The idea of being a "stranger" as opposed to a "normie" is deeply seductive. I've had the tendency to believe it myself, but then I stumble onto some book or argument or discussion that acts as a reminder that it's all a lot more complicated and much has already been written.
Do you have any examples of specific ideas that are actually strange and shouted-down? Not to be too cynical, but sometimes what people qualify as strange is just controversial but classic opinions such as "restricting the poor or another group" or stuff relating to IQ, or a "what they don't want you to know about" type deal
I use the terms merely to distinguish between 2 classes of people. Do you think that this is an unrealistic distinction?
Here's an example. Meditation discussion in a context free of conventional models. It's nigh impossible to find such conversation without getting knocked over the head with citations of Buddhist/etc dogma. On the internet anyway.
(Also, I said "ignored or shouted down". Not just "shouted down". See, you have chosen to focus on the extreme, easier to refute, case. In fact, twice striving immediately for the refutation.)
I don't think it's unrealistic, just that we could possibly add more gradations and call it a spectrum, from the normiest of normies that is completely unreceptive to anything out of the ordinary to world-alerting thinkers who went against the grain of their time.
My personal hypothesis is that these gradations of normie-to-strange are important in that they point to a range of similar behavior between people of the same gradation that goes beyond just intellectual conformity or non-conformity. Perhaps one issue with binary classification is that makes it easier for us to overrate our own ideas on account of placing ourselves automatically in the "good" half since the barrier to entry then becomes so low (i.e. just don't be a normie and you're done)
The meditation example is a great one actually. The only discussions I've seen about it that don't cover the Buddhism-for-Westerners angle have to do with CBT/repackaged stoicism or people who enjoy nootropics/LessWrong/split-toe shoes etc. I did have one unusual conversation once with a person who described to me a sort of self-induced bad trip they got from meditation practice (based on what I could find online, that is a known phenomenon).
Regarding that last part, I agree I came on a bit strong there in my post, and it was unwarranted. I did that because of past experience and familiarity with the discursive style.
> Do you have any examples of specific ideas that are actually strange and shouted-down?
The OP said 'ignored'. Here's one idea that gets ignored or dismissed without thought:
Fiction, apart from make-believe, is a net negative for society.
It's not classic either because we're supposed to be in an enlightened era and more advanced than our primitive ancestors yet it seems people, now more than ever, look to fiction for answers (and often it's not even shared at the group level). Ironically, probably the same people who dismiss religious texts as fiction are its biggest fans.
This is a very interesting point. I've noticed that the idea that fiction is omni-present is normie-approved (books like Sapiens being bestsellers, anxiety about the media narratives, etc.) but fiction as a whole being bad is not something I hear often.
If you don't mind me asking, what is the distinction you are making between fiction and make-believe?
The first question that comes to mind is how we can live without fiction, because it seems even ignoring religion, commercial fiction or other "obvious" ideologies we still have quite a few stories about our lives to justify living them. A life without fiction would sound like it would run on some sort of incredible willpower independent of any goal.
> ... but fiction as a whole being bad is not something I hear often.
(Well I said it's a net negative, because there might be things I have overlooked.) Even when you look for 'anti-fiction', you'll just get more fiction.
> If you don't mind me asking, what is the distinction you are making between fiction and make-believe?
'make-believe' is probably not the best label, maybe 'internal fiction' is better, but I mean the processes of imagination that you go through personally and engage with verbally, that are not grounded in truth yet are probably an unavoidable part of creativity. Something akin to thought experiments. What matters is that you are doing the creative effort. (I guess novels are not so bad because the reader still has to do something.)
> ... we still have quite a few stories about our lives to justify living them. A life without fiction would sound like it would run on some sort of incredible willpower independent of any goal.
You seem to be referring to what I referred to as make-believe. As far as external fiction goes, why do we have to put layers and layers of arbitrary meanings and labels on top of direct experience? Why do we have to add sugar to everything? Can you find one documentary without background music added to tell you how to feel? Does everything have to come prepackaged? Where is the place of raw unprocessed reality? Boredom is not a bottomless pit. Our bodies come preprogrammed with goals. We do not need to justify curiosity or our will to live, so we can strip everything back without becoming nihilistic, as we are not passive receivers.
Anyway, back to the original subject: there are people who refuse to even consider such arguments. I think you know what they call me, and I think you know what I call them.
Do you have any examples of specific ideas that are actually strange and shouted-down? Not to be too cynical, but sometimes what people qualify as strange is just controversial but classic opinions such as "restricting the poor or another group" or stuff relating to IQ, or a "what they don't want you to know about" type deal