I know the word normies may have weird connotations, but I just mean that, regular everyday people.

I’ve been enjoying Lemmy a lot and even recommended it to a few close friends who are working in tech. But I would like Lemmy to be way bigger, maybe have those makefriends communities like reddit has, be it gaming friends, just for chatting, for voicecalls, etc etc…

But I also wonder, could growing Lemmy indiscriminately be a bad thing? As you relax filters and barriers to entry, yes, more people can come in, but I have a feeling the quality of the people might go down aswell.

Is a clique-like platform what Lemmy is supposed to be like? Or is it supposed to try and absorb as much users as possible and be just a user-managed user-owned reddit alternative with no ads and less censorship?

I believe the answer may lie somewhere in the middle, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on it, as I’m a total newbie on here.

(Also I understand private dms on Lemmy are not secure, but you can keep the idea of the “r4r” community and just drop a matrix or session link in dms, not perfect as the admins can be what username you sent out, but at least it ends there)

  • darthsundhaft@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    20 hours ago

    I don’t understand when people say “normies” this and “normies” that. What makes us any different than when we were on Reddit?

    How many people were actually even using Lemmy only before they were using Reddit? I rarely used it before but when they got real shitty, I decided to move here.

    So what does that even make me? What creed do I need to follow to be considered not a “normie”?

    • SlayersFan@lemmy.worldOP
      23·
      17 hours ago

      “Normie” Is a loose definition, but my personal definition would combine a few things:

      • Mainstream interests without too much depth (likes what’s trending right now and follows what most people do/like for hobbies, but doesn’t dive deep in any topic)
      • Lack of willingness to go out of their way to set things up, no matter how simple they might be, they just rather have something that requires 0 effort/thought.
      • Lack of critical thinking skills (Debating usually but not always, ends up in “I FEEL this way therefore it’s right”, tons of logical fallacies, and then they get angry if you point those out, arguing for them its more about being loud/disrespecting the other person than using sound logic)

      I find people who are not in this group, usually have some interest in a topic in which they do read on it/dive deeper into it, even if it pisses them off, they can set up things because they understand the value on it, and I feel these types of people (usually) end up being better conversation when it comes to arguing about something, they will try and convince you using some type of logic other than “im right you’re wrong”.

      Not a 1to1 with what you’ll probably find in other places when it comes to defining the term, this is just how I personally see it.