Let me preface by saying, I would love to hear counter points and am fully open to the fact that I could be wrong and totally out of touch. I just want to have some dialogue around something that’s been bothering me in the fediverse.
More and more often I keep hearing people refer to “normies”. I think by referring to other people as “normies”, whether you intend to or not, you inadvertently gatekeep and create an exclusive environment rather than an inclusive one in the fediverse.
If I was not that familiar with the fediverse and decided to check it out and the first thing I read was a comment about “normies”, I would quite honestly be very put off. It totally has a negative connotation and doesn’t even encapsulate any one group. I just read a comment about someone grouping a racist uncle and funny friend into the same category of normie because they aren’t up to date on the fediverse or super tech savvy or whatever.
I don’t want to see any Meta bs in the fediverse. I barely want to see half of the stuff from Reddit in the fediverse. I don’t want to see the same echo chamber I do everywhere else.
I do want to see more users and more perspectives and a larger user base though. I want to see kindness and compassion. I want to talk to people about topics they are interested in. I want to have relevant discussions without it dissolving into some commentary on some unrelated hot topic thing.
I think calling people normies creates a more toxic, exclusive place which I personally came here to avoid.
Just my two cents! I know for most people using the term it isn’t meant to be malicious, but I think it comes off that way.
Love to hear all of your thoughts.
Or…
“Normie” shows a hint of self awareness that the people on this platform aren’t representative of the general public. We’re a bunch of tech weirdos.
We’re the “abnormies”.
I guess that’s something I didn’t consider. I kind of feel like that is still creating an us vs them mentality though…
But that’s pretty much what a group of people is? The people who are inside the group and those that are outside. What is the problem with this?
This is absolutely not how you approaching communities. They literally said it creates an Us vs them mentality and you claim that as a positive? Groups are not about us vs them. At all. Nor is it how you build communities. That’s how you create echo chambers and cliques and lead to your own downfall as a community.
The problem isn’t that that exists, it’s when people decide that not being in the group is bad, and not just a casual state of being.
No reasonable person is implying that.
No reasonable person is implying that having different groups of people is a bad thing, either, and yet that’s what DmMacniel was inferring others were saying.
I didn’t imply that though? I simply stated that there is an inside of a group and an outside of a group. Also people can belong to several groups that may or may not overlap.
It’s neither good nor bad up until people think it’s bad or good to be part of one specific group.
I mean not get too far down that rabbit hole, but I would argue that we are all human beings first and we all belong to many different groups, not just one.
And I think you’re missing my point.
of course can groups overlap, and we are all humans but that doesn’t mean that group dynamics are a bad thing?
These aren’t actual group dynamics. In any way. Exclusion and “us vs them” is not a positive group dynamic. Do not promote it.
So you’re saying there are people who DO use “normies” and people that DON’T use “normies”. These are not two groups of people. Shit, I just joined this thread, so that makes ME one of YOU, and there’s OTHERS that aren’t here. Are WE the elitists? Or are THEY the “normies”? YOU said there’s no there’s no US or THEM, so EVERYONE is talking in this thread. ANYONE not in this thread must not exist because I know I exist, so YOU thread posters must exist, but wait, that makes ME an US and YOU a THEM.
(I’m not trying to be snarky, but this argument is exactly as nonsensical.)
Buddy, are you ok? You can define “groups” by literally anything. The existence of a delineation is not “group dynamics.” Group dynamics is not the existence of a categorizational model. Group dynamics is the interaction between two groups. And the phrase used was “us vs them” and I will point out that “vs” has a very specific meaning.
What the fuck are you on about? You sound like someone on crack for their first time. I never said there was no us or them. I said there’s no reason to have us vs them. I’m not sure what part of reading comprehension you failed at, but you need to improve it.
The problem is that generalization exists.
Every person that ever met or talked to a person that is part of the non-“normie” group does not want to associate with other people that might be in the same group. I’ve experienced it myself often enough even though I don’t consider myself far gone like the people that talk to every “normie” in a condescending way, but they don’t know it.
I genuinely try to hide the fact that I have fun tinkering with my PC or programming because of that. Because I do not want people that are not tech affinitive to think ‘I’m probably just a stuck-up asshole’.
That’s your loss, man. Personally, I don’t feel the need to associate with people who are condescending towards my hobbies.
