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.
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?
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.
My point is that this argument makes as much sense as what I wrote, so it's encouraging the you think it's ridiculous.
"Versus" is a valueless delineation separating two subjects. There are two groups: The people of the Fediverse and the people not in the Fediverse. Neither one is good or bad, and in fact, many are a part of BOTH. That self awareness cancels any perceived negativity. We're all probably some level of "normie," and I've never heard someone use that word without immediate laughter by all parties. Sure, maybe in the early 00s by grade school punks, but I don't think anyone does or should care.
The point you're actually making, without articulating it well, is the lack of terminology for federated groups. No one wants to say, "I'm a member of a select federated Lemmy and Kbin instances within the larger Fediverse." You want an affirmative set of terms, so that delineation can be made; you want to say, "The X have this, and the not(X) have that." From there you can get to value judgements, based on the expression of X, and I'll recognize your concerns. The ridiculousness of those terms not existing makes it VERY hard to claim intentional negativity/harm because it simultaneously draws attention that group X in this case doesn't have their shit together enough to come up with a nickname or shorthand.
"You're better than us? What are you?"
"Well, you see, I'm a part of a federated network of...."
(Looks up - everyone left)
So, until someone comes up with some non-super-cringe terms for this wonderful mess, the discussion is a waste of everyone's time. And until then, I suggest taking it on a case by case basis. If someone is offended, tell them that's not intended because we don't have OUR shit together, ask them what they prefer, and use that term around them.
This was a bunch of nonsense. It was entirely tangental and didn't actually mean anything. You literally mention two groups that are mutually exclusive by definition and say some folks are part of both. Moreover, you made your own definition for what "versus" means and ignored what actually defines a group that isn't an identity. There's no identity in a group defined like you're talking about.
You're actually making even less sense than before. It's like the more words you use, the less sense you make. You should try being succinct and see if that helps you communicate better.
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 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'.
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.
That's your loss, man. Personally, I don't feel the need to associate with people who are condescending towards my hobbies.
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.
You missed to very key letters here. Here's the original statement with the two key letters highlighted:
Nobody that I've seen here has said that there is no "in" or "out" vis a vis the group. The objection is over those two key letters.