How to define normie ?

File: 1490193829096.gif (987KB, 229x176px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 229x176px

actually, i think you're just such a huge fucking loser, you claim you hate "normies" but in reality you don't know how to have social relationships.

>>35741852
You're talking about being basic. That's like being normie to normie. The guys are usually called 'fuckbois' and the girls are 'basic bitches'

Normies is a broader classification for everyone who doesn't have a mental illness (particularly the socially crippling ones like depression and asperger's) and generally manages to function in life. Obviously it's objectively better to be a normie, but it gets irritating when they invade spaces for non-neurotypical people to commiserate

>>35741947
Actually, it depends on you standards for 'beeing a loser'. The only social relationship I don't have is a girldfriend. Other than that I've something like a dozen of friends and a loving familly, so I don't really care making new relationships, thank you for caring, bitter guy.

>>35742144
Ok I see better now, thank you for your clear answer. So following your description, I might just be a redpilled normie, nice. I'll just keep beeing an elitist asshole in things I care about and everything will keep runing fine.

>>35742144
This is pretty good philosophy of normies, definitely one of the big contender theories, but I don't think it's necessarily right.

The aspie/neurotypical distinction seems like the precursor of the normie/non-normie distinction, yes. But they're not identical, and I don't think adding other mental illnesses accomplishes the identification.

One strike against the theory is actually the fact that it implies it's probably better to be a normie. I think the consensus is that it's not. I think OP is actually closer with his "blue-pilled" characterization.

I think you've got it right that "normie" is primarily a contrast class to something, like "neurotypical" arises out of a contrast with "aspie". What it contrasts with, the non-normie, might need a Wittgensteinian family resemblance definition rather than an essentialist one. The non-normie has some combination of the following traits:
>Mentally ill (especially autistic)
>NEET
>Asocial
>Shut-in
>Socially awkward/inept
>Sexually & romantically unsuccessful (e.g. KHV)
>Holds fringe views (e.g. politically: far-right, racist, etc.)
>Anime fan
>Sexually deviant
>Internet denizen
>(others I'm not thinking of)

The normie is the opposite, meaning since there are multiple combinations of these traits that yield different types of non-normies, there are also multiple combinations of their negations yielding different types of normies.

>>35742744
>politically far-right
Are you British or a Canuck or something?

Because in the US all three wings of our elected federal government are conservative. The right is the normie political position.

>>35742859
I mean the sort of right wing extreme enough to be outright racist and insist on female chastity etc.
I wasn't saying far-right views are essential to the non-normie, or even to the fringe-believing non-normie, they're just the main example if the fringe views are political.

>>35742969
Alright.
Like the guy in New York that killed a black man with a sword as part of his quest?

>>35741852
Pretty much any non-virgin,

>>35742744
By your list it seems I'm more of a cyborg than a robot.
Not sure how to feel desu.

>>35742859
I think it's more of a european/christian thing. I myself am french, and everytime I go to the /fr/ general on /int/, on which there's a significant part of christians, there's always a bunch of people saying how much they hate niggers.

File: 1487533797824.jpg (424KB, 1584x957px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1584x957px

>>35743143
I fucking guess. Hadn't heard about that, googled, kek'd.

>>35742144
>>35742744
To make the relevant further point:
I gave 10 traits. Imagine a person with just the first two traits, the main ones normally cited (mentally ill NEET). If that guy had none of the other traits, but instead was good at dealing with his symptoms in public and using his NEET free time to be a socially active outgoing person with a gf and friend circle etc., he could actually be a normie.
Similarly, if a guy had the other 8 traits but wasn't mentally ill or a NEET, he could easily be a /robot/.

The thing about family-resemblance categories as opposed to essentialist ones is that they are indeterminate and admit of vagueness. A person with 0/10 traits is a normie and a person with 10/10 traits is a non-normie, determinately. But it is possible to fall short of the 10/10 extreme (the "prototype" or "paradigm case" or "prime example" of a non-normie) and still not be a normie at all. And there are some intermediate profiles that fall in a "grey are" and become "borderline cases". For example, is a mild asperger's socially awkward Internet denizen with some fringe beliefs a normie if he's moderately sexually successful, fairly social-seeking, doesn't like anime, has vanilla fetishes, and goes to college? That's a 4/10 case and it's not clear to me. It's a semi-normie, or "Slightly Strange" in pic related.

The 10 traits also do not have the same amount of significance, so they are weighted differently. It's an interesting question how few traits you could have and still escape normiedom. Maybe being a shut-in is sufficient, even if it isn't necessary.