You know what the difference between sanity and insanity is, it's actually not the stark divide of a Is/Isn't state, but rather how crippling or empowering you allow your particular bag of electric bag of jelly soap to be.

Sanity is a spectrum, and no one is really sane; especially those who believe themselves to be fully sane; because to claim to be is to claim to be without flaw and struggle, which is denial at best, delusion at worst; a flaw.

"What is 'normal' because surely the world doesn't spin on madness?!"

There really isn't a 'normal' just a quiet agreement of not letting subjective issues get in the way of living. You can be mad as a hatter, believe the sky is purple, that birds are government drones, and that there are people living in your walls, and still be a functional person if you can take care of yourself and others around you.

Where we draw the line, and say someone is insane, is when said issues start interfering with the livelihood of individuals, or of people around them; and even then, that's not a lack of sanity, that's just failing to shoulder the burden we all collectively experience.

Should you tolerate someone who falls under their own weight? Heavens no, especially if they are a threat to themselves or others. That being said, you should have a moment of silence and try to do something to help them, because that person can be you someday, it can be any of us.

>Ugh this long, don't want to read.
Summary: "We're all mad by the very definition of being sentient; there is no such thing as "Sanity" or "Insanity" only whether or not you let your issues define you or not, and if you allow them to hinder you, aid you, and not bother you at all. And this is true, for every single human being you have, do, and will ever known.

The kicker? If you disagree with this viewpoint, you give strength to the argument, if you agree to it, then you accept collective madness as truth, which is mad yes? Will that be one lump or two Alice?