When I was at school and my peers made fun of me for my even slightly esoteric interests I felt alone. I didn't know anyone else who liked the same things that I did; or at least not to the same, occasionally obsessive, degree. It was hard.
Now that the internet exists and is popular: I can find my people. There's probably a forum or subreddit for pretty much any niche I could care to infatuate myself with, and there's creators on YouTube making fantastically long and detailed videos on the minutiae of every subject under the sun.
I don't feel alone any more :)
I grew up having the Internet since I was around 8-9. (I was born in 1990) I was able to find communities online for things I was interested in. But it didn’t make me any less “weird” in person. While it’s nice to find people online, it’s really not enough. Especially as a kid since you can’t really interact with everyone since many times they’re much older than you.
If you’re still going to school and get bullied for being weird, have no friends because weird, and so forth... then the Internet is nice but it’s not really a replacement for real life acceptance. Most kids need friends and acceptance in real life. You can’t get by on the Internet alone.
Weirdness depends on context.
I've seen people advocating for banning "hate speech", but I think that's a slippery slope (who defines hate speech? would anything broadly defined as anti-feminist be banned?). Such laws are bound to be abused to silence people some groups politically disagree with. Personally, I think it's better that hateful ideologies are somewhere on the clearnet where we can see them, and sometimes talk some sense into them, rather than hidden in the dark web. Some of these people will grow out of it and come around.
1. Urbanization. Small towns are suffocating. In cities, people are much less in each other's business. Urbanization has been on an upward march since the country's founding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...),_OWID.svg
2. Education. The more people know, the more than can accept. Education has been steadily on the rise for decades: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
3. Travel. The more you've seen that other places are different, the easier it is to accept difference at home. As recently as 1989, 3% of Americans had passports. Now it's 42%. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/11/the-sh...
4. The decline of patriarchy. For most of American history, women were pretty close to property of men. The main acceptable role was wife, with things like schoolteacher possibly being ok. Even in the 1970s, less than 10% of medicine and law degrees went to women. Only this century did it reach parity: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/more-women...
5. The decline of racism. America's still hella racist, of course. But talk to racial minorities about exactly where they'd be ok setting the dial on the time machine.
6. The decline in policing of sex and gender. This is very recent, and still ongoing. People are getting to be who they are in ways that were pretty much universally condemned even a few decades ago.
7. The Internet. There are at least three big effects here. One is that people now have as much culture as they care to absorb. Global news? Indie films? Personal essays? We're awash in it. Another is the lack of gatekeepers. On Twitter, I am hearing voices that I didn't even know existed 25 years ago. And third, as others said, it is letting weirdos find their people.
If somebody gives me a time machine, I'm only setting that dial forward.
* Today you can be smart and popular. There will always be smart kids that get picked on, but there used to be pure, outright hostility toward the smart kids as recently as thirty years ago. This is especially true for women. My grandmother never told us she was valedictorian until we found her diploma cleaning out her house, women just couldn't talk about their intelligence. Even when I went to high school I remember a girl who would lie about her test scores (she would say she did worse than she did so she could fit in with the other girls).
* Today you can be openly gay. You will take shit for it, but at least you are out. People used to give you shit for it and you had to keep yourself in the closet or else. Situation is still shitty, but improved from a low bar.
* Weirdness can be cool now. Showing an interest in anything other than the mainstream interests used to result in terrible teasing.
It just so happens that right now what's cool is a charicature of actual weird people in the past. See girls claiming to be 'quirky' or 10 years ago 'random'. Also see people being self proclaimed 'nerds' because they like to read a lot.
It's basically there as an illusion of depth and mystery.
Actual weird people like that dude who makes low production quality lightsaber fight videos in his garden (can't remember his name) are still considered weird. Though I think the word they use these days is 'cringe'. Alternatively what people will do is put these super weird people on a pedestal in conversation while not actually respecting them or wanting to be directly associated with them.
I'm not saying we've made no progress but it's a lot less than it appears on the surface.
His online handle is Airsoftfatty, and his story is actually kinda tragic. iDubbz visited him and made a "documentary" of sorts about him, it's a fascinating watch [1].
[1] Full Force: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfwPL-bd_mk
As long as you are surely not mistaken for a real weirdo or a poor person, you can play around with the superficialities.
Weirdness almost by definition can't be cool. Or at least not actual weirdness. In the 50's a leather jacket and a motorbike made you 'weird' to the old folks, but incredibly cool to teenagers. Same goes nowadays, only the details differ.
If you consider an obsession with anime kind of cool then you probably don't consider it weird, at least not in the sense the concept is presented in the original article.
Something that doesn't get you marginalized simply isn't weird.
In my experience, people who adopt a subculture do so partly to cope with being excluded from the mainstream. This is not always the case, of course, but I do think it's common.
The members of the subculture may be weird in my sense of the word (i.e. for the general population), but they won't be weird within their respective subculture. Within the subculture they will probably just be cool.
Of course, me and my girlfriend are still well enough in touch with those things (also thanks to social media) that we can annoy our son by flossing and dabbing, :p.
Also, being a literal nazi.
Now of course there is spectrum, and I agree with the GP that a big part of this moment is “being yourself” so eccentricity and uniqueness _are_ factors that can make somebody “cool”, but with that the bar for truly being “weird” has also shifted.
To be clear, I’m not value-judging anything here. Back in high school I definitely rode the line between “cool” and “weird” myself! Was called “weird” to my face semi-often. Looking back I can see that I was fortunate to be a weird kid that was both athletic and rather good looking, so I was still allowed to hang out with the “cool” kids and date “popular” girls.
* the dictionary defines neither in the terms we are using here
Weirdness isn't like this. What was once weird now isn't, though we can't be sure it will stay that way. Conversely, what was once normal is now weird, though this might change too. This process will continue.
GP is saying that if something is widely accepted then it can't really be described as weird in the present moment. This fits the examples given in the thread, of how it _used to be_ weird to have certain characteristics, and now it isn't.
This might mean that we haven't actually become more tolerant of weirdness per se, we've just changed the definition of what counts as weird, and are just as judgemental towards 2020-era weirdness as the previous generations were toward 1990-weirdness or 1960-weirdness.
Being completely tolerant to weirdness would mean, to my mind, to essentially not think in terms of weird/mainstream/cool anymore.
"Actual weirdness" being refined to mean the set the author chose, instead of an independent rule. Circular reasoning, designed to compel the (weak) conclusion you'd been arguing toward.
Being unusual is not the same as being weird. Being unusual can in certain circumstances make you "cool".
There is no circularity, and you have yet to make a pertinent counter-argument.
You mention that you can be openly gay today, but this is not true; SOME areas MAY be safe, but in others you may get sucker punched or worse.
Black parents have to tell their kids to change how they speak in order to fit in, to have a better chance at getting a job.
And kids will still get bullied for being outliers, it's just that what you get bullied for and how that expresses itself has changed; "nerdy" subjects like gaming have become more accepted, so the outliers now are those that don't like Fortnite. And the bullying is moving to the internet.
To be an executive in corporate America, you need to learn corporate speak and use it, for example. No one running a Fortune 500 company speaks like they are from the Ozarks.
Society needs some conformity to function, there will never be a utopia where this doesn't happen.
30 years ago, I was in middle school. Never saw this. I was very smart and certainly never received any hostility because of it. I never saw any of my fellow "smart kids" receive any either. I know it's only anecdotal but the quote doesn't even have anecdotal support. It's just a baseless claim.
>Showing an interest in anything other than the mainstream interests used to result in terrible teasing.
As a Gen-Xer, I disagree.
(yes I know my comment is a massive generalization)
Moving "who is weird" around doesn't do anything. If you keep me locked up in your basement and torture me and, by some luck, I overpower you and in turn lock you up and torture you, there isn't really any less locking-up-and-torturing, it's just that somebody else is receiving it.
Well, being gay is legally much more accepted now. Does that count as progress? Or does it not count, because most people don't consider being gay "weird" anymore, as it's become more acceptable?
