Collounsbury, if you don't mind?

The BBQ Pit
1

I enjoy reading your SDMB posts. I find that, pound for pound, your signal-to-noise ratio approaches that of the best of the SDMB. I learn things from reading what you write.

And, hopefully, that is the goal of most of us here–to both learn and to inform to the greatest extent possible. “Fighting Ignorance Since 1973,” and all that.

There are, in the world, things of which each of us is ignorant, in the least pejorative sense of the word. You, me, everyone, is ignorant of a lot of things. Which brings me to the point of this post.

You seem to take it personally. Somewhat understandably, as you obviously have great time and intelligence invested in certain topics and consider them important for people to know about. But you really, really appear to take it personally when someone does not know about the things you know about and to the depth of which you know them. And, from this, you adopt this tone of condescension and hostility. The result is that, however informative your posts may be, people become disinclined to read them, or inclined to reflexively disagree with them, because they think you’re a dick. Which is, I hope you would agree, counterproductive to the cause of fighting ignorance.

You may or may not be familar with the economic/sociological concept of “rational ignorance.” Taking as a given that all activities, including education, involve opportunity costs, the theory of rational ignorance posits that when the private costs of not learning about something are essentially zero, the economically rational decision for an individual to make is to not learn that thing. The theory is particularly useful in explaining voter behavior, but can be extrapolated to other things as well.

Here is a site that explains it in greater depth, and better than I can. A brief selection:

When people don’t know what you know about Islam and the Middle East, they aren’t trying to hurt you. They’re not trying to destroy your livelihood. They aren’t trying to be mean to you. They’re making their statements based on the information that they have collected from the most-available, lowest cost sources that they could, as well as their own experience and biases, which few if any of us can avoid. So, instead of lecturing them and being a contentious, pedantic schmuck, why don’t you try engaging in a dialogue? People will be more inclined to listen and learn, you know?

In short, dial it down a friggin’ notch, already.

2

I’m curious. Just which statements have offended you so?

3

Well, I’m not going to take offense on behalf of someone else, so I’ll point out the ones directed at me:

“Well, PLD, if you engage your logical facilities, if perhaps only for some novelty value . . .”

“Really the strain of the ideological to achieve justification must hurt.”

“Perhaps this is news to you, or perhaps the myopic new obsession among the neo-Cons . . .”

“It would only appear to someone who has whipped himmself up into some idiotic ideological froth, or has swallowed the latest neo-Con PC obsession hook line and sinker . . .”

“Fucking moronic.”
You can search pretty much any post from him in GD for further, similar examples directed at others. It’s up to them to take offense or not. One can be vehemently opposed to the viewpoint of another without resorting to that kind of jerkishness; I have tried to make a concious effort not to do so lately and hope that others would point out when I am doing it. My inclination is not to agree with or even talk with someone who talks to me like that. My inclination is, in the best Usenet tradition, to simply say, “Plonk,” and watch them disappear into the round file.

4

Gary, having watched Phil, lo these many years (or, at least, for the past four), I suspect that Phil has not been personally offended by any post that Col has submitted and has only winced in the mildest way at any specific line or comment.

I would guess that Phil is simply reaching out with a bit of friendly advice regarding methodology.

5

I say sic 'em, Collounsbury

If they’re that full of shit they probably need an auxillary asshole!

6

So, not bothering to read OPs these days, eh elucidator?

7

So, can’t think of anything worth saying, eh andros

8

Thank you for writing this pldennison. Eloquent and gorgeously presented.

In other words Collunsbury:

Jesus Christ called. He wants his ego back.

J

9

Nonsense.

10

Thank you for this, pld. I feel exactly the same way.

I have in the past commended Collounsbury for his perspective and insight on Middle Eastern issues - issues that are becoming much, much more important now to many, many more people.

But the tone and tenor of his posts for a while now has been a major turn-off.

