Would calling someone a crackpot be a personal attack?

[Endercreeper01]

Would it be considered a personal attack if you called someone a crackpot?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Yes, however calling someone's ideas crackpot is not an insult to that person.

[md65536]

Would it be considered a personal attack if you called someone a crackpot?

The name refers to a cracked skull and is an insult.

If you call a person's ideas "crackpot" I don't think it's an attack, but if you're talking about the person because of their ideas, it is.

 

Crackpot's come to mean "An eccentric person, especially one with bizarre ideas," and "bizarre" includes stuff outside of mainstream. I don't think that's insulting alone, however it can depend on the context. Cranks are sometimes called crackpots, but I think of them differently, a crank being one who promotes crackpot ideas zealously and obsessively. A dreamer or far-outside-the-box thinker fits the modern definition of crackpot so I think it's possible the word can be used without intending an attack.

Edited December 10, 2013 by md65536

[Phi for All]

The name refers to a cracked skull and is an insult.

If you call a person's ideas "crackpot" I don't think it's an attack, but if you're talking about the person because of their ideas, it is.

 

Crackpot's come to mean "An eccentric person, especially one with bizarre ideas," and "bizarre" includes stuff outside of mainstream. I don't think that's insulting alone, however it can depend on the context. Cranks are sometimes called crackpots, but I think of them differently, a crank being one who promotes crackpot ideas zealously and obsessively. A dreamer or far-outside-the-box thinker fits the modern definition of crackpot so I think it's possible the word can be used without intending an attack.

 

You're right, there needs to be a distinction. Exploring a crackpot idea shouldn't be such a negative thing, but being so obsessive about it that you stop listening to peer input is completely different.

 

This is a tough question for me. Is it a personal attack to call someone an AGW denialist if that's the stance they take? Is it a personal attack to call someone a creationist if they believe in a literal bible that places the age of the Earth around 6000 years? And if someone claims that tens of thousands of scientists representing hundreds of millions of hours of observation, research and experimentation have got it all wrong and THEY have figured out the real answer all by themselves and won't listen to any refutations, is it a personal attack to call them a crackpot?

[EdEarl]

If a crackpot is someone whose ideas are from a drug induced stupor from smoking crack and pot, then it isn't me, and is derogatory to call someone a crackpot.

 

Some people probably think my idea of treating drug addicts in the health care system instead of penal system is crackpot. But, the US has been doing that for over a hundred years and the problem is as bad as it has ever been and maybe worse. The penal system has not helped and has cost over a trillion dollars for the war on drugs. I believe we should at least try using the health care system for drug addicts, I think it would be better than making the same mistake over and over again; that is, making criminals of every addict once they have been in prison, where they learn to kill and steal to support their habit. My crackpot idea: it is better to make laws that allow doctors to give away drugs, rather than risk lives by drug addicts who mug people for money to buy drugs. If that makes me a crackpot, I'm happy to wear the label.

[CaptainPanic]

First of all, if anyone ever thinks that there is a personal attack somewhere, the right thing to do is to report it.

 

Now, regarding the crackpots: I think it is a problem here. When someone posts something that we'd call a 'crackpot idea', the correct response would be to patiently explain why the idea is not accepted at this moment by science, and then request that someone explains with some evidence, and that they read the special rules of our Speculations forum.

 

Obviously, this does not always happen. And if some idea is really a crackpot idea, I guess that the mods typically let it go if someone calls someone a crackpot. Heck, we may even say it ourselves. These crackpots are pushing their ideas anyway, and typically they're gone in a few days, because they violate our rules regarding soapboxing/preaching.

 

At the same time, I do think that especially the mods should be an example to others, and therefore it may be a good idea if we reflect on our own behavior. So, for that I would like to express my thanks for opening this thread. We (mods) are also only human, and we can always improve.

[Ophiolite]

Captain Panic makes some excellent points. I should like to add to them.

 

An online/in forum insult exists as much by context as by what is said. For example, Moontanman is a well educated, scientifically oriented member of the forum, but he has a couple of off-the-wall, non-mainstream ideas that he is quite ready to acknowledge are non-standard. If, in response to one of his posts, I remarked, "Man, is this another of your crackpot ideas." I don't think he would take it, nor would I intend it, as an insult.

 

In contrast, responding to the insubstantial ideas of a self-deluded fool, I might say "Sometimes mediocrity is a tough act to follow." It's not overtly insulting, but - in the right context - would be powerfully denigrating of the poster.

 

Should we offer insults at all? Are they born out of frustration, or out of a belief they may actually change behaviour? I do know the forum would be a better place without rampant name calling, but perhaps a less interesting place without the more subtle put down.

[CaptainPanic]

I'd like to add another point.

 

When we are discussing our forum rules, especially those regarding flaming and personal attacks, we are in fact discussing language. It is notoriously difficult to paint a completely black-and-white picture regarding things that can and cannot be said on our forum. So, while we can probably agree that name-calling with the intention to insult is not allowed, we cannot specifically tell you where we draw the line. Unfortunately, we must always look at the bigger picture to understand the context. As Ophiolite said, sometimes a set of words can be a joke, and sometimes the exact same words can be an insult.

 

And that is why we do things the way we do it here:

- Moderation is done by the moderators. They are human. They are good at understanding the context (better than a computer would be). Unfortunately, they will make mistakes and they can overlook things.

- Because moderators are human, and we're dealing with language, the rules are a little fuzzy. That won't change.

- The two things above mean you may get away with more on a Friday afternoon than on a Monday.

- Everybody knows that the mods can be bribed with cheese nips.

[pears]

 

And if someone claims that tens of thousands of scientists representing hundreds of millions of hours of observation, research and experimentation have got it all wrong and THEY have figured out the real answer all by themselves and won't listen to any refutations, is it a personal attack to call them a crackpot?

 

Yes. Whenever you call someone a crackpot, for whatever reason, you are labelling the whole person rather than the specific aspects of their beliefs you disagree with. Generalising a person in that way is never helpful IMO.

 

If people have 'crackpot' beliefs then maybe they believe them because they have been indoctrinated that way. Do you want to help them or simply dismiss them? Even if they won't be helped I don't think there's ever a need to label a whole person with a derogatory label because of one or a number of their attributes.

[studiot]

I have noticed that some posters are more sensitive than others, and further that some posters find difficulty in communicating.

 

The trouble is that whilst in face to face communication we can often determine this and compensate, in a forum we cannot immediately see the effect of our words.

 

Sometimes there is an overresponse to a flippant or (apparently) inconsiderate remark.

 

Now I see nothing wrong with saying something along the lines of,

Sorry I didn't mean to offend and rephrasing or just continuing with the substance of the thread, just being more careful subsequently.

But this does not seem to be done very often.

Edited December 10, 2013 by studiot

[Phi for All]

Ultimately, our rule must stand on the principle that you attack the idea and not the person. It's simple and I think it distinguishes us from most other discussion sites, where flaming seems to be conflated with freedom of speech.

 

This is a special word for us, since crackpot ideas are usually about some kind of science. Perhaps we need a different term for ideas that are not merely non-mainstream, but that actively ignore rational arguments and lack supportive rigor. md65536 suggested "crank ideas" to highlight the distinction.

[Endercreeper01]

I think that calling an idea crackpot is generally not the best way of explaining why it is not a good idea. Also, if you mean crackpot idea as in a creative, outside the box idea, then it may get confused with it being a crazy idea.