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 thatās been bothering me in the fediverse.
More and more often I keep hearing people refer to ānormiesā. I think by referring to other people as ānormiesā, 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 ānormiesā, I would quite honestly be very put off. It totally has a negative connotation and doesnāt 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 arenāt up to date on the fediverse or super tech savvy or whatever.
I donāt want to see any Meta bs in the fediverse. I barely want to see half of the stuff from Reddit in the fediverse. I donāt 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 isnāt meant to be malicious, but I think it comes off that way.
Love to hear all of your thoughts.
These arenāt actual group dynamics. In any way. Exclusion and āus vs themā is not a positive group dynamic. Do not promote it.
So youāre saying there are people who DO use ānormiesā and people that DONāT use ānormiesā. These are not two groups of people. Shit, I just joined this thread, so that makes ME one of YOU, and thereās OTHERS that arenāt here. Are WE the elitists? Or are THEY the ānormiesā? YOU said thereās no thereās 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.
(Iām not trying to be snarky, but this argument is exactly as nonsensical.)
Buddy, are you ok? You can define āgroupsā by literally anything. The existence of a delineation is not āgroup dynamics.ā Group dynamics is not the existence of a categorizational model. Group dynamics is the interaction between two groups. And the phrase used was āus vs themā and I will point out that āvsā 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 thereās no reason to have us vs them. Iām 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 itās encouraging the you think itās ridiculous.
āVersusā 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. Weāre all probably some level of ānormie,ā and Iāve never heard someone use that word without immediate laughter by all parties. Sure, maybe in the early 00s by grade school punks, but I donāt think anyone does or should care.
The point youāre actually making, without articulating it well, is the lack of terminology for federated groups. No one wants to say, āIām a member of a select federated Lemmy and Kbin instances within the larger Fediverse.ā You want an affirmative set of terms, so that delineation can be made; you want to say, āThe X have this, and the not(X) have that.ā From there you can get to value judgements, based on the expression of X, and Iāll 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 doesnāt have their shit together enough to come up with a nickname or shorthand.
āYouāre better than us? What are you?ā
āWell, you see, Iām a part of a federated network ofā¦ā
(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 everyoneās time. And until then, I suggest taking it on a case by case basis. If someone is offended, tell them thatās not intended because we donāt 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 didnāt 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 āversusā means and ignored what actually defines a group that isnāt an identity. Thereās no identity in a group defined like youāre talking about.
Youāre actually making even less sense than before. Itās like the more words you use, the less sense you make. You should try being succinct and see if that helps you communicate better.