[threethirtytwo]

So you’re saying I’m nuts? Do you go to peoples faces and say that?

You’re not nuts. But you are trying to twist the logic to justify your own situation. The correct word to characterize this is “manipulative”.

Clearly, no one is nuts on this thread but some people are just dicks.

It’s completely normal for people to not be literal, and to also mistakenly say something.

[jahsome]

I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no?

Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.

[jacobr1]

Normal isn't a myth. The mistake people make is taking the mode as normal, or worse mistaking their own experience as normal. But humans generally do tend to have a range of common behaviors that a significant percentage of people fit into. And you probably can even predict it to a reasonable degree, if you have some other metadata to correlate which sub-group they might correspond to.

Normal in the sense of "you can model a distribution of human behavioral processes or outcomes" that encompasses, say, 95% of humans in a given culture or geography is very much a thing you can do. And I'd go as far as to say a large chunk of the mental bandwidth of the average person is running those simulation models just to operate in a multi-human-agent world.

(If you want to say we observe bimodal or other multi-peaked distributions in practices rather than "normal" ones, I will strongly agree, but that usually isn't the objection when people say "normal is a myth")