Civility

[lucretius]

Wow!  This thread is really evoving into craziness.  Unless I'm mistaken, we are not discussing toleration of different races, cultures, religions, or politics -- just differing views on audio.  How about posters simply apply the Golden Rule: "Treat others how you would like to be treated."

[crenca]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

Wow!  This thread is really evoving into craziness.  Unless I'm mistaken, we are not discussing toleration of different races, cultures, religions, or politics -- just differing views on audio.  How about posters simply apply the Golden Rule: "Treat others how you would like to be treated."

 

If only that worked, but it (i.e."the golden rule")  is a manifest failure even on the insignificant level of an unimportant, consumerist/luxury "hobby" such as audio.  When applied to more important things such as your list, it's failure becomes even more obvious.

 

Why does the Gold Rule fail?

[lucretius]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

If only that worked, but it (i.e."the golden rule")  is a manifest failure even on the insignificant level of an unimportant, consumerist/luxury "hobby" such as audio.  When applied to more important things such as your list, it's failure becomes even more obvious.

 

Why does the Gold Rule fail?

 

No one is suggesting the "golden rule" as a moral philosophy; just a practical rule of thumb on an Internet forum about audio.  (Why make this more complex than it has to be?)

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

No one is suggesting the "golden rule" as a moral philosophy; just a practical rule of thumb on an Internet forum about audio.  (Why make this more complex than it has to be?)

 

I don't think it is complex to see that "treat others how you would like to be treated" assumes a commonality of self and understanding of reality that does not exist.  When I treat "the other" like I would be "treated", it turns out that they don't like it because they have a contradictory view (to mine).

[lucretius]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

I don't think it is complex to see that "treat others how you would like to be treated" assumes a commonality of self and understanding of reality that does not exist.  When I treat "the other" like I would be "treated", it turns out that they don't like it because they have a contradictory view (to mine).

 

That wasn't the "complexity" to which I was referring.  In any case, I've got to ask: Who cares?

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, crenca said:

Perhaps Audiophiledom is simply a reflection of this wider unravelling.  Whereas before there has was this polite toleration of contradiction, the tension has overcome and SNAPPED us out of our happy place and what was being swept under the rug before is now out in the open?

 

I agree with your whole post.  While I'm certainly aware that some view me as irreconcilably rude and beyond redemption, I only seek to move the debate "forward".  Giving quarter to the deluded, regardless of how "nice" they might be, is antithetical to that goal.

 

Being "nice" perpetuates the status quo.  While superstition might bring comfort to some, I'm not required to participate.  Pretending that statements of superstition or delusion are a useful contribution to a technical discussion (we are discussing technology, are we not?) is tacit approval of that superstition or delusion IMHO.

 

Audiophilia, and society at large,  are transforming.  There will inevitably be nostalgic lamentations and histrionic hand wringing about the "good old days" when people were "nice" to each other.  I'm still not really understanding why regarding demonstrably delusional statements as delusional is rude, but then again, I never really understood the "audiophilia as a lifestyle" mindset in the first place.  And I've been into "hifi" since the 70s.  I am, apparently, an outlier.

 

I'm grateful that I'm allowed to express these opinions and not ostracized as would be the case on most other audiophile forums.  Some on this forum have said directly that opinions like mine should be suppressed in the interests of "civility", and I appreciate that Chris allows discussion that makes some uncomfortable.

[wgscott]

11 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Some on this forum have said directly that opinions like mine should be suppressed in the interests of "civility", and I appreciate that Chris allows discussion that makes some uncomfortable.

 

This kind of thing is precisely what I had in mind.  The "interest of civility" leads to intolerance of people,  which strikes me as being a much worse thing that being intolerant of an idea.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Posted 5 hours ago

6 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Some on this forum have said directly that opinions like mine should be suppressed in the interests of "civility", and I appreciate that Chris allows discussion that makes some uncomfortable.

 

5 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

This kind of thing is precisely what I had in mind.  The "interest of civility" leads to intolerance of people,  which strikes me as being a much worse thing that being intolerant of an idea.

 

Seems to me you guys are way over complicating things.

 

Some opinions may require suppression or even censorship (like inciting violence, vilification).

 

Short of that we are talking about expressing your opinion in a civil manner  in which case it should not lead to intolerance of idea or person. The content may lead to intolerance of people in some cases but I submit that it is far more likely to be the way it is said.

 

[Ralf11]

I am not tolerant of morphic fields 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I am not tolerant of morphic fields 

 

some people aren't tolerant of gluten, I don't see it getting all offended

[Ralf11]

of the gluten is offended - that's why it rises up in anger!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

of the gluten is offended - that's why it rises up in anger!

 

Yeast rises up in anger - gluten just gets the sh*ts

[christopher3393]

Been thinking about this and doing some reading. Civility is more than manners and etiquette. "Civility" is sometimes invoked to silence or marginalize others. genuine civility is not that facade. Of course, there are cases when a decision has to be made to exclude voices. Not all speech should be tolerated. But there is a huge range between easily tolerable differences and speech that should not be tolerated. This requires discernment and isn't always easy.

 

Some key elements of true civility are respect, restraint, and responsibility.

 

Tolerance is an important part of civility. Fundamentally, it is about tolerance of differences. Whether one is tolerant or intolerant in one's response often has to do with trust/ distrust, and tensions between pride and embarrassment/shame. So there is a lot of emotional stuff at stake and not just clashing of ideas, disagreement, argument. In a civilized disagreement, it is best to identify precisely where the disagreement lies, put the best arguments forward for both sides, make sure these are understood, where possible seek common ground, and when all is said and done civilly agree to disagree if that is how things end.

 

This probably sounds wildly idealistic, but I've seen it in practice many times in real world group discussions in academic settings. I've also seen it fall apart for a myriad of reasons. It isn't easy. It is, imo, worth working on.

[crenca]

9 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

This probably sounds wildly idealistic...

 

 

I would not say it is idealistic, though I do believe it presupposes a "con-sensus" (i.e. "with"-"sense", or the same sense, understanding, and view) of what it means to be part of the city (thinking of the entomology:  civilis).  

 

In other words the devil is in the details.  Anyone (and I submit just about everyone) can and does agree to the outline as you describe it.  What then happens is a topic or particular fact/situation/experience comes up in discussion that happens to be a kind of "non negotiable" in that overspills the boundaries of "civil disagreement".  Examples are easy to point too:  "science" vs. "creationism", whether one should stand for or burn the flag, who and what is a human being, and what is Reality (with a capital R) and what is not. 

 

These kinds of stressors then reveal that the participants are not all from the same city, and thus what is "civil" to one is not nothing more, and nothing less than, uncivil too another.  At this point these citizens-in-discussion can then try to look at these kind of foundational presuppositions - but this almost NEVER happens.  Turns out, people are not very good at the ground they walk on - they are usually too busy, too anxious, too fill-in-the-blank to do anything other than keep their eyes on the horizon.  

 

So, in the modern world you get this kind of endless debate between the city's and it really is a proxy for a power struggle - which con-sensus is going to define the terms of the "civil" debate...

[tmtomh]

Many wise comments here. IMHO the main barrier to civility here and in much other public and online discussion is the very poor understanding many of us have of the purpose of free and open discussion.

 

You can pick pretty much any page of this thread at random and you'll see at least one post making some version of the argument that civility is a concept that comes dangerously close to censorious politeness, aka "PC" or "groupthink," and that it's more important to preserve the right to be disagreeable in the name of science and truth and vigorous debate.

 

Of course one has a right to offend others. But increasingly we live in a public sphere in which causing offense - or at the very least being aggressively indifferent to the impact of our words on others - is specifically held up as the best kind of speech. Especially on the internet, where the social ties are weaker than in-person communities, too many of us have made a false idol out of acting like selfish a**holes.

 

Argument and debate are by definition a collective endeavor. Self-centered speech with no regard for others' feelings is performance art, not discussion. @crenca and @christopher3393 make some astute comments about this above, and I'm sure others have earlier in the thread.

We all like snark and sarcasm and zingers, and we all like a juicy opportunity to grind an ax. Fair enough. But when we try to dignify that behavior as a First Amendment-inspired act of freedom, or as a heroic blow struck in the name of science against superstition, that's when civility gets destroyed by our individual egos and our unwillingness to act like proper adults.

 

IMHO one simple way to increase civility is to truly respond to others. If you're in an argument with someone here but there are one or more points that you actually agree with them on, why not acknowledge those? You still retain your full prerogative to lay into the person on the major points where you disagree. If you like what someone says, click the Like/Upvote button. If you are arguing with Person A but in the process echoing or agreeing with Person B, why not explicitly acknowledge or tag Person B in your comment? And if someone says something you disagree with in passing, why not think twice before taking the entire thread down a tangent just so you can be right about a small point what wasn't even the main point of the discussion? You always can start a new thread about that tangential point.

 

There are tons of opportunities here and all over social media and such for us to more explicitly connect what we say with what others have said, whether we agree or disagree with them. That's what builds community and trust, and IMHO that's what civility is about.

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Argument and debate are by definition a collective endeavor. Self-centered speech with no regard for others' feelings is performance art, not discussion...

 

I like the way you put that.  I would say however that "feelings" is not quite the right word.  It has to be something larger, more significant than "feelings" because people can and do have feelings that don't deserve much (e.g. they can be childish, etc.), and sometimes it is necessary and good to if not directly challenge those feelings, to at least not allow them to control the discussion. 

 

No, it has to be a regard and respect for people as a thing-in-of-itself.  Not sure how to phrase it.  It is a weakness in our modern technocratic and "meritocratic" societies in that we tend to judge people (and everything else) in a kind of utilitarian way - in a  "what are you doing for me now" sense.

 

[tmtomh]

14 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

No, it has to be a regard and respect for people as a thing-in-of-itself.  Not sure how to phrase it.  It is a weakness in our modern technocratic and "meritocratic" societies in that we tend to judge people (and everything else) in a kind of utilitarian way - in a  "what are you doing for me now" sense.

 

 

I agree with your modification of the notion of "feelings" I mentioned above. And I think you've phrased it quite well, actually!

[christopher3393]

17 hours ago, crenca said:

 

I would not say it is idealistic, though I do believe it presupposes a "con-sensus" (i.e. "with"-"sense", or the same sense, understanding, and view) of what it means to be part of the city (thinking of the entomology:  civilis).  

 

In other words the devil is in the details.  Anyone (and I submit just about everyone) can and does agree to the outline as you describe it.  What then happens is a topic or particular fact/situation/experience comes up in discussion that happens to be a kind of "non negotiable" in that overspills the boundaries of "civil disagreement".  Examples are easy to point too:  "science" vs. "creationism", whether one should stand for or burn the flag, who and what is a human being, and what is Reality (with a capital R) and what is not. 

 

These kinds of stressors then reveal that the participants are not all from the same city, and thus what is "civil" to one is not nothing more, and nothing less than, uncivil too another.  At this point these citizens-in-discussion can then try to look at these kind of foundational presuppositions - but this almost NEVER happens.  Turns out, people are not very good at the ground they walk on - they are usually too busy, too anxious, too fill-in-the-blank to do anything other than keep their eyes on the horizon.  

 

So, in the modern world you get this kind of endless debate between the city's and it really is a proxy for a power struggle - which con-sensus is going to define the terms of the "civil" debate...

 

I think you make important points for discussion. Regarding one of them, "what is "civil" to one is nothing more, and nothing less than, uncivil too another", what do you see as prime examples on this site? 

[christopher3393]

In the meantime, something else I found and that digs a little deeper into what civility is:

Quote

Civility is not fundamentally about politeness but about proportionality; it is not a virtue with fixity in its rules but rather about measured-ness in engagement.  

Civility is… at the service of the promotion of a discourse that furthers the common good. As a virtue it asks for an expression of good will among all citizens, a good will that expresses itself not only in stances of respect and tolerance but also in the due diligence to express truthfully one’s own counterpart’s actual positions. But that good will, according to the context, must prudentially and therefore proportionately propose its argument in a style that advances the common good.  ---James Keenan

 

...a high standard.

 

Here at CA, do we recognize enough goods in common to give us a real stake in cultivating the capacity for tolerance across what divides us?

[Samuel T Cogley]

36 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Here at CA, do we recognize enough goods in common to give us a real stake in cultivating the capacity for tolerance across what divides us?

 

Civility is vital in, for example, diplomacy.  But we're not negotiating treaties or agreeing to political boundaries here.

 

While I believe I understand your desire to provide a clearly marked path of civility that we can choose to walk down or not, at some point, it starts to sound like monk-splaining.  And that might seem uncivil to some.

[christopher3393]

56 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Civility is vital in, for example, diplomacy.  But we're not negotiating treaties or agreeing to political boundaries here.

 

While I believe I understand your desire to provide a clearly marked path of civility that we can choose to walk down or not, at some point, it starts to sound like monk-splaining.  And that might seem uncivil to some.

