> Weirdness can be cool now. Showing an interest in anything other than the mainstream interests used to result in terrible teasing.
Weirdness almost by definition can't be cool. Or at least not actual weirdness. In the 50's a leather jacket and a motorbike made you 'weird' to the old folks, but incredibly cool to teenagers. Same goes nowadays, only the details differ.
Just a random example: I personally consider obsession with anime weird, but kind of cool at the same time. Are you sure that you cannot name anything you would consider both weird and cool?
Do you still think it kind of cool when there's people out there that take their anime body pillow or sex doll out in public and proclaim they are a real person / their girlfriend? That crosses a line of weird in my head.
I think from a societal point of view there are patterns that are considered weird and patterns that are acceptable. There is of course a gray area, but it's not as wide as we might think (at least not in my experience).
If you consider an obsession with anime kind of cool then you probably don't consider it weird, at least not in the sense the concept is presented in the original article.
Let's assume that you're genuinely interested in having a conversation, not just shifting the definition to fit your argument, and I will give it another go: Most subcultures regardless of the generation (e.g. punk, metal, emo) use "weirdness" to distinguish themselves (with music, fashion, looks) in order to distance themselves from the mainstream and are often considered cool as a result of that.
Ok, my definition of "weird" is: something that will get you marginalized under the prevailing norms of the society you live in. Something that is unusual, but doesn't get you marginalized, might be cool, but not weird.
Something that doesn't get you marginalized simply isn't weird.
In my experience, people who adopt a subculture do so partly to cope with being excluded from the mainstream. This is not always the case, of course, but I do think it's common.
The members of the subculture may be weird in my sense of the word (i.e. for the general population), but they won't be weird within their respective subculture. Within the subculture they will probably just be cool.
I wasn't alive back then, so this might just be a product of the movies I've watched, but I get the impression that the "leather jacket" was almost universally considered cool by the youth of that era (whether or not they were willing to risk presenting that "deviant" image themselves). compared to that time (or at least my impression of it), culture is much more fragmented today. I don't think anything exists that is universally considered cool by today's youth. although being in my late twenties, I am rapidly approaching the point where I don't know what's "cool" anyway.
I think nihilistic 10 levels of irony stuff is pretty much what's mainstream-cool today, but I say that as someone also around 30. Seems the big diversity causes people to hedge their bets and never stand behind something with conviction, rather to ironize away any possible associations.
Maybe slightly younger than teenagers, but brightly colored neon hair (like the youtubers), flashy Minecraft merchandise, and things like Fortnite dances and dabbing.
Of course, me and my girlfriend are still well enough in touch with those things (also thanks to social media) that we can annoy our son by flossing and dabbing, :p.
I get where you are coming from, but I believe the above poster is suggesting that the colloquial _definitions_ of “weird” and “cool”* make them antonyms. That is, “cool” kind of means “conforming to the current zeitgeist” where “weird” invokes connotations of “not fitting in”. When understood in this way it makes being both “weird” and “cool” a bit oxymoronic.
Now of course there is spectrum, and I agree with the GP that a big part of this moment is “being yourself” so eccentricity and uniqueness _are_ factors that can make somebody “cool”, but with that the bar for truly being “weird” has also shifted.
To be clear, I’m not value-judging anything here. Back in high school I definitely rode the line between “cool” and “weird” myself! Was called “weird” to my face semi-often. Looking back I can see that I was fortunate to be a weird kid that was both athletic and rather good looking, so I was still allowed to hang out with the “cool” kids and date “popular” girls.
* the dictionary defines neither in the terms we are using here
Weirdness, in the context of the original article, is something that leads to ostracism. Something considered cool does not lead to ostracism. It can be _different_ and cool, but it cannot, by definition, be weird in the sense the blog post describes. If beards or interracial marriage had simply been considered different but cool, the characters described wouldn't have had to invent coping strategies.
"Scotsman" is absolute. One either is, or is not, a Scotsman, and either always was and forever will be, or never was and never will be. (I know this isn't true with regard to modern Scottish citizenship, but in the context of the saying "Scotsmanness" is an immutable characteristic).
Weirdness isn't like this. What was once weird now isn't, though we can't be sure it will stay that way. Conversely, what was once normal is now weird, though this might change too. This process will continue.
GP is saying that if something is widely accepted then it can't really be described as weird in the present moment. This fits the examples given in the thread, of how it _used to be_ weird to have certain characteristics, and now it isn't.
This might mean that we haven't actually become more tolerant of weirdness per se, we've just changed the definition of what counts as weird, and are just as judgemental towards 2020-era weirdness as the previous generations were toward 1990-weirdness or 1960-weirdness.
# Weirdness almost by definition can't be cool. Or at least not actual weirdness.
"Actual weirdness" being refined to mean the set the author chose, instead of an independent rule. Circular reasoning, designed to compel the (weak) conclusion you'd been arguing toward.
The independent rule is: weird is something that gets you marginalized in the society you live in, without being illegal/detrimental/an infringement on others' rights.
Being unusual is not the same as being weird. Being unusual can in certain circumstances make you "cool".
There is no circularity, and you have yet to make a pertinent counter-argument.
Weirdness almost by definition can't be cool. Or at least not actual weirdness. In the 50's a leather jacket and a motorbike made you 'weird' to the old folks, but incredibly cool to teenagers. Same goes nowadays, only the details differ.