[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture


View post   

File: 313 KB, 1600x1200, 1297141493649.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7964324 No.7964324 [Reply] [Original]

Recently someone asked me to define what exactly makes a person a "normal", and even though I have a pretty good idea, I fell short and couldn't really answer them. Does /jp/ have any ideas as to a set criteria as to what defines a normal or not?

>> No.7964327

people who try to define something by a set of criteria are normals

normals cannot take it easy and just feel when something's normal

>> No.7964328

It is a relative term, there is no specific definition.

It just means whatever the majority is.

>>>/lit/ is more equipped to answer that than /jp/.

Unless of course you mean in the context of "normalfag" /jp/ and other boards use.

>> No.7964330

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

>> No.7964332

If said person conforms to societal norms or not, that makes a person 'normal'.
If getting drunk off your socks and fucking fat chicks is the norm then that is being normal.
With that said, I enjoy my niche little hobbies, fuck being normal

>> No.7964333

>>7964328
Yeah, I guess. I just wanted /jp/'s expert definition. But I think you're right, and what you said is what I've been working with. I guess a normal can only be defined on a case by case basis, but let's set some parameters, for example can you have a girlfriend and be considered something other than normal? Can you have a job? etc etc

>> No.7964335

>>7964333
Having a friend is normal, having a ob is normal, fapping to flandre giving footjobs is not normal. Yet a person is capable of possessing all 3 of these traits.

If you want a really general definition, then go look around and see what most people's habits and personalities are like or something, we only have a stereotype to speak of here.

>> No.7964336

A normal is anyone I don't like.

>> No.7964339

>>7964335
Oh, I see, so you're saying "normal" is just a trait? That makes sense.

>> No.7964341

Using the word "normal" as a noun is like /jp/'s version of "normalfag" recently, though both words get used.

You'd think it was a "normal" person, but the true NEETs of /jp/ are elitist puritans and will label anyone as a normal if there's one thing socially "normal" about them, like having a girlfriend, no matter how abnormal the person is otherwise.

>> No.7964342

If only Jones were here...

>> No.7964344

>>7964339
Normal itself is not a trait, it is a descriptor that tells of how common something is. What I'm saying is that trying to define normal is a pain in the ass because of both how relative it is, and because it can be applied to everything.

Asking /jp/ what "normal" means will be met with stereotypes. Most of us being the introverts we are, don't pay enough attention to figure what traits would make a person normal, so there's just a bunch of guesswork.

IN the context of people, and IN the context of coming from /jp/, normal basically means a very social person, football jocks, cheerleader sluts, obnoxious hooligans, mostly its just a blanket term of the sort of person people on /jp/ try to avoid.

>> No.7964351

normal: "I find this behavior/event/appearance very common and thus I am most acceptent of it. Its a monkey-see-monkey-do kind of thing, of course a lot of it just stems from instinct the same way morals and as such laws do. What people are exposed to the most often is what they accept as a/the "norm" both in what others and they themselves do.

>> No.7964359

>Hey anon what kind of girls are you into
I like petite girls
>WHAT ARE YOU A PEDO OR SOMETHING?

Fuck normals

>> No.7964374

There is no set definition.

You should just lurk and figure it out from context.

>> No.7964415

It functions almost identically to hipster, loosely defined and can only be applied as a comparison entirely relative to whoever is using it.

For instance, I consider OP to be a normal because he actually speaks to people in a non-superficial context, whereas I don't.

>> No.7964432

>>7964415
I probably am a normal these days. A year ago I was a NEET and spent all day in my apartment, but since then I got a part time job and talk to people a lot more often. I don't think being a normal is necessarily a bad thing, though.

>> No.7964447
File: 758 KB, 858x1743, weiRd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7964447

>> No.7964455

>>7964447
>There are people who hurt their best friend and when asked why they say they don't know, and they really don't.
They are called sadists.

>> No.7964463

>>7964455
well, if they were sadists, they could at least know the answer.

>> No.7964521

>>7964455
sociopaths*

>> No.7964587

>>7964447
that feel when scared shitless browsing scary links from /x/ at 4am

>> No.7964595

A normal person is somebody who follows the norms of society.

It's really not that complicated you massive shithead.

>> No.7964623

Normal people are those who, generally, are just like everyone else.
They're boring, by the way, watching paint dry is more entertaining than listening to them talk about how many bitches they fucked yesterday. I'm much more fond of eccentric people, as even when they're being autistic they have something interesting about them or whatever.

/jp/ used to be like that, but then I guess people created the IRC channel, friendcircles were formed and /jp/ went straight down to hell.

>> No.7964666

No-one on 4chan is normal by any metric. We're the scum of the Earth.

The difference between normalfags and proper Anons is that the former either pretend or actually successfully delude themselves they aren't any different from the population at large.

>> No.7964814

>>7964666
>No-one on 4chan is normal by any metric.
Maybe that was true 4 years ago. Most people on most boards are normal, and everyone on /b/, /soc/, /mu/, /adv/ and /fa/ are normal.

>>
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action