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.
