When Language Goes Rogue: The Special Magic of an Incoherencing

A linguistic mystery, wrapped in a gaffe, inside a verbal trainwreck.

What’s Going On?

Ever heard commentary so convoluted, so grammatically questionable, so cringifyingly illogical that it makes you question reality itself? Welcome to the world of incoherencings. These aren't just gaffes or slip-ups; they are full-scale linguistic catastrophes where words tumble out of a speaker’s mouth with no discernible structure, coherence, or logic. Think of them as a word salad that’s been left out in the sun too long.

A classic example? Trump’s infamous diatribe about sharks, electric boats, and electrocution. It’s not just the bizarre subject matter—though that’s impressive in its own right—it’s the way the words fold in on themselves like a Möbius strip of nonsense. This is the essence of an incoherencing: verbal maelstrom that leaves listeners more confused than they were before it began.

What Does It Mean?

An incoherencing isn’t just a random mistake; it’s a linguistic phenomenon that tells us something about the state of public discourse. In an era where words are supposed to persuade, clarify, or inspire, these verbal train wrecks do the exact opposite. They obfuscate, derail, and often become so absurd that they loop back around to being unintentionally profound.

Incoherencings are also a symptom of a political culture that rewards performance over substance. When leaders are more focused on dominating the conversation rather than making sense, you end up with phrases that sound confident but mean absolutely nothing. And when these garbled messages are repeated, excused, or even defended, they contribute to a world where meaning itself becomes secondary to mere vibes.

Why Do We Care?

We’re focused on incoherencings because they encapsulate something deeper: the way nonsense has been elevated to an art form in modern politics. I4MH isn’t just about laughing at these moments (although, let’s be real, they can be hilarious)—it’s about highlighting the absurdity and redirecting the conversation toward something meaningful.

When we take these word-salad moments and put them on a T-shirt, a mug, or a poster, we’re doing more than just making a joke. We’re holding up a mirror to the political discourse that produced them. We’re turning incoherence into a catalyst for discussion. And, most importantly, we’re using the proceeds to support mental health research—because let’s face it, trying to parse these statements takes a toll on the mind.

What’s Next?

Incoherencings aren’t going anywhere. If anything, they’re becoming more frequent, more absurd, and more deeply embedded in our political reality. The question is: what do we do with them?

For our part, we’ll keep collecting these baffling linguistic masterpieces, turning them into conversation starters, and using the profits to fund mental health initiatives. But for everyone else? Keep listening, keep questioning, and maybe keep a notebook handy. You never know when the next great incoherencing will drop.