The Oxford definition of the common adjective crazy is very foolish, senseless, or strange. Yet the words in this definition are relative, meaning it’s understood in relation to its opposite. It is a word that attacks a set of ideas by assuming the sensibility of one over another. Yet, nothing about the term says anything distinct about the opposing ideas.
The most viscerally obvious examples of crazy come from those with severe central nervous system (brain) aberrations. Having a severely damaged CNS inherently leads to behavior clearly distinguishable to those without damage, and I invite those who disagree with this statement to work as or talk with a behavioral health technician. There are clear cut negative distinctions between those with CNS aberrations and those without. It’s tragic, and it’s common in America to avoid referring to these individuals as crazy in fear of stigmatizing them: a very valid fear. And I mention this to demonstrate that being called crazy has negative implications. At least the reluctance to refer to the intellectually disabled as crazy shows that it is a pejorative term.
So, if someone without severe brain aberrations is called crazy there is an underlying disagreement in opinion or belief. A silly but fitting example of crazy in common usage follows:
There is a man who likes apples. In fact, he loves apples. All he eats is apples. He thinks they are delicious, nutritious and filling, and he eats apples for a long time. But then one day he meets another man who only eats bananas, and they begin telling each other about their favorite foods. Upon hearing about the bananas, apple man calls banana man crazy. To apple man the normal and good is the apple. So, to him the banana man is crazy. Yet, it’s the opposite to banana man, and he returns fire calling the apple man crazy. Then, before the anger ensues, a strictly pear eating man walks up to them and calls them both crazy. So, who is crazy?
This example highlights that craziness is typically rooted in a disagreement between sets of competing beliefs. Yet, it’s a problematic term, because it is an attack. Calling someone crazy implies their opposing view is senseless and contributes to a war like environment between individuals each with full CNS capability. It doesn’t take a long view of personal or global history to realize war-like environments are terrible for mediating disagreements. So, avoid using the term crazy. A better alternative for addressing an opposing view is the restatement of the opposition’s view. This is commonly used in collegiate debate. It’s a demonstration of understanding that shows the so-called crazy person their ideas are intelligible, and it opens avenues to argue against precise points of the opposing view. It’s not the crude, rude, generalization called crazy. It shows your friend, coworker, stranger, or family member that you care, despite disagreement.
Marcus King 