That's what I'm saying: whether you still call being gay "weird" and we've become more accepting, or it's just more accepted because it's no longer considered weird, that's still the same progress.
At the margins (the actual margins, not the "I'm marginalized mimimi") of society where the weird people are. And I don't think those margins are getting smaller, or the people inhabiting them are treated better. It's just different people that are the outsiders now, and being gay doesn't necessarily put you there (depends on your location, though).
All the people with good social skills, who went to the Epstein island? Totally fine, no consequences.
Revealed preference is a mother.
What this shows us is not that being weird gets you fired, but that being outwardly "normal" and "nice" saves you from being fired when you go to private rape islands. Try fixing that one.
I saw zero medium posts saying "hey, forget about RMS's posts, let's go get mad at the people who actually did this stuff". I'm sure they existed, but in general the mob wanted a 'creepy' scapegoat and they got one.
It was way too little too late but Joi Ito, Peter Cohen and Seth Lloyd got punished. The MIT Media Lab's reputation was tarnished forever from this. Saying RMS was the only one is disingenuous.
What a vile way to describe the rape of children.
"We're not any nicer to weirdos. How do I know? Well, because the subset of people we're still not nice to, we're not nice to!"
Bare minimum, there's always going to be some demographic ostracized by society, even if that demographic is only, like, murderous cannibals.
Only looking at whichever demographics are currently treated poorly to evaluate how society treats the people who it treats poorly means you've fixed the "niceness to weirdos" quotient in place by definition.
If you're going to argue a change, I think that you need to show that either (1) the total number of people considered "weirdos" has changed, or (2) weirdos are no longer treated as poorly. I find (2) very implausible (and notice that in the linked article, the people in question are responding to very mild forms of social disapproval), and I don't think that (1) really holds up, but I'm willing to hear an argument.
As far as 1) the example of Doc's two weird bits seem pretty benign. This is the argument that would well it seems pretty benign to us but perhaps there are things that are weird to us but that back then would have seemed benign.
As a general thing anything I can think of that would be considered weird enough nowadays to get you kicked out of a Diner would have been considered weird enough decades back to get you kicked out, if not the police called on you.
If your theory is that there were things considered benign in the past that would get you thrown out of a Diner today you should show what those are, the nearest I can think of is having the trophy head of an African Elephant with you, but I bet you wouldn't get thrown out of almost anywhere for that unless it was just too big to have in the place. Maybe try Bengal Tiger, wouldn't be bad.
Dressed up as a member of the KKK would hopefully get you kicked out of a lot of places today, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't have got you kicked out in 1935. At any rate I'm not sure if it would have been considered benign actually, despite membership's popularity during that time.
Using the same reasoning, one could say, "treatment of X group of weirdos hasn't gotten any better because society treats weirdos better; it's just that X has become somewhat more socially acceptable". For example, you could apply this reasoning to, say, furries. Probably more accepted now than 20 or 30 years ago, but still considered weird.
If that's the model, then it's impossible for society to become more accepting of weirdos in general, because each time they become more accepting of some particular group, you just attribute the change to "social acceptability" of that group, rather than niceness to weirdos more generally. With the end game being, "sure, everyone is nice to everyone now, but it's not because we became nicer to weirdos, but because now everything is socially acceptable and nothing is considered weird."
It's a useless way of measuring things because it makes progress literally impossible by definition.
The long form of this I've heard goes through about three extensive accomplishments or deeds, as:
"You see the roofs on all those houses? I thatched every one of them. But do they call me Johnny the Thatcher? No."
And on for brick-layer, et c.
Then ends on:
"But you fuck one sheep..."
Anyway, there are even cultures (now extinct I think) that eat their own dead as a form of mourning. Ritualistic cannibalism is a whole thing that is not criminal and it’s been found on every continent where humans naturally live. Many societies don’t even have states to define or enforce crimes.
So yea, I think most cannibals were probably not criminals.
Yes, but you wouldn't call those people murderous cannibals, would you? Murderous implies that you murdered someone. Now, true, one man's liberator is another man's murderer, but someone who has not killed anyone can't be called murderous any way you stretch it, even if they are a cannibal.
