Midwit.
Just because it's trendy to say doesn't mean it's wise or witty to say. I've heard people claim that midwit, which has come into vogue over the past couple of years, is subtly distinct from nitwit because it refers to someone of average intelligence as opposed to someone of below-average intelligence. But if someone is being called average, how exactly is that insulting? So that person's not a genius. You know what? Neither am I.
And it's a lie, too, to suggest that this neologism is subtly distinct from nitwit: maybe the word's literal denotation shows a subtle distinction, but midwit is really being used as a replacement for nitwit, i.e., it's just another way of saying idiot. In every context where it's used, midwit can be replaced with idiot or moron. As replacements go, this is one of the lamer ones—a dimwitted replacement. If you're trying to be insulting instead of being milquetoast by declaring someone merely average, just use the old classics—nitwit, idiot, moron, retard, etc. Or as Thesaurus.com suggests: airhead, birdbrain, blockhead, bonehead, boob, dingbat, dolt, dope, dumbbell, dummy, dunce, fool, idiot, ignoramus, imbecile, ninny, simpleton.
Just stop with the midwit nonsense. It's annoying, not insulting. Like calling someone mediocre. I'd rather have a mediocre burger than a fucked-up one made by an imbecile.
Or worse: "basic." I hate that one.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I just noticed that if you reverse the first three letters of "midwit" you get "dimwit." Maybe some bright bulb got the idea from that?