Civility

[christopher3393]

33 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Here's a crazy idea:  Maybe instead of 'civility', we should be striving toward tolerance.

 

What do you see as the primary distinction between civility and tolerance and why do think tolerance might be a better goal?

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, rando said:

 

go kiss your mother

 

do you need a safe space, muffy?

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

What do you see as the primary distinction between civility and tolerance and why do think tolerance might be a better goal?

 

Why not just move to acceptance?

 

• Acceptance that some will see intendedly benign comments as intentionally antagonistic
• Acceptance that some will see intendedly helpful comments as worthless and subjective

 

 

[Ralf11]

Acceptance that there is no objective reality, or no way to understand it, so all "viewpoints" are equally valid???

[rando]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

do you need a safe space, muffy?

 

No, I was just riffing off the morally despicable PM that saw Mr. Lavorgna banned.  Should she not be alive anymore I'll revise that to think good thoughts about your mother.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Acceptance that there is no objective reality, or no way to understand it, so all "viewpoints" are equally valid???

 

Acceptance that petty bickering on an audiophile forum is a textbook example of a First World Problem???

[wgscott]

35 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

What do you see as the primary distinction between civility and tolerance and why do think tolerance might be a better goal?

 

I'm going by these dictionary definitions:

 

tolerance:  the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

 

civility:  formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

 

 Tolerance strikes me as a more genuine goal.

 

 

As a counter-example, Hydrogen Audio appears to be rather civil, but not at all tolerant (very explicitly and unapologetically, and encoded in the Terms of Service).

[mav52]

40 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Why not just move to acceptance?

 

• Acceptance that some will see intendedly benign comments as intentionally antagonistic
• Acceptance that some will see intendedly helpful comments as worthless and subjective

 

 

With with acceptance, someone has to accept it.  That is usually always the problem.  People have a hard time accepting someone elses ideas without a load of data to back it up.

[Ralf11]

47 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Acceptance that petty bickering on an audiophile forum is a textbook example of a First World Problem???

 

this entire forum and industry are First World Problems

[rayooo]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

this entire forum and industry are First World Problems

 

a + 10,000 to you!  

[fas42]

Mankind is still at a point where It's Important To Know That You're Right, and it's disturbing to some when there is overlap with people who think a different Rightness - just the type of "intelligent" entity who should be allowed to play with, say, nuclear weapons ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, wgscott said:

Thread summary:  

 

Some people hold opinions at variance with my own.   These sub-humans are, by definition, uncivilized, and should not be allowed to violate our safe space.

 

A change here or there to that statement.....

 

Some people hold opinions at variance with my own.   These humans are by definition uncivilized when they become uncivilized about it.

 

I (subjectivist) didn't invite them to enter my space, the least they could do is show a little tact.

 

I (objectivist) am stating what I consider to be relevant to their discussion, if they don't accept my assertions the least they could do is be civil about it.

 

What's unreasonable about that? Too "wussy" ?

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

Should we abandon the "quest for civility"? Is it a hopelessly romantic, historically fanciful and vague ideal?

 

Given how nasty and intractable the conflicts on this forum can be,  is it  naïve to imagine we can somehow transcend our clashing sets of values and miraculously agree on what counts as acceptable behavior and tolerable opinion? After all, if we could find common ground on something as fundamental as that, would we have the sort of nasty and intractable conflicts we call on "civility" to manage in the first place?

 

Is the common ground here may be thinner than some of us think? Does "civility" require that we develop thicker skins in responding to other people’s rudeness or disrespect?

 

Any way one looks at it, I think civility is a challenge in a number of ways.

 

Yeh, ironically, civilized debate typically occurs at various scientific venues but I wonder how discourse unfolds on various pure science fora.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, wgscott said:

tolerance:  the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

 

civility:  formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

 

 Tolerance strikes me as a more genuine goal.

 

One is an attitude the other a manifested behavior; one begets the other.

 

Who said psychology was simple..Edit, obvious?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 hours ago, wgscott said:

As a counter-example, Hydrogen Audio appears to be rather civil, but not at all tolerant

 

Genuine Question - What percentage of their members are "objectivists" and therfore more like minded. My impression was subjectivists are not "tolerated" so may be represented in smaller numbers??

[Teresa]

On 10/8/2017 at 2:42 PM, vmartell22 said:

...That is the nature of the process. I balk at any suggestion that science is a belief system.  It is not. Both subjectivists and objectivists will splatter on the ground after a fall. That is gravity. That is the knowledge we obtain from science. It will happen because it is not a belief system; gravity is an objective fact, understood thanks to science. Whether you "believe in science" or not! ...

 

No it's knowledge we obtained from observation (both sight and touch). Science advances a theory why it's so. Remember Sir Isaac Newton and the apple?

 

On 10/8/2017 at 3:09 PM, crenca said:

...I want to second these two posts.  The subjectivist position at the end of the day appears to reject the objectivist position (obviously and expectedly) but also want to carve out a special status for itself, a kind of "don't tread on me" and even more,wants to exclude views that don't agree with it as some kind of "personal" affront.

