Let me elaborate on this topic:

The truth is that 'weird' is basically anyone/anything deviating from the norm. I guess what we were arguing about before was 'weird' as an absolute identifier (maybe I shouldn't have done so many tech subjects at school...). The basic theory was that if someone had some peculiar feature, like pink hair, they could be rightfully labeled as a 'weirdo' by the conforming general public. But if they were 'normal' and everyone else had pink hair, they would still be a 'weirdo', so its a lose/lose situation (Catch-22)! But the thing is that 'weird' is a relative identifier. As in: "You are weird (in comparison with the general public around us)." If everyone has pink hair and you don't then you're weird, simply because you're deviating from the 'norm'. Of course this also depends on the sample size - but usually this is negligible. Take this extreme example, if your 'group' (or sample) consisted of you and a friend. You both start off with zero weirdness, you are the same, and are perfectly normal. Then your friend comes to school dressed in leather, for the purposes of our calculation we could say that they have now deviated from the norm by 10 points. So it would be normal to assume that you are still normal and they are about '10-weird'. (See: GP Factor) However, there is no-one else to compare with, is there? So in fact, the new norm has shifted to 5 points on the weird-o-meter. And you, being at 0 are deviating just as much as your friend at 10. You are in fact just as weird as they are. But in real life it usually doesn't work like that...but sometimes it does...

This extreme example highlights the effect of fashion victims for example - as they are usually stereotypically portrayed on TV. If you don't stay in tune and up to date you will one day find yourself being 'weird' simply because you failed to keep up to date with the fashion, and now you are deviating from the new norm they have created!

It's really a strange concept to think about isn't it? It's all relative.