Definitely elements of this resonate for me, but that’s why I think it’s just silly. They are a needless way of creating division where there doesn’t need to be.
You just defined stereotyping and prejudice.
No no no, it’s stereotyping and prejudice when OTHER people do it to US. WE should tell THEM that THEY are US, and by saying this to OURSELVES we have said it to THEM, so that WE know that THEY know, but now THEY are a THEM again.
YOU don’t get it. WE get it. YOU should all be like US where there is no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US.
Simple. See? You don’t? But, YOU must because there is no…
What? I’m assuming you are using your same failed understanding of another of my comments here. If you aren’t going to actually point out what you think is wrong, but instead try to illustrate it with nonsensical statements, I can’t honestly pinpoint where communication failed. Just try using basic logic next time if you feel so inclined to elucidate whatever point you’re trying to make.
Replied to above.
I am a Fallout Ghoul
This is my thought. The OP leads me to believe that being “normal” is considered bad
There’s a hint of elitism to it though, at least as it’s commonly used.
I saw a comment the other day that referred to Instagram users as “people you wouldn’t want to associate yourself with”. I don’t know who these people think normal people are.
I think it is more self-deprecation than elitism as (in my image) normies tend to have more friends and healier relationship and hobbies.
I always hated the stereotype that Reddit was full of nothing but loser virgins trapped in their mom’s basement who had no friends and no chance of a fulfilling life.
I mean, sure there are a lot of people there (and here) that probably fit most, if not all of that stereotype, but the constant need to point out what losers we all are is problematic in so many ways. Namely that some of us do actually have friends, hobbies, and lives, but still can relate to the overall vibe of being a bit of a weirdo or a loner or whatever, but also it has a tendency to create this barrel of crabs type mental barrier where it just feels like the constant reminders of “if this is all I am, this is all I will ever be” keeps presenting itself. It’s tiring and is the reason why I always kept all the self-insulting subs like me_irl on my block list.
They probably don’t want to associate with “normal” people because they revel in their “weird” status.
Which, honestly, is kind of understandable and relatable. People are often mocked and reviled for sticking out, for being different. It makes a sad sort of sense that they’d lash out at those that represent that “normalness” that they’re told they’ll never achieve.
I certainly don’t think it’s healthy in the long term, but I can at least fathom the logic that got them there.
Pretending there isn’t any condescension toward the “normies” when using the term is blatantly exhibiting the exact behavior the OP referenced. It’s not how inclusivity works in a community at all. It alienates anyone that isn’t already a part of it.
Why? Because I don’t expect a person who’s not entrenched in a specific hobby to understand the ins-and-outs of that hobby?
It’s not condescension. It’s setting reasonable expectations.
No of course it’s reasonable that they wouldn’t understand the ins and outs. The op and commenter you’re replying to are talking about the connotation of the word, not the fact that a hobbyist understands their hobby.
Take the term Trekkie for example – people who are into star trek can become Trekkies which symbolizes that they’ve joined a community. That term can be used to mean that two people both belong to a community (i.e., “we’re Trekkies”) or it can be used to refer negatively to people in that community by those who aren’t in it (i.e., “Trekkies smell bad”).
There are (at least) two things happening here that people are picking up on. One is that context matters, and the way that the term normie is often used is not a positive one. I’ve personally never seen anyone refer to themself proudly as a normie, have you? And the other is that we’re referring to normies, a group we ostensibly don’t belong to, as a homogeneous blob which is obviously not accurate.
I doubt anyone’s feelings are especially hurt if they’re called a normie, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a dismissive and usually negatively valenced term used to refer to a massive and diverse group of people.
To me, normie just signifies a person outside a given niche hobby.
I’m into having a Plex server in my basement. People not into that are normies in a conversation about having a Plex server. I don’t expect them to know how to setup QuickSync hardware encoding in a Plex Docker container.
I don’t like anime. To people who like anime, I’m the normie. I think Trunks is just a really cool Mastodon client. I only vaguely know it’s also a Dragonball character. If you expect me to know more than this, you’re going to be disappointed.
There’s no judgment involved.
I agree the way you’re using it doesn’t sound negative. But I don’t think that’s a representative use of this term. Take a look at the top few entries on urban dictionary, they don’t seem very judgement free to me…
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Normie
The point of this post is that even if you don’t mean it in the way that urban dictionary describes it, that’s how some people will interpret it.
I mean, read even just half the comments on just one page of comments here and you should see that it’s extremely common to not use the word in the manner you’re stating. We’re not talking about that nor is the poster.
My perception in the early days of reddit was that the majority of users were also tech weirdos. So there’s that…
Many of us are also not nuerotypical. Another word for typical is normal.
Many is not all. And by creating an us vs them mentality where I’m “us” for the most part, but not for the whole part, there’s situations where the need to choose is being presented. It’s gatekeeping for the sake of gatekeeping, and really isn’t part of a healthy community of people.
Tbh, it mostly sounds condescending. Like “they are the normals, as opposed to us, we are the ones that see further than them” a lot of times.
Though I did have seen things that are clearly self-aware, mostly the “NORMIES OUT REEEE”-stuff. But there is definitely both.
I’ve become comfortable with saying, “it’s not worth it being normal”, and thus am ok with the normie tag, even if I don’t want to turn it into a slur. Normal is a form of social construct that tends to be imposed on us: it’s when the teacher enters the classroom and the class sits down and shuts up, not because they explicitly agreed to, but because it was normalized. There isn’t anything in particular suggesting that normal = good.
And that does have an elitist ring to it, which does upset the goal of equitable outcomes in some ways. There are certain philosophies in which a premise of elitism is assumed, as in, some people just won’t be able to access the necessary understanding to participate, so it’s better to have a gate than to let anyone wander through. This is the view of Leo Strauss and followers - for a really detailed explanation try Arthur Melzer’s book Philosophy Between the Lines.
Even if you don’t read that book(it’s a good book), I would make the case in this way: it’s the difference between online gaming that uses automatic matchmaking, versus a martial arts dojo. Online gaming and toxicity correlate because there is no lower bar on who can play, so all sessions are pushed to the lowest common denominator of cheating, griefing, etc. But someone who participates in martial arts like a gamer gets kicked out of the gym, if the standards are high: an instructor who values students does not let them attempt to eyegouge each other or slam their head on the mat.
Occasionally someone like that will sign up for a tournament, commit an illegal move in the first round, and get themselves disqualified. But they can leave their opponent seriously injured in the process, and maybe end a career. So the standards tend to condition a degree of gatekeeping, respect for others, etc. Not every gym does well at this, and some styles like boxing have a norm of “hard sparring” where full-contact is trained and damage is expected. But predominantly the focus is on getting the techniques and training without destroying yourself or others.
And I do liken the idea of complete access to, essentially, allowing dirty street brawls to be the only kind of sparring, the only way in which you can interact online with strangers.
Martial artists also sometimes use the normie term. They will say it outright: you have to be a weirdo to spend so much time getting beat up and choked out. We can have a gate and still be tough on ourselves to do better.
I’m with you on this one, in a vacuum I don’t really have a problem with the term “normie” but here it is completely being used as gatekeeping.
This whole meta controversy has really caused some brain rot, a lot of people talk about this place as if it’s better because it “gatekeeps”. They say they enjoy this place because it is niche and doesn’t have the “below room temperature IQ posters” (actual quote I saw)
I don’t like this attitude, I really don’t like it. It is way to common on the internet, especially for hobby communities to have this attitude.
Exactly, pushing people away is not how you grow a platform
Like, what happened to just downvoting low effort or low “quality” posts? Do we have to pass IQ tests to allow users on Lemmy now?
Yuuup.
Or if you really care about not seeing “mass appeal social media content”, like, just don’t join those communities???
Like the whole “it’s better if those people aren’t on this platform” is so stupid when you consider the entire aspect of fragmentation going on for federated communities…
Yes, that is exactly how I feel! It honestly makes me kind of sad because I truly love how awesome of a space a lot of these communities are and I think people don’t realize the effect that words and attitudes like that have on the greater experience and vibe.
If anything has become clear over the years is that IQ has no correlation with saying smart or sensible things. There are very smart people out there that keep posting stupid things.
It’s almost as if IQ measures nothing but your ability to write IQ tests.
Almost.
I disagree entirely.
