That's crazy!

Snert, I take this as feigned concern for offensive language that marginalizes people with mental illness. Do you *ever* call people out on this use of language against another person, or are you a passive observer of it?

I recall RP, G. Muffin and I making a stink about this earlier this ear. Glad to know you can only give a damn when the right is under attack.

Snert, thanks for verifying posts 1, 2 and 3. You are very disingenuous.

Snert wrote:

Ah. See, I knew it had to be our fault somehow.

Snert, the rest of us would have a better time here (although perhaps you wouldn't) if you read our posts in good faith. Where do you see in anything I wrote a designation of "fault". Do you feel targetted--personally--by "complexity"? Perhaps you do.

I didn't realize that you were personally responsible for all of Western civilization (who, as I wrote, only share part of the "blame"--although I don't think that "blame" is an ideal lens through which to view cultural politics). Of course, you still get it wrong, since what that sentence says is that isolation is "often" (i.e. not always) deliberately sought for NK by the West--a clause which modifies "complexity" not "craziness." Therefore what "you" are to blame for is making things more complicated. But you had no interest in finding out what the sentence meant, simply in playing your feeble disigenuous contrarian games.

I share the same concerns/queries as Michelle and Heywood. Language is off we have; how we use it is important.

Snert wrote:

I'm not. I said "our fault" not "my fault".

Is that the extent of your ability to parse grammar?

Michelle wrote:

I'm actually interested in the answer to Snert's question too, as someone who has been trying not to use "crazy" or other supposedly humourous riffs on that word (like koo-koo for cocoapuffs) as hyperbole for describing people who are being completely irrational or disconnected from reality or wrongheaded.  I understand why people take offence to "crazy" and I'm wondering if there's a word that has similar impact but hasn't been traditionally used to marginalize people with mental illness.

The documentary The Corporation, as many of us probably recall, concluded that if, as corporate law asserted, corporations should be identified legally as persons, they would be institutionalized as psychopaths. That was probably disrespectful of people living with mental illness, since it uses their lived experience as a metaphor for society--it's othering and ultimately dehumanizing. I often use the word "ludicrous" which could be considered to be on the same plane as "crazy" and "insane", perhaps, even though it's etymologically rooted in different terms (i.e. mockery, play, etc.) "Denigrate" was part of a sensational discussion in the past at rabble, because of its root arguably rooted in a racist value system.

Words matter, but they are also an expression of our society which, as a matter of rote, is racist, ablist, sexist, etc., etc. I think the key is to be conscious of the language we use, in the same way we are conscious of our actions--we don't stare at POCs, we don't (I hope) ogle women, we don't mock, condescend to or exclude people living with disability. I'm sorry if I don't think, Michelle, that Snert is asking the same question as you. Snert is more interested in exposing the deep-seated contradictions and problematics of language he simplistically mistakes for hypocrisy.

It's a question of respecting and taking in good faith people who live and work daily helping people make sense of oppression and marginalization. There is no evidence of that in any of Snert's posting on this thread or elsewhere. It is a marked difference between his "question" and yours.

But how else can we refer to the whackos who promote crazy George II era anti-Newtonian physics of 9/11?

How else can we refer to lunatics who want us to believe that climate change denialists, like [url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/say_it_aint_so_randi.php]James Randi[/url], are scientific authorities?

Is it not the case that sometimes a whacko is just a whacko?

Are you a truth and climate change denialist-whacko, too?

Not the Sharpest Knife in the Drawer.

And sometmies a graphic equivalent suffices to describe the pro crazy George era war criminalists, climate change deniers  and clowns like James Randi etc:

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/a1828743-223-screwba...

clersal wrote:

There is also, Out to Lunch or Not playing with a Full Deck.

I dunno kid; you're insulting restaurateurs and employees of the gaming industry there.

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

possible synonyms that could be used to describe a Babbler's argument that one finds "crazy" that wouldn't be insulting to mentally ill people

ludicrous, preposterous, absurd

I like these - I also try to avoid using "crazy," or "nuts," as a description of someone's woldview.  Saying Ann Coulter's worldview is "preposterous" is more accurate than crazy - ludicrous and preposterous is what we really mean when talking about her.

Oh, there's also, "a few cans short a full six-pack."

Bit OT but for stupid I like, "as stupid as a sack of hammers."

Well it's good to know there are no climate change denialists posting on babble nor promoting the views of climate science denialists.

And it's comforting to know that people generally support Newtonian views of gravity and not those of the Bush era war criminal whackos.

Because progressives here would surely mock and deride the slow witted who try to promote those zany points of view associated with the lunatic rightwing fringe.

Snert wrote:

Believe it or not, if there were a moratorium on using any particular word, I'd respect it. Or, if anything goes, anything goes. You're right that I'm not wringing my hands over the use of the word itself, I'm concerned by what I see as inconsistent attempts to intercept its use.

Case and point that you see using offensive language as merely a policy issue. Like not being able to turn right on a red.

Snert wrote:

I suppose that's close. Yes, I most definitely would like to see any censure of any particular term consistently applied, not just applied to me. I guess I don't get how you see that as wrong somehow. Don't you expect rabble rules and norms to be applied fairly and consistently??

I would expect someone not to moan about the enforcement rules when they are being unnecessarily oppressive with their language.

What if we used more clinical-sounding terms?  F'rinstance, if one wrote, "Say, you're sounding mighty obsessive-compulsive there, chum," would one invite censure?

If it bothers you j.m. then report it to the mods when you see it. Since they have already indicated it is not acceptable but that they dont catch every instance, you could be doing a service for them.

So are insane babblers, or even casual insane readers of this site, genuinely offended when someone is called "crazy" here?

al-Qa'bong wrote:

So are insane babblers, or even casual insane readers of this site, genuinely offended when someone is called "crazy" here?

Stop it.

Quote:

Stop it.

As someone who's doing his best to limit what can be said here, you're on quite a roll.

first, i think it's fair to call someone crazy if they ignore volumes of evidence in favor of some ideological position.  Isn't that what being crazy/insane is?  an inability to see reality when it is there in favor of some irrational belief not supported by evidence?

second.  the debate about whether "crazy" is an appropriate term has gotten way too much play here.  why are we "lefties" always debating some use of language for hours on end when there are things we can talk about that are really important in the here and now.  certain terms are obviously derogatory and we don't use those, but debating whether "crazy" is culturally sensitive is just another non-topic that diverts much needed attention away from real issues.  Our time on earth is finite, let's use it the best we can, not on distractions.