>>66 I'd argue normies do exist. As the term has grown in popularity, that nowadays you hear it conservative e-celebs using it commonly to refer those who don't fall in their ideology. As any label with prominence, it effects everyone who takes part in the game. That is to say, normie is now an egregore. As OsakaSyndrome pointed out, it seeks to divide us. All egrogore divide, but the normie is especially prodent.
Difference is that people who engage with the normie, do not identify themselves as one. No it is being opposite of normie that is desirable. It doesn't matter, as long as one entertains that thought does it control the person. Even using the term normie ironically still is an act of engagement.
Do not interpret this leering auspice as an immovable force. One simply has to stop engaging with the term normie and all of the derivatives of it (words that split communities, people without providing any useful inquiries).
I'd argue normies do exist. As the term has grown in popularity, that nowadays you hear it conservative e-celebs using it commonly to refer those who don't fall in their ideology. As any label with prominence, it effects everyone who takes part in the game. That is to say, normie is now an egregore. As OsakaSyndrome pointed out, it seeks to divide us. All egrogore divide, but the normie is especially prodent.
Difference is that people who engage with the normie, do not identify themselves as one. No it is being opposite of normie that is desirable. It doesn't matter, as long as one entertains that thought does it control the person. Even using the term normie ironically still is an act of engagement.
Do not interpret this leering auspice as an immovable force. One simply has to stop engaging with the term normie and all of the derivatives of it (words that split communities, people without providing any useful inquiries).