 

hmmm...is it the avatar? Seriously, I think I get what you're saying, but like you recently posted, I'm trying to accept the risk of being misunderstood. Maybe I can help clarify my intentions. My questions here are real questions. By that I mean I don't have the answers. I am trying to question and understand, in part by offering explanations I've gathered from reading and reflecting on reading.

 

When I think of man-splaining, I think of condescension, particularly with regard to explaining the obvious. What is civility, tolerance, how do they apply here? I think you are implying that the answers are obvious. They are not obvious to me. Maybe they are to you, but that hasn't been my sense from what you have contributed.  I think we all have a tacit sense of what these things are so they may seem obvious, but I think upon investigation it may turn out they are not. 

 

You seem skeptical about civility. Maybe you even inherently distrust talk about as having a hidden uncivil agenda? You are entitled to that , if in fact that is your perspective. It might be interesting to explore it, but at present, I'm exploring with less skepticism.

 

As to whether this discussion is suitable for an audiophile hobby site? I think it is. Even if we come here to escape the world, the world leaks in, sometimes in surprising (and also not so surprising ways, in my opinion. Since I have been around this site, it seems like every few months the level of conflict on this site, and how it is handled, becomes the topic of its own thread. So there is concern here about how people treat, and mistreat each other. This is a core concern for a discussion based vehicle like this forum, which has relatively light-handed moderation....in my opinion that is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

hmmm...is it the avatar? Seriously, I think I get what you're saying, but like you recently posted, I'm trying to accept the risk of being misunderstood. Maybe I can help clarify my intentions. My questions here are real questions. By that I mean I don't have the answers. I am trying to question and understand, in part by offering explanations I've gathered from reading and reflecting on reading.

 

When I think of man-splaining, I think of condescension, particularly with regard to explaining the obvious. What is civility, tolerance, how do they apply here? I think you are implying that the answers are obvious. They are not obvious to me. Maybe they are to you, but that hasn't been my sense from what you have contributed.  I think we all have a tacit sense of what these things are so they may seem obvious, but I think upon investigation it may turn out they are not. 

 

You seem skeptical about civility. Maybe you even inherently distrust talk about as having a hidden uncivil agenda? You are entitled to that , if in fact that is your perspective. It might be interesting to explore it, but at present, I'm exploring with less skepticism.

 

As to whether this discussion is suitable for an audiophile hobby site? I think it is. Even if we come here to escape the world, the world leaks in, sometimes in surprising (and also not so surprising ways, in my opinion. Since I have been around this site, it seems like every few months the level of conflict on this site, and how it is handled, becomes the topic of its own thread. So there is concern here about how people treat, and mistreat each other. This is a core concern for a discussion based vehicle like this forum, which has relatively light-handed moderation....in my opinion that is.

 

I'm not skeptical about civility per se, I'm skeptical about the piety of those who seek to explain civility to "us".

 

You posted this some days ago:

 

 

...and one thing really stuck out for me in the quote you provided:

 

Quote

They're always here, ostensibly, to provide "clarity" and "truth" to the rest of us ignorant masses who are so dumb, we just want to share our happiness and our discoveries in music and audio. Only thing is, not one of them seems to recognize just how transparent they are.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, but I got a not too subtle "me too" from this:

 

Quote

 

Here is a quotation from early in the recently revived, and maligned, civility thread. It still rings true to me:

 

 

I took this to mean that you might be agreeing with those who choose ad hominem over reason.  At the very least, you seem to be agreeing with the tribal boundaries.  So I just assumed you have some dog in the fight and your implied objectivity was not really credible.  That's where the "monk-splaining" comes from.  With due respect, there is (perhaps only to me) the faintest whiff of hubris in many of your posts.

 

I sincerely appreciate your efforts to be a mediating influence here.  I've certainly committed a multitude of sins of incivility myself and I'm sure it might happen again. 

 

I'm only suggesting that you may be unwittingly guilty of some of the sins you seem to want to scold others for committing.  I still very much believe that demands for civility come mostly from the "old school" audiophile tribe, and they're nothing more than a proxy for lamentation about what audiophilia used to be.  The internet is a powerful democratizing influence on public discourse (many, especially the "old school", might say not for the better).  Sometimes incivility can take the form of presenting the "old ways" as "the right ways".  I do fail to see how something like, "that's how my momma raised me" has any place in a discussion about audio tech.  But I'm certainly willing to entertain further discourse so long us you haven't already joined a tribe.

