The Oxford definition of the word crazy is, “an adjective to describe something very foolish, senseless, or strange.” This definition is relative – meaning craziness is understood in relation to things not foolish, senseless, or strange. Yet, it says nothing about understanding those three. The problem is that one can easily misconstrue something different as crazy, on the basis of it breaking the norms they have developed into. Something different does not warrant the assaulting adjective crazy, and knowledge of actual craziness puts this into perspective.
The most viscerally obvious examples of actual craziness 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. I only 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 all his life. But then one day he meets another man who only eats bananas. They introduce themselves and spark up a conversation. All is going well, until they begin telling each other about their favorite foods. Upon hearing about the bananas, apple man calls banana man crazy. To apple man, normal and good is the apple. So, 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 when it’s used like this?
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 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 is restating the opposition’s view and highlighting a specific issue with it. This is a common tactic in collegiate debate. It’s a demonstration of understanding that shows people their ideas are intelligible, and it opens avenues to argue against precise points of an opposing view. It shows your friend, coworker, stranger, or family member that you care, despite disagreement.
Marcus King 