I prefer the scientific label: Norman.

I embrace it. It's my core identity. Now excuse me, I have to put up some shelves.

On more serious note:

I want to see kindness and compassion. I want to talk to people about topics they are interested in. I want to have relevant discussions without it dissolving into some commentary on some unrelated hot topic thing.

Hear hear, I salute you

I can't take anyone who uses "normie" seriously. The meme video plays in my head instantly, and I laugh at it.

I agree with the toxic use of it being dumb. Which is also why I can't take it seriously. But yeah, doesn't make it less infuriating or hurtful.

Also I've co-opted it into fun new ways like, "hetero-normies" and "neuro-normies" all as a joke

Normies don't exist. Like birds.

I don't know, you have a better word than that? If you want to refer to everyone from your coworkers to the supermarket cashier to your grandma, that's a really huge and diverse group of people. The word gets the point across, that's all that matters. If you want to use a phrase like "non-technologically inclined" or something like that, it actually sounds worse like I'm looking down on them. At least normie is self depreciating, which is more acceptable.

Didn't everyone want to defederate entirely from Threads? That would have kept out more people than calling them "normies" would, I imagine.

I personally don't care either way though; on one hand, I like Lemmy as it is now so don't care if there's a huge influx of Threads users... but on the other hand, while with more users you're definitely going to get more garbage, it also brings in a few more diamonds.

I come from IRC and message boards during the dial up days, so I'm adaptable.

Often times the only reason people use certain trigger words is because they know they are trigger words. The more you reveal your triggers, the more some people will use them.

Its in the chorus of a song by one of my favorite bands and I cringe every time I hear it.

A true normie would end up being pushed out for a myriad of other reasons first. If they even come to a place like this in the first place.

yet another term I have never encountered till I did.

normie = person who comes into discussion without much understanding of the topic but lacks self awareness to understand their limited perspective.

classic example would be:

commenter: Big tech and government collude to spy on us

normie; I got nothing to hide!

I also read the comment about the racist uncle, it was a discussion of the different kind of people facebook (I won't call it meta) will be going to expose us when they join the fediverse. The person who post it wasn't attacking the "normies".

About the term "normie" isn't necessary an insult or just a person who isn't up with technology, but instead someone who enjoy more basic things. Is OK to be a normie if that's makes you happy.

I don't get why is OK for them to call us "nerds" (most of the times in a not sarcastic manner) but not for is to call them "normies" (in a sarcastic manner).

Most of the times that we invite a "normie" to the fediverse they reject us, "I don't like that", "facebook is better", " that's for nerds" they say, and that happens also with music, books, even food, they are just comfortable with how things are and that's OK.

It isn't that we are gatekeeping, but instead that they don't want to join us.

I've become comfortable with saying, "it's not worth it being normal", and thus am ok with the normie tag, even if I don't want to turn it into a slur. Normal is a form of social construct that tends to be imposed on us: it's when the teacher enters the classroom and the class sits down and shuts up, not because they explicitly agreed to, but because it was normalized. There isn't anything in particular suggesting that normal = good.

And that does have an elitist ring to it, which does upset the goal of equitable outcomes in some ways. There are certain philosophies in which a premise of elitism is assumed, as in, some people just won't be able to access the necessary understanding to participate, so it's better to have a gate than to let anyone wander through. This is the view of Leo Strauss and followers - for a really detailed explanation try Arthur Melzer's book Philosophy Between the Lines.

Even if you don't read that book(it's a good book), I would make the case in this way: it's the difference between online gaming that uses automatic matchmaking, versus a martial arts dojo. Online gaming and toxicity correlate because there is no lower bar on who can play, so all sessions are pushed to the lowest common denominator of cheating, griefing, etc. But someone who participates in martial arts like a gamer gets kicked out of the gym, if the standards are high: an instructor who values students does not let them attempt to eyegouge each other or slam their head on the mat.

Occasionally someone like that will sign up for a tournament, commit an illegal move in the first round, and get themselves disqualified. But they can leave their opponent seriously injured in the process, and maybe end a career. So the standards tend to condition a degree of gatekeeping, respect for others, etc. Not every gym does well at this, and some styles like boxing have a norm of "hard sparring" where full-contact is trained and damage is expected. But predominantly the focus is on getting the techniques and training without destroying yourself or others.

And I do liken the idea of complete access to, essentially, allowing dirty street brawls to be the only kind of sparring, the only way in which you can interact online with strangers.

Martial artists also sometimes use the normie term. They will say it outright: you have to be a weirdo to spend so much time getting beat up and choked out. We can have a gate and still be tough on ourselves to do better.