not any harder than that.

You were complaining about places where people "just go with it". If by that you mean places where it's typical or even expected, then it's normal there.

It's not necessarily geographical but just about community, group or societal behaviour.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 45 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io -2 points 1 year ago (44 children)

Okay, so it's not normal.

It's me speaking, I say it's not normal here, so it's not normal. By your definition.

Of course if we dispense with the pendantry we would argue that the point of saying it's not normal is to highlight how it's inconsistent with the approach of society towards the rest of itself, so a society where women change their name to take their husband's is not normal because it's inconsistent with the rest of the mores regarding the interactions between men and women.

But that'd require not nitpicking a thing to pick a pedantic fight online that is a waste of time, so... not in the scope of this conversation, I suppose.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 44 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (43 children)

You don't think it's normal but for them it is. Simple as

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 43 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io -3 points 1 year ago (42 children)

No, wait, why can you phrase it that way but not "it's not normal but they think it is".

Why is one of those statements not equivalent to the other?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 42 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (41 children)

Because for them over in wherever it is normal. If they lived where you live it wouldn't be normal.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 41 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (40 children)

Okay, but what says their perspective takes precedence? You're saying it's normal for them. Cool. I'm saying it's not normal for us.

Why is their normal a higher priority than our not normal? Either "normal" is a meaningless concept or you need a better justification than that.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 40 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (39 children)

Normality is defined by what happens around them. For them it is normal, for an outsider it might not be. If they would be talking about you then the roles and normality would be reversed

Normality isn't meaningless it's just dependent on the surroundings

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 39 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (38 children)

I don't understand why you think normality is defined by the object of the sentence rather than the subject.

I mean, if you take your definition of normal, surely the person speaking determines what's normal, right? That's not a good thing, because your working definition of normalcy is bad and nonsensical and only determined by your desire to antagonize somebody online on a nitpick, so you probably don't like it much yourself beyond that. But if we take it, then I get to say what's normal when I speak because normal is "the state of being usual, typical, or expected" and I'm the one having the expectations here.

The surroundings are my surroundings because it is my post.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 38 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (37 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 37 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (36 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 36 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (35 children)

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 35 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (34 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 34 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (33 children)

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...

"it's normal for them so it's normal" to "it's normal for them but not to you"

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 33 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago* (32 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 32 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (31 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 31 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (30 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 30 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (29 children)

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:

the condition of being normal; the state of being usual, typical, or expected.

"the office gradually returned to a semblance of normality"

Of course the context here is how that office typically is. That's the normal.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 29 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (28 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 28 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (27 children)

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.

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?

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 27 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago* (26 children)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 26 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (25 children)

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 was talking about how I don't consider it normal.

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (24 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 24 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (23 children)

No, we are not talking about them.

I said “they think it’s normal, but it’s not normal”.

I'm confused. It does seem like you're referring to some third party in your comment ("they")

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (22 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (21 children)

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (20 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (19 children)

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.

I'm confused on what you thought I was implying. The point has always been the same afaik

You

I can’t believe how much of the world just… goes with it and thinks it’s normal. It’s definitely not normal. Just some serious psychosexual patriarchy mindfuck going on for so many people.

It’s normal because it’s what most do. That’s what normality is

Typical and even expected in a lot of places. There it would be considered normal

It’s normal in those places because it’s usual, typical or expected. If it’s not those things where you live, it’s not normal where you live. It’s not any harder than that.

I was maybe too optimistic with that last line.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (18 children)

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:

You added "a lot of places". It's not typical or expected here, so it's not normal here.

So "normalcy" on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?

Told you it was a waste of time.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (17 children)

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 added “a lot of places”. It’s not typical or expected here, so it’s not normal here.

You always need context to describe normalcy.

So “normalcy” on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (16 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (15 children)

If you were talking about the other people the context would be their surroundings.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Oh, we're back to copy pasting and out of the "calling out the real conversation that's happening" tangent? Cool.

I mean, if you take your definition of normal, surely the person speaking determines what's normal, right? That's not a good thing, because your working definition of normalcy is bad and nonsensical and only determined by your desire to antagonize somebody online on a nitpick, so you probably don't like it much yourself beyond that. But if we take it, then I get to say what's normal when I speak because normal is "the state of being usual, typical, or expected" and I'm the one having the expectations here.

The surroundings are my surroundings because it is my post.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

No the person speaking doesn't determine it when speaking about other people. You can't decide normalcy for someone else.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (12 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

You said "they" though.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments