It unexpectedly happened to me recently, and I didn't mean to follow the gossip so much as I was surprised, and I discovered the husband had put up a video of the wife cheating on him that he had hired a private investigator to follow. That is very much not nice, but also cheating is crappy. Last person I expected it from would be her.

It's normal because it's what most do. That's what normality is

Every part of that statement is arguable and every argument would be a bit of a waste of time, so we can probably leave it there.

It's definitely not what most do where I'm from, though. It's not a thing at all.

Normality: the condition of being normal; the state of being usual, typical, or expected

Typical and even expected in a lot of places. There it would be considered normal

You added "a lot of places". It's not typical or expected here, so it's not normal here.

So "normalcy" on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?

Told you it was a waste of time.

It's normal in those places because it's usual, typical or expected. If it's not those things where you live, it's not normal where you live. It's not any harder than that.

You were complaining about places where people "just go with it". If by that you mean places where it's typical or even expected, then it's normal there.

It's not necessarily geographical but just about community, group or societal behaviour.

Okay, so it's not normal.

It's me speaking, I say it's not normal here, so it's not normal. By your definition.

Of course if we dispense with the pendantry we would argue that the point of saying it's not normal is to highlight how it's inconsistent with the approach of society towards the rest of itself, so a society where women change their name to take their husband's is not normal because it's inconsistent with the rest of the mores regarding the interactions between men and women.

But that'd require not nitpicking a thing to pick a pedantic fight online that is a waste of time, so... not in the scope of this conversation, I suppose.

You don't think it's normal but for them it is. Simple as

No, wait, why can you phrase it that way but not "it's not normal but they think it is".

Why is one of those statements not equivalent to the other?

Saying you have to stay on Facebook to keep up with people says you aren't able or willing to put in the energy required to keep up with people yourself.

There are hundreds of communication platforms, and a most of them aren't run by assholes trying to ruin society for their own personal gain.

People used to write letters to stay in touch. Literally basic email could fill that niche.

Because for them over in wherever it is normal. If they lived where you live it wouldn't be normal.

Okay, but what says their perspective takes precedence? You're saying it's normal for them. Cool. I'm saying it's not normal for us.

Why is their normal a higher priority than our not normal? Either "normal" is a meaningless concept or you need a better justification than that.

Normality is defined by what happens around them. For them it is normal, for an outsider it might not be. If they would be talking about you then the roles and normality would be reversed

Normality isn't meaningless it's just dependent on the surroundings

I know they're not exactly the same from the few glimpses of Fandom history I've seen of LiveJournal, but you seriously didn't like anything about Pleroma, Frendica, Hubzilla, Diaspora, AND Wafrn? The first 4 are all essentially Facebook clones, although they can be seen as macro-blogging sites too. Wafrn is literally Tumblr, just decentralized.

I would highly recommend giving those a chance rather than clinging to FB, as these friends could totally manage it.

Here's the Fediverse.party site to check them all out (Wafrn link here).

Just write an email

Just call them

Yeah no thanks

I'll just scan for their name in the papers.

I don't understand why you think normality is defined by the object of the sentence rather than the subject.

I mean, if you take your definition of normal, surely the person speaking determines what's normal, right? That's not a good thing, because your working definition of normalcy is bad and nonsensical and only determined by your desire to antagonize somebody online on a nitpick, so you probably don't like it much yourself beyond that. But if we take it, then I get to say what's normal when I speak because normal is "the state of being usual, typical, or expected" and I'm the one having the expectations here.

The surroundings are my surroundings because it is my post.

It's Angela, isn't it?

Since when do random low quality social media posts qualify as "meme"?-_-

I'm not sure why you're struggling with this so much. Of course it makes sense to consider what is normal for the people we are talking about.

If you would've wanted to make your first sentence really clear you could've said "it's normal for them but not for me" or something.