After being described as a chalant the other night, I decided to do a little research to further explain how I am non-chalant. A post on Urban Dictionary said a chalant is "a loser with no skills." This definition clearly does not make sense because it is not the opposite of non-chalant. If this were an appropriate definition, would it be a loser with skills, or a winner with no skills?
However the exact definition is not the issue. The very fact that I researched the term chalant to point out that I am non-chalant defeats my non-chalance. This also isn't the point, but it sort of is.
Ok, so what is a "super chalant"? Think of a hipster who thinks they are not a hipster for the sake of actually being a hipster. You are so chalant about being non-chalant.
Am I a super-chalant? Maybe, but I don't think so. And that right there defines me as a super-chalant, even though I am not.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
