Basic people

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Caelum
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 18 Nov 2014
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 199
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

09 Jul 2015, 9:31 am

Prominent.

I think that is a good word to call those kinds of people, since they do kind of stick out a bit and the word itself doesn't have a negative connotation.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Jul 2015, 9:34 am

Unless you're talking about somebody's nose

Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1026
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

09 Jul 2015, 9:52 am

ToughDiamond wrote:

Hmmm......I wonder how a word that originally meant "normal" came to be so pejorative? Could it be that at one time it was felt that ordinary people were horrid?

Absolutely.

The idea comes from the feudal era, when class division was enforced with the sword.

Similar ideas can be found in the words "knave" (now a bit archaic) and "villain." In England villain is synonymous with criminal, but originated in a medieval term for a free commoner, subject to a lord, but not a serf. A knave originally meant "boy" but then came to mean "male servant" and then "rogue, lowlife" and finally "dishonest, untrustworthy, unreliable."

Only the rich and powerful are good, in that way of thinking.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Jul 2015, 9:58 am

I've heard women call a guy who is a "player" a "knave."

Spelled "villein": wasn't a "villein" "unfree" in some way--unlike a "yeoman," who was a "free farmer?"

"Commoner" is very, very broad. I believe it could even include a noble who is not of the royal lineage.

Edward VIII married a "commoner." She came from a wealthy family. People were up in arms about this fact. He abdicated soon after he ascended the throne because of this.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

09 Jul 2015, 10:39 am

Adamantium wrote:

ToughDiamond wrote:

Hmmm......I wonder how a word that originally meant "normal" came to be so pejorative? Could it be that at one time it was felt that ordinary people were horrid?

Good examples of the common way words can morph in meaning.

In fact "villian" originally originally just meant "someone who lived in a village" (ie "a rural commoner" "peasant")( the word retains that fossil kinship to the word 'village' in its sound-kinda like "ornery" still sounds like the word "ordinary"). And then it went through all of the above meanings (all having to do with feudal medeaval society), before arriving at its modern meaning: the vital character who makes Hollywood movies thrilling by fighting the good guy.

Some words are the opposite- and were UPwardly mobile. The middle ages word for "the guy who feeds the pigs" became "steward/stewardess" ( "sty ward").

Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1026
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

09 Jul 2015, 10:41 am

Medieval societies were complicated and there's probably more than one meaning--but my sense is that a villein was something like a sharecropper. Not a slave, but not a landowner. A subsistence farmer who owed labor to their lord--who actually owned the land. A Yeoman was a landowner. A serf was a obligated to work the land and serfdom was hereditary. So a villein was not the lowest rank but somewhere between a slave and freeholder...

Being a commoner just means not being nobility. This has nothing to do with wealth--an incompetent noble can lose their wealth easily enough and a competent commoner can become very rich.

But the main idea that carries forward is that the gentlemen and ladies could think of these people (villeins, knaves, ordinary people) as the scum of the earth.

The logical companion to this idea is in the word noble. Noble carries two senses now: being a member of the nobility, or being really good in some way--having virtue, honor, decency, integrity, etc.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Jul 2015, 10:51 am

So--if you were of noble rank, yet not of the royal lineage, you were not a commoner?

In America, with great frequency, sharecroppers were "de facto" bound to the land because of debts. And other reasons. This was especially true if one was a "freedman."

I would bet it was the same, in some sense, with villeins. Like maybe having some "indenture" obligation?

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

09 Jul 2015, 10:56 am

Adamantium wrote:

Well... I suspect that a "villian" was a rural commoner who was not a serf. And therefore didnt fit into the feudal heirarchy. A free person not to tied to the land who could move around, and not be easily controlled. Hense you distrusted hense disliked. That evolved into the meaning of "criminal".

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

09 Jul 2015, 11:11 am

DevilKisses wrote:

I know it's just a dumb internet meme and stereotype, but I definitely notice basic people. I used to call them boring people or super NTs. Glad some regular NTs are noticing how annoying they are as well. It would be nice to have a non-slang term for those people. Don't think anyone will take me seriously if I call people basic.

Hard to think of a word for you to use for this because I am not sure what kinda folks/traits you mean.

You seemed to be taking about folks who are "so normal that theyre abnormal".

Instead of "basic" person maybe "generic person"? Or... "cookie cutter person"?

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Jul 2015, 1:20 pm

My conception of the nobility was wrong.

The person who said there was an absolute demarcation between the nobility and "commoners" was correct--even if the noble was not of royal lineage.

DevilKisses
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Jul 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,067
Location: Canada

09 Jul 2015, 3:58 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

DevilKisses wrote:

I am talking about people who are so normal, they're abnormal. Those people are super annoying. They think they have awesome people skills when they're probably boring and annoying most people in the room. At least socially awkward aspie-ish types are aware of their social awkwardness.

_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 82 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 124 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical

dianthus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,138

09 Jul 2015, 4:21 pm

I call them rabble, or common folk.

starfox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,039
Location: UK

09 Jul 2015, 5:15 pm

I wouldn't mind being basic. I could blend in and be anonymous my whole life lol

_________________
We become what we think about; since everything in the beginning is just an idea.

Destruction and creation are 2 sides of the same coin.

boredome
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2015
Posts: 1,020
Location: here

09 Jul 2015, 5:17 pm

fillers

extras in the movie of life

_________________
life is a game

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Jul 2015, 5:25 pm

We are Rabble-Rousers, us Autistics!

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran