Which is not the same as what you’ve been implying I was saying but is the same as what I was saying I was saying earlier.
I’m confused on what you thought I was implying. The point has always been the same afaik
You
I can’t believe how much of the world just… goes with it and thinks it’s normal. It’s definitely not normal. Just some serious psychosexual patriarchy mindfuck going on for so many people.
Me
It’s normal because it’s what most do. That’s what normality is
Typical and even expected in a lot of places. There it would be considered normal
It’s normal in those places because it’s usual, typical or expected. If it’s not those things where you live, it’s not normal where you live. It’s not any harder than that.
Oh, cool, this is the easy part of these dumb things where we get to just copy paste the original conversation and go down the loop. Hold on:
You added “a lot of places”. It’s not typical or expected here, so it’s not normal here.
So “normalcy” on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?
I wouldn’t call it stupid, you were under the assumption that I implied something different or changed it during the conversation so I just showed what I was saying right at the start to show that it’s been the same.
You added “a lot of places”. It’s not typical or expected here, so it’s not normal here.
You always need context to describe normalcy.
So “normalcy” on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?
Geography is one context, but it’s more about societal norms in this case, which don’t strictly follow geographical bounds. So yes and no. In this case if the people in question live in a place where it’s typical or expected, it’s normal.
You have context to define normalcy. I’m the speaker and I’m from a place where it’s not normal, so it’s not normal.
But of course that’s not the point and has never been, because the line isn’t about whether the practice is standard in some regions, which it obviously is, it’s about whether it makes sense to the general principles of general mores on gender for modern society, which it doesn’t.
Which you understand fully and always have. Because this is one of these dumb ones, so we’re now on loop two.
Oh, we’re back to copy pasting and out of the “calling out the real conversation that’s happening” tangent? Cool.
I mean, if you take your definition of normal, surely the person speaking determines what’s normal, right? That’s not a good thing, because your working definition of normalcy is bad and nonsensical and only determined by your desire to antagonize somebody online on a nitpick, so you probably don’t like it much yourself beyond that. But if we take it, then I get to say what’s normal when I speak because normal is “the state of being usual, typical, or expected” and I’m the one having the expectations here.
The surroundings are my surroundings because it is my post.
When you’re talking about other people you sorta don’t need to keep repeating the fact. And you were talking about some third party (“they”).
And no, you can’t just decide what’s normal to someone else. I can’t decide it’s not normal to go to sauna in Finland, even if I so furiously disagreed with that.
I’m confused on what you thought I was implying. The point has always been the same afaik
You
Me
I was maybe too optimistic with that last line.
Oh, cool, this is the easy part of these dumb things where we get to just copy paste the original conversation and go down the loop. Hold on:
I wouldn’t call it stupid, you were under the assumption that I implied something different or changed it during the conversation so I just showed what I was saying right at the start to show that it’s been the same.
You always need context to describe normalcy.
Geography is one context, but it’s more about societal norms in this case, which don’t strictly follow geographical bounds. So yes and no. In this case if the people in question live in a place where it’s typical or expected, it’s normal.
You have context to define normalcy. I’m the speaker and I’m from a place where it’s not normal, so it’s not normal.
But of course that’s not the point and has never been, because the line isn’t about whether the practice is standard in some regions, which it obviously is, it’s about whether it makes sense to the general principles of general mores on gender for modern society, which it doesn’t.
Which you understand fully and always have. Because this is one of these dumb ones, so we’re now on loop two.
Man, social media sucks and is so not normal.
If you were talking about the other people the context would be their surroundings.
Oh, we’re back to copy pasting and out of the “calling out the real conversation that’s happening” tangent? Cool.
No the person speaking doesn’t determine it when speaking about other people. You can’t decide normalcy for someone else.
That is literally what you do every time you use the word, unless you add “for them” afterwards or you’re talking about yourself.
I was going to bring in another copypasta here, but this one is so obviously wrong I kinda need to call it fresh.
When you’re talking about other people you sorta don’t need to keep repeating the fact. And you were talking about some third party (“they”).
And no, you can’t just decide what’s normal to someone else. I can’t decide it’s not normal to go to sauna in Finland, even if I so furiously disagreed with that.