 

And for the record, I don't consider myself the member of any tribe other than perhaps, "free thinker".

 

 

[fas42]

One of the magic words I see all the time is "deluded" - once that word is included in comments by one party with reference to someone else's experiences the red flag has been waved, and a downward spiral is usually to follow ...

[christopher3393]

17 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm not skeptical about civility per se, I'm skeptical about the piety of those who seek to explain civility to "us".

 

You posted this some days ago:

 

 

...and one thing really stuck out for me in the quote you provided:

 

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, but I got a not too subtle "me too" from this:

 

 

I took this to mean that you might be agreeing with those who choose ad hominem over reason.  At the very least, you seem to be agreeing with the tribal boundaries.  So I just assumed you have some dog in the fight and your implied objectivity was not really credible.  That's where the "monk-splaining" comes from.  With due respect, there is (perhaps only to me) the faintest whiff of hubris in many of your posts.

 

I sincerely appreciate your efforts to be a mediating influence here.  I've certainly committed a multitude of sins of incivility myself and I'm sure it might happen again. 

 

I'm only suggesting that you may be unwittingly guilty of some of the sins you seem to want to scold others for committing.  I still very much believe that demands for civility come mostly from the "old school" audiophile tribe, and they're nothing more than a proxy for lamentation about what audiophilia used to be.  The internet is a powerful democratizing influence on public discourse (many, especially the "old school", might say not for the better).  Sometimes incivility can take the form of presenting the "old ways" as "the right ways".  I do fail to see how something like, "that's how my momma raised me" has any place in a discussion about audio tech.  But I'm certainly willing to entertain further discourse so long us you haven't already joined a tribe.

 

And for the record, I don't consider myself the member of any tribe other than perhaps, "free thinker".

 

 

 

The subject here, as I read it, is civility and tolerance and how they apply to this forum generally. I feel like you are making me the subject and that you are vetting me, which strikes me as presumptuous. “Monk-splaining”, hubris, tribal, scolding, moralizing,“old school”, the suggestion of hypocrisy, all in one post on a Civility thread! Piling it on a bit thick, isn’t it? This  is all stated in a ‘civil’ manner, but could this be the very kind of veneer of politeness that you find so objectionable?

 

I agree that what presents itself as “freethought” sometimes looks surprisingly tribal.

 

The long quotation that I affirmed is from a statement by Barry Diament. I think context is important here:

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/index.htm

 

He is often brought up as an example of a great contributor who was driven away, a loss for the forum according to many. He was a very gracious communicator generally. But he had some subjective views that I think some members just couldn’t tolerate. To condemn the way he was treated puts me in a tribe in your eyes but it does not in mine. My concern there was fairness, not subjectivity in approaches to audio hardware.

 

 I’m not a "subjectivist” as I understand that applied here. I read and respect people like archimago, Sean Olive, Floyd Toole. I really like Tyll Hertsen’s approach to headphones. But why should I even have to say this? I try to take a measured practical position on approaching audio hardware, much like  Chris C. or Jud, or a number of others here that I appreciate and I don’t read as being tribal.

 

I’m not old school. Got serious about this hobby in 2011.

 

I do think it would be good to have thicker agreed upon definitions of loaded terms like objective, subjective especially. Maybe also “tribal” to the extent it names the heart of the problem here.

 

Enough about me. PM me if you must. Back to topic please, if there is any life left in it.

[wgscott]

25 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

“Monk-splaining”

 

You have to admit, this was kind of funny.

 

25 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

He is often brought up as an example of a great contributor who was driven away, a loss for the forum according to many. He was a very gracious communicator generally. But he had some subjective views that I think some members just couldn’t tolerate. To condemn the way he was treated puts me in a tribe in your eyes but it does not in mine. My concern there was fairness, not subjectivity in approaches to audio hardware.

 

Unless someone wrapped him up in duct tape and whisked him off in a car, I doubt he was driven away.  He may have decided not to post any more, but unless he was far more weak-willed than evidenced here, there isn't a compelling case for him being driven away.

 

I've given serious thought recently to no longer spending much (if any) time here due to a handful of particularly unpleasant folks, most of whom now populate my ignore list, but if that comes to pass, it is on me, not anyone else.

 

I very much valued Barry's opinions and point of view, FWIW. But it is his decision and his business how he wants to spend his time, not anyone else's.  We should all respect that.