How I Deal with Harassment, Abuse, and Crazies in General

Utterly unpersuasive. The reasoning in that Quora response means that "harasser" and "wrong" are also slurs, because the Quora response equates denigration with "slur territory".

As an ongoing fact in my life, I've noticed that (a) I use words like "crazy" in broad and insulting ways, and that (b) some people seem to complain about it. And I'm open to being persuaded that I ought to change my ways. But I haven't yet heard an argument that persuades me.

It seems to me that the whole notion of "craziness" or of "mental instability" or even "mental health issue" etc is the notion of socially-atypical behaviour that the speaker judges to be harmful or undesirable (as contrasted with "eccentric", etc). If I hear someone say "that's crazy", I assume they mean "that's weird and I disapprove". (I haven't quite nailed it down. There's a bit more nuance here, in that if someone says "that's crazy", and then someone else says "it's not crazy, it's evil", then you can imagine the first persona conceding the point... so clearly "crazy" sometimes implies a certain degree of helplessness in the bad-weirdness.)

Do you think "crazy" means something fundamentally different from this? Do you actually think it makes sense for people to stop observing that behaviours or people are atypical, or stop observing that they disapprove of particular instances of weirdness?

At this risk of going on a tangent, here's a tangent. Sometimes advocates for people with mental health issues note that it does not make sense to fear folks with mental issues, because such people are more likely to be the target of violence than the perpetrator. What a hilarious fail. I assume that it's true that such people are more likely to be the target than the perpetrator, but I don't care. I care about whether they're more likely to endanger me than an apparently-not-sane person is to endanger me. It's not some kind of zero sum game where being crazy makes a person more endangered and thereby makes them less dangerous to others than they would be if non-crazy.

That's my current and likely future solution.

When you have a company, your name and contact is on every commerce registry document.

Most people are terrible at OPSEC. If your online persona is used long enough and garners enough attention your real identity will almost certainly become known (extreme example: Ross Ubricht).

This is compounded by the fact that people tend to say things they wouldn't otherwise say if they knew they weren't anonymous.

The other issue is it's harder to capitalize on the reputation of online personas in the real world, if you care about that sort of thing.

If you don't care about reputation online or offline then just generating new identities on a regular basis could work well.

As someone who's called "crazy" because of mental health issues, I use "crazy" all the time to describe things that are colloquially "out of this world". That said, I would never, ever use that word to describe another person. It's a very, very harsh word that I, and others, unfortunately hear very often. Like I said in a previous comment, it fucking sucks to hear. Usually it's from a third party telling me after the fact, which for some reason, makes it sound even worse - probably because it took a lot to get that person to even bring it up.