>>66 i did watch the whole thing. twice now probably. the fact that someone is bored by a single discussion, even after inquiry about it just isn't a very good example. And yes I was being hyperbolic. but let's swap literally any other inane topic out, you didn't provide the actual topic which is pertinent because being bored by the topic is too obvious a reason for the reaction to ignore. I'm sure Kearesu has shit he is interested in and "introspects" about. the dude had a channel and talked a hell of a lot about a fair number of things. never seemed like the kind of shit a completely "instinctual non-introspective person" would be doing. but to be fair, I never lived with the man, so maybe that was just a complete facade, and I don't really have any kind of read at all. but basically anyone who is any good at software shit has /some/ level of introspection. so not only is the example in the abstract not great, the steel man of normie being a short lived denpa-tuber kinda seems off the mark. Now if the example were, some random person you tried talking to at your janitor job, then maybe it would feel a little more on the mark. you know... a fucking normie...
I do accept that normie is used commonly purely as an ingroup-outgroup slur. "we aren't normies, they are" it doesn't matter who "they" are, just that "we" aren't "them" so in part I agree that it's often meaningless. But if everyone always gave up any time words had multiple conflicting meanings and usages, then we wouldn't have language at all. we can still look for some definition for the word. I like the idea of "reaju" and i feel it is close to what I mean when I say normie at least. even if you aren't actually a reaju you can still pretend to be one, for social nicety's sake. ie, the only real normie is the one you have constructed in your head and use as a model for basic human interactions where you don't want to make any waves. And in fact it may be that all the "normies" we see are, in fact, doing that same thing. But I do feel that there are those who "have nothing behind that mask". people who are just satisfied by their 9-5, 2-4 beers and 5 hours of whatever programing the corponet provides them. but maybe they are "instinctual non-introspective people". thinking nothing. i would struggle to call such a creature human.
but i guess my point is - the video is bad and does a bad job explaining your point. that is core from which my vitriol stem. My proof is that post you made is much more clear, and would be a 3 minute video.
i did watch the whole thing. twice now probably.
the fact that someone is bored by a single discussion, even after inquiry about it just isn't a very good example. And yes I was being hyperbolic.
but let's swap literally any other inane topic out, you didn't provide the actual topic which is pertinent because being bored by the topic is too obvious a reason for the reaction to ignore. I'm sure Kearesu has shit he is interested in and "introspects" about. the dude had a channel and talked a hell of a lot about a fair number of things. never seemed like the kind of shit a completely "instinctual non-introspective person" would be doing. but to be fair, I never lived with the man, so maybe that was just a complete facade, and I don't really have any kind of read at all. but basically anyone who is any good at software shit has /some/ level of introspection. so not only is the example in the abstract not great, the steel man of normie being a short lived denpa-tuber kinda seems off the mark. Now if the example were, some random person you tried talking to at your janitor job, then maybe it would feel a little more on the mark. you know... a fucking normie...
I do accept that normie is used commonly purely as an ingroup-outgroup slur. "we aren't normies, they are" it doesn't matter who "they" are, just that "we" aren't "them"
so in part I agree that it's often meaningless. But if everyone always gave up any time words had multiple conflicting meanings and usages, then we wouldn't have language at all. we can still look for some definition for the word. I like the idea of "reaju" and i feel it is close to what I mean when I say normie at least. even if you aren't actually a reaju you can still pretend to be one, for social nicety's sake. ie, the only real normie is the one you have constructed in your head and use as a model for basic human interactions where you don't want to make any waves. And in fact it may be that all the "normies" we see are, in fact, doing that same thing.
But I do feel that there are those who "have nothing behind that mask". people who are just satisfied by their 9-5, 2-4 beers and 5 hours of whatever programing the corponet provides them. but maybe they are "instinctual non-introspective people". thinking nothing. i would struggle to call such a creature human.
but i guess my point is - the video is bad and does a bad job explaining your point. that is core from which my vitriol stem. My proof is that post you made is much more clear, and would be a 3 minute video.