USA Today ran an op-ed Monday embracing the Democrat’s new supposed slam against President Trump, headlined "Donald Trump, JD Vance and RFK Jr.? 'Weird' doesn't do justice to this loony trifecta.”
The weird slur has been racing through corporate media headlines faster than a speeding clown car. Now it includes Trump, Senator JD Vance, and Robert Kennedy. Is that the best they can come up with? Do they think it’s working?
I’ll admit to not understanding the keen rhetorical insights that the democrat word-spinners relied on for their peculiar choice of labels for Republicans they don’t like. Weird? Really? It seems like a complete self-own.
Like others before me, I could easily spin it back around. It’s weird to support cutting off perfectly normal genitals chasing adventurous sexual highs. It’s weird to host half-dressed transvestites on the White House lawn. It’s weird to have unattractive men dressed in outlandish, over-the-top women’s ballroom gowns and heavy clown makeup read gay stories to kids in libraries.
So weird.
But reflecting the label back on them seemed … too easy. There must be more to it than this. We must be missing something. So I tried to figure it out, for you. Last week, the New York Times tried to explain the powerful electoral effect of weirdness to its woke liberal readers in an op-ed titled, “The Hidden Grammatical Reason That ‘Weird’ Works.”
The reason must be extremely well hidden. It required another six pages to explain it.
The Times’ piece teased its elite readers with faux intellectualism, citing Shakespeare’s Macbeth and its witchy “weird sisters.” It titillated them by citing African slave language Saramaccan, teaching its overeducated readers that, in Saramaccan, “no” is pronounced “naw.” And it concluded the word weird is a “deceptively complex rhetorical trick” that uses a simple word “to make a sophisticated point.”
Okay. “Any perceived weirdness on the left,” the author wryly admitted, “is old news.” You don’t say. In other words, they’re reflecting again.
But then I thought, wait a minute. I’m old enough to remember when far-left Austin, Texas adopted weirdness as its semi-official pet moniker:
Well, which is it? Is weird good? Or is it icky? Once again, Democrats’ flexibility with vocabulary has weirdly wangled themselves into a pseudo-intellectual corner.
Lest you think Austin is some kind of weird exception or outlier, it’s not just Austin. Liberal weird-bragging is practically a state of being. Lots of liberal towns have adopted the weird label over the years. Like Asheville, North Carolina; Boulder, Colorado; Edmonton, Alberta; Erie, Pennsylvania; Kutztown, Pennsylvania; Louisville, Kentucky; Madison, Wisconsin; Missoula, Montana; Portland, Oregon (of course); Santa Cruz, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Seattle, Washington; and the entire state of Vermont.
When you consider what a badge of liberal honor weirdness has become, it almost sounds like they are complimenting Trump, Robert, and JD.
Maybe calling Trump weird works in the heartlands, but what’s a good, weird Austinite to do? Shall we now keep Trump weird? Or should Austin, Portland, Asheville, and Vermont change their slogans? Who’s in charge of this rhetorical catastrophe? Oprah? How weird is this oratorical flip-flopping?
Oh well. It must be too deceptively complicated and sophisticated for we weird Republicans to understand. Hopefully, Democrats will figure it out.
☕️ KEEPING IT WEIRD ☙ Wednesday, August 28, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
New special prosecutor Trump charges may be helping; what's with the weird new slur?; DNC's surprisingly ironic surprise guest; Harris's policy body-snatching; Tucker/Kennedy interview; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