 

I asked for a synonym that would be acceptable to subjectivists upstream for "delusional" because if you switch out one in spec CAT 5 cable for another, and claim even minor auditory benefits (putting aside the possibility that you made some other significant change in the process in some way you are not aware), I submit you are delusional (or whatever the civil synonym for the term is).  That's "ok", I have been and will continue to be deluded myself about many things.  

 

I recognize the need for civility, and even recognize that particular objectivists can use and abuse things like "science", etc.  However, subjectivism appears to be doing something different in that it appears to want to be handled with kid gloves otherwise a criticism becomes personal and uncivil.

 

 

Subjectivists ask for no special treatment, just normal civilized behavior from those who disagree.

 

Subjectivists by their very nature are open to nearly all reasonable opinions. For example, I have never demanded anyone prove what they did or didn’t hear, I take their word that they believe what they did or didn’t hear, and if I'm interested I would have to listen for myself to determine if I like the sound. No big deal really.  

 

How do you know a digital cable cannot affect sound quality? I've read that 1's and 0's in a cable are represented by two different chosen frequencies far enough apart so that bits aren't accidentally changed when presented to the DAC. However, these audio frequencies are analog and during the travel time in the cable some say noise, timing, and other non-digital artifacts can make it into the signal when the receiving DAC converts the digital bits to analog. I don't know much about this, but I don't understand how it is supposed to be delusional. 

 

On 10/8/2017 at 6:52 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Not trying to antagonize you but just interchange the two terms subjectivist and objectivist and I would agree.

 

It becomes personal and uncivil when it becomes personal and uncivil.

 

I agree. In my experience that is so, I have switched the two terms in case others missed it.

 

Quote

The objectivist position at the end of the day appears to reject the subjectivist position (obviously and expectedly) but also want to carve out a special status for itself, a kind of "don't tread on me" and even more, wants to exclude views that don't agree with it as some kind of "personal" affront.

 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Genuine Question - What percentage of their members are "objectivists" and therfore more like minded. My impression was subjectivists are not "tolerated" so may be represented in smaller numbers??

You're basically not even allowed to post something subjective there about SQ. A term of service. You can say something looks nice, but you can't say it "sounds better" without "proof". 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, firedog said:

You're basically not even allowed to post something subjective there about SQ. A term of service. You can say something looks nice, but you can't say it "sounds better" without "proof". 

 

That would explain their agreed upon "civility", an agreement not to disagree.

Edit: Basically what Bill said

[mansr]

49 minutes ago, firedog said:

You're basically not even allowed to post something subjective there about SQ. A term of service. You can say something looks nice, but you can't say it "sounds better" without "proof". 

Those rules serve the purpose of the forum. This forum has a different purpose and thus needs different rules.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Those rules serve the purpose of the forum

 

Censorship or civility?

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Censorship or civility?

Keeping the discussion focused on actual technical topics rather than incessant bickering about cables.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

29 minutes ago, mansr said:

Keeping the discussion focused on actual technical topics rather than incessant bickering about cables.

 

Exclusivity but fair enough. 

[randyhat]

19 hours ago, wgscott said:

tolerance:  the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

 

civility:  formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

These terms are not mutually exclusive.  Civility is simply the way we convey our tolerance.

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, randyhat said:

These terms are not mutually exclusive.  Civility is simply the way we convey our tolerance.

 

Or hide our intolerance.  The first has the merit of honesty.

[crenca]

23 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

Should we abandon the "quest for civility"? Is it a hopelessly romantic, historically fanciful and vague ideal?

 

Given how nasty and intractable the conflicts on this forum can be,  is it  naïve to imagine we can somehow transcend our clashing sets of values and miraculously agree on what counts as acceptable behavior and tolerable opinion? After all, if we could find common ground on something as fundamental as that, would we have the sort of nasty and intractable conflicts we call on "civility" to manage in the first place?

 

Is the common ground here may be thinner than some of us think? Does "civility" require that we develop thicker skins in responding to other people’s rudeness or disrespect?

 

Any way one looks at it, I think civility is a challenge in a number of ways.

 

 

Samuel (with consumerism), wgscott, and others have built upon this post.  

 

The modern project and our western, liberal societies and selves (don't think we have many, or any, folks from truly anti-liberal or anti-western cultures in this thread) have this built in contradiction.  On the one hand, we are products of the scientific view of reality, a "technological ontology" (think Hans Jonas here Christopher3393).  On the other hand, we are also radical individualists - Cartesian Selves who think that we/reality can be anything we can think ourselves as, and by extension reality "out there" has to submit to our Self or it becomes something to be overcome (i.e. a violation and affront to who I am).  This tension defines our modern lives so profoundly that I wonder if it is itself not the very essence of being modern.

 

This is a whopper of a contradiction and it comes apart in all sorts of ways culturally, legally, technologically, etc.  Recently (i.e. in the last 30 years or so) a lost "Civility" has been very lamented in all sorts of spheres (e.g. politically, the media, etc. - everyone is noticing an ever increasing coarseness).  

 

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?