Why I react angrily to being called a fanatic..
Although I disagree with some of Paul Krugman‘s views on various matters, I found myself nodding in vigorous agreement while reading the concluding lines from his recent post. From “Not-A Does Not Imply B“, an excerpt (emphasis added):
Just a thought suggested by some economic discussions I’ve followed, including the comments on this blog: many people seem to have a hard time accepting that there are intermediate positions
This inability to make distinctions was really on display in response to my recent Argentina post. My point was that you really can’t use Argentina to make a case that default is always a disaster, since Argentina had a strong recovery after default. I would have thought that was a clear and simple point. But apparently many people believed that I was claiming that
1. Everything in Argentina is wonderful to this day
2. Everything the Kirchners did was right
3. Default was the sole cause of good news in Argentina
4. Everyone should immediately default
Um, no. None of those are claims that I made.I really do worry about the state of reading comprehension. Or maybe it’s just that extremists can’t grasp the notion of non-extreme positions held by other people.
Paul hits the nail on its head. I sometimes have a hard time explaining why anti-socialism does not mean I’m a blood-sucking capitalist …or why being deeply proud of Sanatan Dharma does not make me a “Hindutva fanatic”.
Related Post: “vigorously pro Hindu and anti Muslimâ€Â  and (somewhat related) Why I am a proud nationalist
Well said, Shantanu. Your case is fine and I trust people can see that someone who advocates (or studies ) his or her religion is not a fanatic. There is a mistaken notion among some “liberals” that liberty means foregoing the right to call a spade a spade. I believe firmly that freedom of speech is such a critical part of the good society. Political correctness is not compatible with liberty.
In Krugman’s case, though, I think he attracts the kind of flak he does because of his lifelong advocacy of Keynesian “remedies” that have brought USA to such a pass today that it its future is beginning to look really bleak. In his case it is possible that Not A could actually mean B – since it definitely does not mean C, D or E, and there are not many other choices left.
> that liberty means foregoing the right to call a spade a spade
And escaping to fight another day does not mean cowardliness! Does that remind you anything down under guy!
Here are some definitions or explanations about the term fanatic (from wikipedia)
Fanaticism is a belief or behaviour involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as “redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim”;[1] according to Winston Churchill, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”. By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.
In his book Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, Neil Postman states that “the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming….(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are ‘false’, but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false.”[2]
The behaviour of a fan with overwhelming enthusiasm for a given subject is differentiated from the behaviour of a fanatic by the fanatic’s violation of prevailing social norms. Though the fan’s behaviour may be judged as odd or eccentric, it does not violate such norms.[3] A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or probably wrong, such as a belief in a Flat Earth. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic’s obsession may be “normal”, such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person’s involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate.
At some or other point in time, in some field, it must have been/ (it is) appropriate to label me as a fan/fanatic/crank. Considering the zeal with which you are applying to some causes, you too could certainly be called as a fanatic.
The description that I would not like to answer to is the one Churchill gave “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”. One can examine one’s interests and focus against this simple benchmark. If you begin to turn into a fanatic in the sense that you do not wish to broach certain topics or do not want to change your opinion, that is the time to reflect, change course, get angry, whatever.