No! It's just the normality, from a statistical point of view.
People have the right to expect statistical normality in other people. Respecting everyone is fundamental, but people cannot be required to anticipate anyone's quirk.
People have the right to expect statistical normality in other people. Respecting everyone is fundamental, but people cannot be required to anticipate anyone's quirk.
No. Cultural normality may at times be very similar with, but is not the same dimension as statistical normality.
It's easy to see in soon-to-envelope-the-world trends.
A small sub-sect of people do something abnormal, the image generated is pushed throughout society and media as an actionable concept (sociocultural normal), and then the trend becomes achievable en masse. If the trend is a huge hit, everyone does it (statistically normal).
>People have the right to expect statistical normality in other people.
Let me play devils' advocate here for a moment.
Apply that argument to any sociocultural phenomenon or identity, and see if the argument seems humane and considerate.
That statement precludes a lot of people, and I don't think it's anywhere near a right.
Note the closeness of "Expecting someone to do/be something" and notice how many in this thread tell stories of trying to have a normal sleep-cycle, failing, getting shunned by society, being unable to function properly after forcing themselves to conform, feeling wrong, feeling defective, and that over decades, often going back to childhood. People compare it to left-handedness and how our society mishandled those in the past, and are fearful our society might expect them, even consider it normal, to get chemical treatment in the near future. People try to fulfill absurd expectations and suffer from it.
The way you phrased your demand makes you sound ego-maniacal, like you demand a right to mistreat people for not matching your expectation, like you blame your lack of empathy and decency on them being quirky, like you disrespect people for not being normal. Those are the worst interpretations of your words. There is some truth in the best interpretation, i can see that, see the freedom i mentioned above, but that "being disgusted", "anti-social" and "tyrannical" in your now flagged comment doesn't sound like you are "fundamentally respecting everyone" at all.
Except, that there often is a disconnect between statistical normality, and normality. For the longest time, people were expected to be men, despite how glaringly obvious that is false.
Still, people are often expected to be rich (median wealth in US is below 100k), well-educated (more than half have no degree).
Our society is still filled with things we expect to be normal, but it is often unclear which becomes first. Is society starting up at 7am because there are few night owls, or are there few night owls because society starts up at 7am in the morning?
We are not talking about dogmas!
I'm not sure about that. To keep with the examples you stated earlier as being normative (namely being disgusted by homosexuality and being an early riser), for example, I am neither. Which according to your opinion is abnormal and should be shunned by society, because you consider not shunning homosexuals and nightowls anti-social. That sounds fairly dogmatic in these specific cases, and in general the attitude that minority behavior and tolerance of minority behavior should both be punished is itself a dogma.
To be fair, I don't see how dogma is avoidable. My assertion that minority lifestyles should not be shunned as long as they don't harm anyone is also dogmatic. It's just that we all have a habit of calling principles we disagree with dogma.
But if I had one shot to change your mind about this specific issue, my argument would be like this: there are so many opinions to be had and so many behaviors to engage in. Chances are, you are yourself also holding opinions or doing activities that are not shared by the majority. Do you consider those tendencies abnormal and anti-social? You may not like homosexuals or nightowls, but surely there are things where you diverge from the statistical everydayman? Would you then apply those policies of social repercussions to these activities by default because their existence threatens the integrity of the majority? And if so, why do you allow yourself those outlier behaviors, but don't apply the same tolerance to others?