Thursday, December 17, 2009

I miss the cranks.

I miss the local blog cranks, the bubble bloggers, the crazies and ranters.

I'm just not cranky enough. I'm prone to touchy-feeley blogs, like yesterday, or blogs about business (I have a couple of customers who plead with me every time they come in; "Quit writing about business! It's boring!")

I suppose it's human nature, but most local blogs are written by people who are calm, and pleasant, and reasonable, and apparently, second cousins to Martha Stewart. People want to put their best face to the blogosphere, and I suppose that's understandable.

But, blah.

Sure, some of these ranters go too far, way too far. But I'm a big boy, I can wade my way through the excess crap. It's not like it's Craig's List, or something. (Those folks are just plain mean and stupid.) There is usually some nuggets of insight and wisdom, if you have a big enough shovel.

There're still a few ranters around, but they are mostly political, and talking about national issues. I've told Homeless on the High Desert that he's a bit too conspiracy minded and anti-jewish for me; and he's prone to sheer profance shout-outs.

I suppose it's a function of anonymity. I can only go so far in my rants -- everytime I've let loose, it seems like I've offended someone, or hurt someone's feelings, and I don't much like that. Almost always, I realize that I don't have all the info, that I haven't walked in their shoes, that I'm being less than emphathitic.

A true crank wouldn't care about any of that.

A true crank would just say what's on his mind, consequences be damned, and even if he or she is wrong, it at least stirs the waters, makes for some interesting comments.

So...who among you is crazy enough, full of enough piss and vinegar, and intelligent enough to create some controversy?

I know you're out there....

13 comments:

Broofa said...

So, how exactly is a crank supposed to be intelligent? Seems like a classic oxymoron.

A crank is someone who clings to their opinions and worldview with irrational beligerence. But one of the key hallmarks of intelligence is the ability to debate the merits of viewpoints in a deliberate, considered fashion. I'm not sure there's any overlap between the two.

I know there's a community of people here that hold opinions contrary to what we get in the Bulletin and elsewhere. And, like you, I'd love to get involved there. But to say you want that community run by a "crank" seems rather short-sighted. The BB2 blog was exactly that, and it's biggest flaw was that the owner didn't look at it as a community but, rather, as a pulpit from which to browbeat anyone who went there looking for insight into the economy and real estate industries.

Frankly, I'm glad BB2 is gone, because it opens the doors for someone with better online community-building to come along and take the reins. I'd love to see Butternut (or whoever the BB2 guy was) involved in that community - he was obviously a smart guy - but in charge of it? No fucking way. Not interested.

H. Bruce Miller said...

"I suppose it's human nature, but most local blogs are written by people who are calm, and pleasant, and reasonable ..."

And then there's me. ;^}

I miss Homer's insights (and even his insults) but not the rants and raves of Buster and the other loonies who used to hang out on that site. Some days I felt like I should have put on chest waders before wading into that river of shit.

Duncan McGeary said...

Depends on your definition of a crank. I'm thinking of 'crank' in terms of I.F. Stone kinda thing.

Paul-doh's problem was having NO comment moderation. It nearly wrecked it for me, and yet I have a suspicion the whole thing wouldn't have worked without it.

I'd like to see someone try. Be daring but moderate the'toxic boys' and 'spacemen' comments so that at least you didn't have to shovel a ton of manure to get to the horse.

Duncan McGeary said...

B.D.

That's just it. You're reasonable. You stir the stick as much as you can...

H. Bruce Miller said...

"But one of the key hallmarks of intelligence is the ability to debate the merits of viewpoints in a deliberate, considered fashion."

I think the ability to consider and debate issues coolly and calmly is more a personality trait than a matter of intelligence. Some highly intelligent people are also very hot-tempered.

H. Bruce Miller said...

Duncan, are you trying to insult me by calling me pleasant and reasonable? It won't work, dammit!

tim said...

I disagree 100% with broofa.

Cranks and brilliance are orthogonal.

The most captivating people are those who are both cranks and brilliant.

Brilliant non-cranks are also known as "wishy-washy bores." It's nice that they are around, but trying to read them is hell.

Broofa said...

> "Cranks and brilliance are orthogonal."

Can you elaborate on that?

> "The most captivating people are those who are both cranks and brilliant."

Can you provide some examples? Offhand, I can't think of anyone who fits this description. (I'm not saying they're not out there, but I suspect our definitions of "crank" may be a bit different. I'm curious what your's includes.)

> "Brilliant non-cranks are also known as 'wishy-washy bores.'"

So, regardless of how insightful or intelligent a person is, they need to be a prickly contrarian in order to be interesting? Now *that* is a cranky statement!

tim said...

Broofa,

In your opinion, was Butternut a crank? You say he was "obviously a smart guy" in your last paragraph but say that the idea of an intelligent crank is an oxymoron in your first paragraph. So you think he wasn't a crank?

From dictionary definitions, a crank is "eccentric" or that you think their ideas or behavior is strange. Almost all brilliant scientists I can think of have been considered "cranks." Or at least my favorite ones.

I'm just going to assume you're thinking of something other than the dictionary definitions I've read when you say "crank."

http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=crank

Quimby said...

Brilliant post Tim, and Broofa came back to prove the latter part of your point in his next post.

Buster was the ultimate "crank". Smart as a whip and cantankerous at the same time.

Robert, just be glad that you showed up late to BB2 while Buster was obsessed with Asian whores. Even timmy-twat got schooled early on. But he would have had a field day with your pompous ass.

Here's a pint of BBP raised to you...where-ever you are Buster.

Broofa said...

@tim: Re, Butternut - As I've said here and on BB2, I think Butternut had intelligent things to say about the real estate and economy. But BB2 suffered from a lack of focus - it needed to either embrace the low-brow vulgarity and character assassination that was so rampany (and basically just be a shitty porn blog), or get serious about talking intelligently about local issues.

Butternut didn't seem interested in making that distinction, which is what I found frustrating and, frankly, stupid. And why I won't miss BB2.

@Quimby: I may have proven half of Tim's point, but you've proven all of mine.

Broofa said...

@Tim: Regarding dictionary definitions, I think this is what you're referring to (from Merriam-Webster). Note that "crank" has a bit more negative connotation than what you seem to be thinking of:

"Crank":
(2) : an annoyingly eccentric person; also : one who is overly enthusiastic about a particular subject or activity d : a bad-tempered person : grouch

"Intelligent":
1 a : having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought : skillful
2 a : possessing intelligence b : guided or directed by intellect : rational

> "Almost all brilliant scientists have been considered 'cranks'"

No, they've been considered 'eccentric'.

> In your opinion, was Butternut a crank?

Absolutely. Turn that question around: (outside of his viewpoints on the economy) do you think he was "intelligent"?

tim said...

I just went through 5 of my physical dictionaries, and I'm not seeing much negative vibe on "crank." I just keep seeing "eccentric" and "queer thoughts or opinions."

There's also the hint of being monomaniacal in one dictionary (which seems a reasonable personality trait for a person likely to sustain a blog). :-)

Anyhow, I'll chalk this one down to differences in definitions, and assume that I read Duncan's original post approximately as he meant it.

I miss the cranks, too.