Gatekeeping has a negative connotation to it, and it can be used negatively. But gatekeeping is also necessary if you want to maintain a good community.
The increase of ease of use of social media and internet at large, and making it available to the very general public is what caused social media to become a toxic waste dump of misinformation, low effort content and lack of critical thought.
The difference of quality of reddit between 10 years ago and today is absolutely staggering. Reddit is practically unusable outside of small communities.
The relative difficulty of using the internet acted as a natural gatekeeping mechanism to keep your racist uncle Bob and your antivax aunt Karen away. Now they can join by clicking a few buttons on their phone.
Since that no longer works, the communities need to take gatekeeping into their own hands. Otherwise, it can be overrun by people people who are just stupid, to be frank.
Don’t confuse community and platform. Fediverse is meant to be diverse by nature. You can gatekeep a server I suppose, but be careful with how ridiculously vague many people define the term here and you’re ready to ban those people. Treating everyone in a made up group as if they’re all the same is not a behavior you want to get in the habit of.
(TLDR: if you only read one thing make it so its the last paragraph, it is the main argument anyways the first part was more of the rationale behind it)
I disagree with your notion. Although I feel there are two meanings for gatekeeping clashing. First there is gatekeeping in a traditional sense, which is filtering. As in you need to meet certain requirements, be it that your post sticks to the rules, moderation would technically be gatekeeping here as it rejects the content made by the people who dont adhere to what the community has determined. In this sense it is good
Then there is the “urban” meaning of the world (not sure if that is the word in english for popular use of words) where here in the internet gatekeeping is more referred to keeping something “pure” by excluding people out, or for keeping a sense of elitism. I feel almost all fandoms went through this phase during the early 2010s late 2000s, just as an example if you ever said you liked anime but had only watched shōnen you would have been mocked by every single person on the forum. Gaming communities have also been incredibly toxic in this regards, need I remind you of the entire GamerGate era…
Sure this two meanings can conflate, but by dividing I can explain why I am opposed to the second attitude while not minding the first. The gatekeeping by the communities, which is necessary as you say to keep good communities is certainly good. Of course we need moderation and rules to make communities work, even really heavy moderation and exclusions can be good as long as they are rational and serve a particular purpose like what r/askhistorias did by removing 99% of comments.
But the attitude of “things are better now because you have to be really smart to be here” is a stupid elitist notion, change it a bit and its the same argument that has been used to gatekeep hobbies so strongly instead of fostering someone’s interest in a thing into something better. Here what we need is not to “keep those people out” but instead we need to embrace them and push them to make better content. Simple as, we designate the rules and we create the content that becomes the standard. Communities are far better shaped by setting a standard of appropriate conduct that people who are joining replicate instead of outright denying some people because they are “normies” that will ruin things for us.
Hmm. I think you’re right to an extent. I think the gatekeeping you’re talking about should come from the server level and block anything from meta or from other servers with those kinds of people.
Using the word “normie” can be off putting to people we do want on this platform which is kind of my point.
A slur always tells you more about the person who uses it than about the person they’re referring to.
Ain’t that the truth.
How about “I hate Terfs”? What does that make me?
There’s a specific group of people who readily use the word “TERF”, and you’re clearly identifying yourself as in that group. However, I’ve seen folks use the word “TERF” to refer even to people who aren’t Fs at all, and certainly not RFs. JK Rowling may identify as a feminist, but she’s not a “radical” anything. So yeah, I think using “TERF” does more clearly identify the position of the speaker than the person so described.
It makes you an awesome ally. 👍
TERF isn’t a slur, it’s an accurate descriptor.
Terfs are trans exclusionary. Terfs are on the borders of feminist thought, making them radical (and not in the cool way).
They only want it to be a slur so they aren’t accurately described as what they are.
Yeah but “Radical”… TERFS ain’t radical, nor bodacious nor totally tubular dude!
Accept everyone, that’s the TMNT way!
Are they bossanova at least?
Actually I think it is quite a stretch to call them feminists in any way. 99% of the time they ally with the far right and many of their leaders advocate against things like contraception and healthcare for women
Thats more of the term being overused. Only a vanishing small number of people are terfs.
