this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
558 points (95.0% liked)

memes

16475 readers
2569 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website
558
Yes Facebook is a dumpster fire, but this is always interesting if you are on there. (europe.pub)
submitted 6 days ago by BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.world
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Please don't tell me to get off of it, I have old Livejournal friends to keep in touch with and that's why I'm there.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

I was maybe too optimistic with that last line.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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?

Told you it was a waste of time.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If you were talking about the other people the context would be their surroundings.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

No the person speaking doesn't determine it when speaking about other people. You can't decide normalcy for someone else.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You absolutely can decide whether something someone else does is "normal" and do all the time. "I can't believe how often people in Finland go to the sauna, man, it's just not normal" is a perfectly acceptable statement nobody would have an issue with unless they were deliberately pretending to misunderstand it to be obnoxious and trolly on the Internet.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You can find it abnormal but it still is normal to Finns. It doesn't change the actual reality. That's just what it means.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You can caveat it with their perspective all you want, that's an aditional statement that has nothing to do with the original perfectly valid, perfectly understandable statement that you understood.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You said "they" though.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Finns and Americans are both "they". Everybody who isn't you or me is they.

Keep it up, we'll descend all the way down to pure formal logic this way. Breaking new frontiers of semiotics, I tell you.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's normal for both Americans and Finns. But that's kinda duh, you spoke about they who find it normal so of course they would be people who find it normal.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That is not a sentence.

I mean, I know what you're saying because... you know, but if we're going to do this dick measuring thing you're going to at least have to approximate language.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm sorry but what do you mean?

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's my exact question, actually.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You don't know what you meant?

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago

See, that's not how pronouns work. You keep getting the concept of language wrong. It impacts suspension of disbelief, man, it's just sloppy.