Example: I’ve lived and worked in Michigan my entire life. I’ve been everywhere there is to be in this state. Ask a Michigan-related question, I’ll probably have a stab at an answer. Offer a Michigan-related perspective, and I can enhance it or offer a differing one, from personal experience.

I would never, however, hold myself out as The SDMB’s Michigan Expert, And Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is A Tedious Idiot. That would be the height of arrogance.

There is a time and a place for the venom with which Collounsbury attacks views on the Middle East that he disagrees with. But too often lately, the claws and fangs are coming out when, to the casual observer, it’s not warranted.

You don’t need to know Farsi to have an educated opinion on goings-on in that part of the world. You don’t have to know the history of every tribe there to offer a perspective that adds to the discussion or sparks disagreement and debate.

In short, there is no other subject on this board where I would say, “Let Poster X tell us how it is, and everybody else shut the fuck up.” So why should it be that way on the Middle East?

You have a unique perspective to offer this board, sir. But your shit stinks, too.

What’s the SDMB’s Prime Directive? Don’t Be a Jerk. I’ve been half expecting to see “banned” under Collounsbury’s name on my visits here for months now, for violation of this tenet.

It would be a loss to the boards. But rules are rules. I for one hope it doesn’t come to that.

11

The central endearing myth of the SDMB is that it’s purpose is fighting ignorance. Most corporations past a certain size tend to have similar endearing myths of purpose–although generally worded in a much more addled manner–called vision statements.

But that’s all such things are, is myths. That’s all they can be, when they’re about the purpose of something composed of individuals. For many, the purpose isn’t fighting ignorance (though it makes a catchy motto)–it’s simply fighting.

And there’s a good economic reason for that–it feels good. The personal cost of moving through an argument, expressing oneself while weaving in snarky smirking insults, is zero–and has the benefit of entertaining others, which also feels good.

Conversely, there is a personal cost to not approaching debates that way: it’s not as fun, you don’t get the same attention, you don’t have the entertained coming to your defense and speaking well of you. If it’s a style you’re good at, not engaging in it disrupts the flow of writing, and makes it an effort costing more time.

So, there’s not much for changing it. There’ll always be an appreciative market demand for it.

But there’s a market for the other approach as well. Just a matter of deciding who you’d rather market to.

12

No, Elucidator, PLD and Milo have entirely valid points which I can’t disagree with. Jarbaby however chose the wrong figure, as I would hope that the messiah of the Xtians would not share the same character flaws as myself, which would be indeed extreme arrogance.

As to Drastic, I don’t think that my invective is smirking, but I confess that when I get a head of steam up my personal style flows rather too freely and there is a cost to holding it back.

Amusing, however, your analysis.

Pity, I would have rather prefered being pitted on a point where I could have indulged myself, unfortunately that is not the case. I will confess that prior critiques of this nature, while I recognize them as valid, contained enough of the self-pity factor on the opponents behalf as to make me dismiss them in large part. However PLD’s OP, well it is what it is.

Very well then, do continue, valid and pointed criticisms are ultimately the best medicine.

13

Well, lets take a quick test, shall we? Ready? Go!

  1. Farsi is the principal language of what country?

  2. Sunni, Shiite. Iran, Iraq. Which is which?

  3. Is a Berber an Arab?

Got ten bucks says not one out of a hundred of us would go three for three. Same ten bucks says my boy C’bury gets 'em all.

Now, when he weighs in on the infield fly rule, or the true home of Bar-B-Q, I feel no particular compunction to cut him any slack.

But on the subjects wherein he knoweth his Sh’ite, he is invariably informative, hence, ignorance is being fought. Fighting ignorance is the prime directive. (This is the position taken by all Orthodox Cecilians.) If you can do this and dance a light and civil rhetorical two-step, by all means, do so.

Slight caveat: I am sympathetic to the cause of decorum as it applies to GD. But if the behavior under scrutiny occurs in the Pit…Lay on, McDuck! and damned be he who first says “fuck!”