Fair point
if terf isn’t a slur, Normie isn’t either. people seem to get irrationally upset about the word normal. normal is a well defined word, the same way cis is but it seems one group is fine with one whilst the other isn’t.
instead of focusing on labels and how much they upset you (I don’t mean who I am replying to), focus on understanding and respecting people’s differences, regardless of terminology.
It really does say a lot when the dreaded other that they want to avoid is someone who is normal.
To be completely blunt about it, if someone uses “normie” seriously, I expect they also think they’re oppressed by age-of-consent laws and possibly also laws against rape. At the very least, they don’t own a TV because there aren’t enough lolis on basic cable.
Sucks that we have to deal with those types but I wouldn’t go so far lump them all like that. I feel like some of it might involve neurodivergent people who just don’t feel like they get the best of treatment out there. But just this elitism driven by terminally-online brain rot can get bad enough by itself, it’s not a good mindset.
Like everything else context matters
Its in the chorus of a song by one of my favorite bands and I cringe every time I hear it.
deleted by creator
A true normie would end up being pushed out for a myriad of other reasons first. If they even come to a place like this in the first place.
Normies just means people who aren’t in the in group and to me means we are the weird ones, exclusive group or have uncommon interests or knowledge.
It is important to be self aware that in the context of the fediverse and meme culture things you are use to are weird, different, and sometimes confusing. Perfect example has been the beans and the 3 day poop thing. Normal people don’t get and will think it is weird if they know nothing about the trend. Another example is I am a rock climber if I reference a jug or a sloper it means nothing to normies or people unaware of the lingo. So a jug joke isn’t something other people get
Normie is a term used in many circles, not exclusively fediverse. I don’t think it’s a slur, as the people who use it aren’t inciting violence or enacting discriminatory pricing or similar. It’s like calling a person boring.
I don’t think that calling people normies, newbies or rookies is toxic behavior. Everyone was one at the beginning, but they learned and understand. Those who cry outside being called that and refuse to engage with the group dynamic/community… well I can live without those tbh. BUT I also can live without those who refuse to give interested people pointers or help on their way to no longer be a noob.
Its pretty much a double-edged sword.
i feel some people use it derogatorily but i think of it as more “your average person”, in this context that would be people used to the mainstream networks and haven’t tried anything better
i try to avoid saying normies because the word kind of has a negative connotation even though some people don’t use it maliciously
We all have our pet peeves, I suppose.
I don’t know, you have a better word than that? If you want to refer to everyone from your coworkers to the supermarket cashier to your grandma, that’s a really huge and diverse group of people. The word gets the point across, that’s all that matters. If you want to use a phrase like “non-technologically inclined” or something like that, it actually sounds worse like I’m looking down on them. At least normie is self depreciating, which is more acceptable.
“Normie” is one of the few words that I cringe over everytime I read it. I consider myself to be in, or adjacent to, the group of people that would use that word, since I am tech affinitive and that group is usually the one that uses it. But I cringe everytime I see it used unironically because I don’t want non-tech affinitive (or lesser affinitive) people to lump every person that has something to do with IT or similar into the group of people they don’t want nothing to do with because they’re always condescending towards them.
It’s literally like as if you’re saying “Did you know that I have an IQ of 150?”.
You’re not gatekeeping anyone out of your life by using that word, you’re gatekeeping yourself out of every “normal” persons life by using that word.
This makes a lot of sense! And I would argue if you just met me you would 1000% put me in the normie category. Buuut if you got to know me you would come to find out I’m a goofy uber nerd who works with a bunch of software engineers and loves technology and gaming and reading scientific journals on particle physics.
I quite frankly don’t want to be in either group because the entire concept of normie vs not normie is kind of silly in my opinion.
I 100% agree that word is cringe and I’m totally into the fediverse for the long haul, but we have to address the pachyderm in the room: The word “Fediverse” is just as cringe.
I, … I’m sorry. I can read it in a document, but the second a human being types it, I can’t take it seriously. I don’t care if folks want to shorten it to something like the FI (Federated Instances). Yes, there are other uses of the word “federate”, but it immediately sounds like a federal intraweb domain or a group of Star Trek policy makers.
“Fediverse” is “netizen 2.0.”
“Fediverse” is “cruising on the information superhighway Pro.”
Please tell me I’m not alone in thinking this.You’re not alone, no. “Fediverse” is almost, but not quite, as silly a term as “Metaverse”.