So, even if you are right that most cannibals were not criminals, I think it's safe to say, as GP did, that murderous cannibals are criminals.
> Bare minimum, there's always going to be some demographic ostracized by society, even if that demographic is only, like, murderous cannibals.
I said:
> I would qualify murderous cannibals as dangerous criminals, not weirdos
Nobody used the collocation "murderous criminals" - it sounds silly and would be more or less a tautology.
> Weirdos are people who aren't doing anything wrong
That's the thing, though: what is "wrong" is very different society to society. Sometimes it includes decisions that don't directly hurt anyone, but can hurt them indirectly (e.g. choosing not to be vaccinated).
It's better than it was, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "no problem".
Anecdata: I haven't had any real issues. I have had some worries about undue benefits, and some people become more "careful" once they find out. It really isn't an issue where I live, from my experience.
And that is emphatically not true for straight people: they are accepted everywhere. If you have to be careful about where you go and who you interact with because of your sexuality, then -- even if you take those restrictions on your life for granted by now -- it's still a demonstration of the continued power of homophobia.
I get what you're saying, but I think that attitudes to homophobia are sort of where attitudes to race were in the 90s. People are tempted to mark eliminating homophobia as 'done'. But if you look beyond more privileged folks, there's actually still a ton of homophobia out there, with real consequences. For example, it's been estimated that around 40% of NYC's homeless population is LGBT.
Whoops, fixed :P - Thank you!
> And that is emphatically not true for straight people
That is a good point. I haven't thought of it as homophobia, but perhaps it is.
I definitely recognize that I've been fortunate. Young, in a progressive area, with a good job. Hard to beat.
> 40% of NYC's homeless population is LGBT
I wasn't aware of that, and that is awful.
Source
40% is at the upper end of the estimates, and any specific figure should obviously be taken with a pinch of salt, given the difficulties inherent in obtaining precise data of this nature. However, there is little doubt that LGBT people are substantially overrepresented in homeless populations. This is the case in many cities and countries, not just NYC.
Weird to think about what is considered 'weird' now, actually.
For instance, more people have distanced from me after I politely tell them that "I don't do drugs" than any other thing I can think of. I honesty don't get it, but yeah, the standards by which people are judged have varied greatly with time.
Do you get the "Have you ever tried {insert recreational drug here}?? You're missing out, etc."
Yeah I get that a lot.
I get what you're saying and, incidentally, you made a pretty good point,
"People distance from you because they don't want to be judged as weird themselves ..."
Isn't this, more or less, always the case?
The way I see it is some sort of 'tribal' instinct, us vs. them, kind of thing. The norms that define inclusion/exclusion from the group could change everyday.
I find it frustrating and honestly quite sad how many people cannot get past this issue, and how many good relationships and opportunities never take off because of this barrier.
I am thinking that education has a lot of potential. We could experiment with and introduce some form of early psychology of self discovery to children in schools, something basic to help them learn to reflect. That would guide more people towards self fulfillment and a lot of these problems would simply disappear.
Things about me that are considered weird get buried on platforms like this. I've had many accounts here banned for it. I don't use foul language or attack people directly. It's just considered weird so it gets banned. I don't think it's easier to be weird. If anything it's much easier to have your life ruined by being considered weird. Take Richard Stallman, for example.
Acceptance of perceived weirdness at the intersection of the custody of minors seems like something which should move on a generational timescale
For better or for worse I'd say these have always qualified as 'weird'. Homeschooling is probably less weird now that it would have been when I was a kid. Selling things out of the back of the truck and/or (men) not working a full time job falls pretty short of society's expectations of adult behavior.
The Ryan's World toy review kid has earned $120M playing with toys by age 9, this is like the golden era of full-time job avoidance
In the case of Ryan's World, he appears to have benefited from a mother willing to quit her job to be his producer very early in his channel's history, and also able to competently perform that job, well before it was clear it'd make serious money. So even for a 9-year-old there's the luck/connections thing playing a huge role in this being a viable possibility, let alone any kind of likely-to-succeed play.
I've always been told the difference between eccentric and crazy is income level.