14

Collunsbury gets high praise from me for being an informed, erudite poster, who occasionally takes fools to task – in fact, I’ve even seen him debate the weasely DCU for pages before losing his patience.

It’s a pretty heady, Milossarian and IMO, poor form, to call someone a jerk without posting the thread links. Perhaps he just doesn’t suffer fools as gladly as you’d like?

Let’s see the threads in question – not just the out-of-context quotes.

15
  1. Farsi is the principal language of what country?

Iran

  1. Sunni, Shiite. Iran, Iraq. Which is which?

Iran/Shia, Iraq Sunni AND Shia (don’t forget the “no-fly” zones)

  1. Is a Berber an Arab?

No, it’s a rug. :slight_smile: Actually, this collection of Moroccan ethnic groups call themselves Amazigh; Berber is not approved of. They are not Arabs, nor are they a single ethnicity.

Next time, ask a tough one.

16

Drastic, you make a good point. I certainly have found myself on the other side of this same argument. I just think there’s a fine, if not very bright, line between “snarky” and “abusive.”

I suppose some of it must come down to whether the receiver is capable of and willing to learn (coughdecembercough), but whenever I see C’s posts get into that abusive territory, I cringe. If for no other reason, because I hate to see what could be a useful exchange of information turn into, “Oh, well then fuck you.”

Hey, I don’t always take the high road either–I’ll cop to that, and I’d be stupid not to. What’s worse, I do it not always because of provocation, but because of smugness, distance, and personality conflict. And with that, I think I just lost whatever my point was.

17

Enh. I think most points suffer when folks making them are honest about their own flaws–likely why debate lends itself so well to hyperbole, and abusive hyperbole is more cost-effective since when done well, it focuses the coliseum’s attention on the flaws of the other guy.

Anyone who likes debating on any levle or topic has been on all four sides of the fence (it’s a non-euclidian fence). Snarker, non-snarker, snark-market, non-snark market. Ideally, I think the non- sides are better things to strive for, but there’s that whole theory and practice divide.

I prefer “snarky” to “abusive” simply because I like the sound of the first better, especially when paired with “market.” Snark market. Mark-down at the Snark-Mart.

Peanut-gallerying is just another form of it, so I’m hardly on a high road most times.

18
  1. What’s your point?
  2. What is the carrying capacity of a European sparrow?
19

Speaking as someone who has abnsolutly no dog in this fight, I think that a useful illustration can be found in Tamerlane’s posts. He also knows a great deal about the middle east, and I suspect that his understanding of distant historic details surpasses Collounsbury’s. But he is never an asshole: he presents facts in a straightforward manner with little embellishment and with clear links to his sources. He clearly admits areas in which he may be mistaken, and asks for sites with an attitude that he’d be thrilled to discover that he was wrong, because he loves to expand his knowledge.

The result of all this is that I read Tamerlane’s posts, and I much confess I often just skim Collounsbury’s. They are too full of clever verbage and just aren’t as interesting.

Collounsbury, you might try and pay attention to who you are writing for: when you are typing, are you hoping that the person you are addressing will go “Hot damn! I’m wrong, and ** Collounsbury** has shown me the light!” or are you seeing them cringing or are you not seeing them at all, and seeing instead how the rest of us will laugh and whistle when we see how you’ve managed to eveserate this little idiot.

The reason I say this, Collounsbury, is because your behavoir comes across as being bullying: the only “muscle” here is the brain, and what I often see is this huge muscle-bound guy kicking sand in the face of a 93-pound weakling. In my experience, what defines a bully is that they aren’t reallly thinking of the kid they are abusing, they are thinking of their audience. They are performing. When you compose posts, Collounsbury, are you teaching or are you performing.

20

[quote]

  1. What’s your point?

[quote]

well, you said that not one of a hundred could go for three for three. I showed that was not so. Collounsbury knows a great deal about the MENA region, but his wrods are not Gospel.

Laden or unladen?