Civility and its educated despisers...

[crenca]

Many of us are all bent out of shape over civility.  We wonder where it has gone, why anyone would dare violate its strictures, and how is Audiophiledom (to say nothing about this forum) going to survive without it?

 

Others of us think civility is another name for (mostly passive-aggressive) bullying.  Those who complain about civility are in fact hiding behind it due of the paucity of their ideas and understandings.  It's nothing but a cheap rhetorical ploy that nonetheless "works" on occasion.

 

Civility as a complaint and idea is all wound up in the subjective/objective divide within the Audio world, what and who is a "consumer" and a "industry representative", and how both of these should relate.  Do those on an open forum such as this one owe a de facto deference to these "professionals" in the industry, or should they be subject to the same democratic (or herd, depending on your perspective) mentality as everyone else who chooses to participate?  When is a community a community, and is Audiophiledom in any sense a real community?  Who gets to decide who is and is not "civil"?  Can't we all just get along?

 

Here is something that popped up at the top of a Google search about Civility, and is just grist for the mill:

 

https://www.city-journal.org/free-speech-crisis

 

I have most of you civility activists on ignore so I won't be participating much in this vanity, but I am sure that won't stop most of you good folks from getting the dogs out ?

 

 

[Jud]

I dunno, sometimes it's hard to understand just what you're going on about.    You equate civility with censorship and lack of ideas, but I don't see evidence of either.

 

I and other folks are in agreement with you on various substantive issues (MQA in particular), but you don't seem to want to take yes for an answer.

[firedog]

Sorry. Don't agree at all. Civility just means courtesy or politeness. Any idea can be expressed using civility. There is zero necessary connection between a paucity of ideas and civility. Lots of uncivil people suffer from a paucity of ideas.

If you want to disagree strongly with anyone, even an industry professional, you can do it and still be civil about it. 

 

I think I just strongly disagreed with you and did it with civility. No need to insult you or your ideas in order to disagree. 

[Jud]

I think you conceive of yourself as moving the Overton window, when at least for me it just means extraneous stuff to wade through on the way to the substance.

[Norton]

I’m not overly concerned with civility (but am always curious as to whether it’s opponents carry this philosophy through to real life or just blowhard in internet anonymity).

 

I prefer to judge posters on whether or not they contribute something positive in advancing this hobby.  Easy to snipe from the sidelines on single issue obsessions, a lot braver to make clear what you actually like and support others in achieving it.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Sorry. Don't agree at all. Civility just means courtesy or politeness. Any idea can be expressed using civility. There is zero necessary connection between a paucity of ideas and civility. Lots of uncivil people suffer from a paucity of ideas.

If you want to disagree strongly with anyone, even an industry professional, you can do it and still be civil about it. 

 

I think I just strongly disagreed with you and did it with civility. No need to insult you or your ideas in order to disagree. 

 

It isn't Civility that is at issue here.

 

Instead it is the notion that there should be Safe Spaces where disagreement is not allowed.  This is fundamentally at odds with most things that have moved civilization forward (not just audio) and, as such, should only be permitted on a university campus - say a UC campus for the West Coast.

[Jud]

58 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Instead it is the notion that there should be Safe Spaces where disagreement is not allowed.

 

I don't think you have to go far on the forum here to find disagreements.  ?

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

It isn't Civility that is at issue here.

 

Instead it is the notion that there should be Safe Spaces where disagreement is not allowed.  This is fundamentally at odds with most things that have moved civilization forward (not just audio) and, as such, should only be permitted on a university campus - say a UC campus for the West Coast.

 

Civility hs absolutely nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree. It’s how you go about it. 

[Ralf11]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I don't think you have to go far on the forum here to find disagreements.  ?

 

sure, but that is not my point

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

It isn't Civility that is at issue here.

 

Instead it is the notion that there should be Safe Spaces where disagreement is not allowed.  This is fundamentally at odds with most things that have moved civilization forward (not just audio) and, as such, should only be permitted on a university campus - say a UC campus for the West Coast.

Universities are the last places you want to be "safe spaces."

[Ralf11]

Absolutely.  It was an ironic stmt.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Instead it is the notion that there should be Safe Spaces where disagreement is not allowed.  This is fundamentally at odds with most things that have moved civilization forward (not just audio) and, as such, should only be permitted on a university campus - say a UC campus for the West Coast.

 

Yet you DEMAND the right to have posts removed in the threads that you start, that don't agree with the direction/end result that you set out to achieve. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

In my experience here, my earliest forays into the civility debate centered around one simple premise: Don't refer to those people who claim to hear things but have no interest in (or even hostility toward) un-sighted or otherwise "blind" tests as either deluded or delusional.

 

In that context, "delusion" was pilloried as some kind of incivility.  Am I wrong?

[mansr]

34 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

In my experience here, my earliest forays into the civility debate centered around one simple premise: Don't refer to those people who claim to hear things but have no interest in (or even hostility toward) un-sighted or otherwise "blind" tests as either deluded or delusional.

 

In that context, "delusion" was pilloried as some kind of incivility.  Am I wrong?

The dictionary defines delusion as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument." Seems like an accurate description of phenomena like "hearing" differences between (digital) cables.

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

The dictionary defines delusion as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument." Seems like an accurate description of phenomena like "hearing" differences between (digital) cables.

 

 Here we go again.

The resident self admitted Troll has once again ridiculed a large number of CA members who report hearing differences between generic USB cables and Audiophile cables from numerous different manufacturers where a greater effort has been made to improve isolation between the Data and Power wires. This also includes the Lush USB  Cables supplied by a well respected C.A. member who designed the very well received Phasure NOS DAC and XXHE Software player for Windows.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

The resident self admitted Troll

You seem really hung up on that.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Sorry. Don't agree at all. Civility just means courtesy or politeness. Any idea can be expressed using civility. There is zero necessary connection between a paucity of ideas and civility. Lots of uncivil people suffer from a paucity of ideas.

If you want to disagree strongly with anyone, even an industry professional, you can do it and still be civil about it. 

 

I think I just strongly disagreed with you and did it with civility. No need to insult you or your ideas in order to disagree. 

Agree. The problem is, as I see it, the anonymity of the Internet. People feel anonymous and hidden behind their computer keyboards, and therefore feel that, unlike in real life, they can say anything they like to anybody without repercussions. There is no doubt that the Internet and computers and smart phones have changed society (recent studies show that "millennials" and later youngsters' brains are wired quite differently from the previous generation as a result of them spending most of their waking hours on their smart phones). So if computer devices can change the makeup of our brains, it's little wonder than it can change our ideas about how to interact with each other on those computer devices.

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

So if computer devices can change the makeup of our brains, it's little wonder than it can change our ideas about how to interact with each other on those computer devices.

 

 As well as in person.

A couple of days ago in Sydney a Telstra Engineer was suspended by Telstra after his 8 hours a day on line gaming habit resulted in assaulting his female partner while still on line.

 Apparently some MALE viewers reported him to the Police for assault. 

 Later, a whole pile of gamers jumped to his defence !

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/gamer-charged-after-allegedly-hitting-wife-while-playing-fortnite/news-story/5748f2624e19f75da26c418c7c76a697

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-11/fortnite-mrdeadmoth-charged-with-assault-gamers-come-to-defence/10603798

 

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Yet you DEMAND the right to have posts removed in the threads that you start, that don't agree with the direction/end result that you set out to achieve. 

 

stop lying and go take a nap

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

stop lying and go take a nap

 

 You not only demand the right, you ruthlessly pursue the ability of the Original Poster to have removed posts that you don't agree with , or wish to remain in the threads that you start. ( A.K.A. Censorship)

[Jud]

Can anyone break out of the old habits long enough to have an informative discussion about anything?  ?

 

Discuss.

[Blake]

 I admit to being a total jerk to a certain member here on CA a few weeks ago- let's just call him "liquid refreshment n' tunes".

 

Said member has annoyed me for a long, long time with his 'whack-a-mole' posting style, responding to his own posts ad nauseam, opening up multiple new threads in a single day, continuing to post in threads when told to leave by Chris, posting about every single thought in his head like a 5 year old jacked up on Mountain Dew, and other miscellaneous obnoxious traits.  

 

 Once this member starting posting that he was smarter than other members here on CA (a sure sign of stupidity) and then whining about his childhood, I snapped and wrote a very nasty reply.

 

I didn't derive any satisfaction from my post and I probably should have refrained.  But.....

 

Should CA be a place where we are more polite, genteel and always turn the other cheek? 

 

Or, do we think CA should allow a bit of blunt or semi-aggressive behavior (when reasonably warranted)?    There have been times over the years when others have snapped at me on this forum (in some instances I deserved it), and it didn't offend me at all.  It is just an internet forum.  

[wdw]

So, we're taking out the clown car for another trip around the block?  Sad and truly silly.

[crenca]

The first says he does not even know what the subject is about, the second says civility is obvious to everyone, the third says civility is simply all about how you do it, the fourth says it's code word for don't contradict me, the fifth pointed out prohibited language, the sixth says it's about honoring any and all member "reports" (that old subjectivist chestnut), the seventh says it's about the psycho/social effect of anonymity and screens, the eight points out human reaction to narcissism...

 

What we have here is a fundamental disagreement as to what civility even is, let alone the nuts and bolts of application.

 

I'm hoping @fas42will chip in with his wholistic "system" viewpoint.  Perhaps he can explain what "competent civility" is even if the road there is a little muddled...

[Jud]

Heh, I think the question is less whether one should ever snap (I have multiple times - wound up putting the member you mentioned on my ignore list just to keep from doing it even more) than whether one should ever counsel civility or call out incivility.