Online trolls are 'everyday sadists'

[4est]

Peter: It stops being TIC when the underlying sentiment is real. In which case it is a lightly veiled pontification.

Hi 4est,

 

Sorry, but I cannot see this as trolling at all... To me, Dennis' post read about as much TIC as they can come. While the underlying though may have been the drive, the complete over-the-top should have given you some hints to this...

 

Kind regards,

Peter

[ringenesherre]

Peter: It stops being TIC when the underlying sentiment is real. In which case it is a lightly veiled pontification.

 

IMHO it would be not even half as funny if there wasn't some truth to it.

 

I wonder why you are reacting so fiercely to this post?

 

Cheers,

Peter

[thesurfingalien]

Peter: It stops being TIC when the underlying sentiment is real. In which case it is a lightly veiled pontification.

 

4est, I understand what you are saying, but then I have to ask you what you believe Dennis' underlying sentiment is.

[4est]

He has made that well known Peter. Mostly what I do not care for it the extremist position he puts those who do not agree with him in.

4est, I understand what you are saying, but then I have to ask you what you believe Dennis' underlying sentiment is.

[PopPop]

?????.............

 

We do have a voting thread where I and ESLdude as well as others with an objective disposition are being considered for non voluntary evacuation........and you did cast your vote for our removal. Would you like a second thread to reaffirm your convictions? Maybe a thread deciding who meet's the criteria for removal? Would that be more to your liking?

 

My vote had more to do with trolls than objectivist, my misunderstanding. The problem is fixed now. I really don't wish to see this forum diluted into a single point of view, I admit there's a lot to learn that I have yet to appreciate. So, I really meant no offense to you or anyone else. Sorry.

[Paul R]

Forrest has a point - instead of staying on subject, Dennis put in a thinly disguised attempt to put forward his agenda. What exactly that agenda may be, is hard to tell. But I do get the impression Dennis would be quite happy if everyone on this site turned into an obedient little soldier and fell in line agreeing with him. The constant repetition of such utter tripe is meant to condition people to accept it over time. To desensitize people.

 

Honestly, I find that kind of behavior rather appalling in anyone, but it is double so when someone with brains is doing it. However, it is well within the bounds of acceptable behavior, and what I think about it is just my opinion. I am probably an outlier with this.

 

-Paul

 

 

Hi 4est,

 

Sorry, but I cannot see this as trolling at all... To me, Dennis' post read about as much TIC as they can come. While the underlying though may have been the drive, the complete over-the-top should have given you some hints to this...

 

Kind regards,

Peter

[thesurfingalien]

He has made that well known Peter. Mostly what I do not care for it the extremist position he puts those who do not agree with him in.

 

Hi 4est,

 

Again, I understand what you are saying. But is the same not true for people that do not agree with Dennis? I submit to you that it all depends on what we believe to be true... You and others may see some of Dennis' posts and opinions/positions as extreme while I do not. On the other hand, I may see some posts going against Dennis with opinions/positions that I feel are rather extreme while you probably do not.

 

For example and given the title of this topic, I could have interpreted your posts as saying "Dennis is a sadist". Now, I am 100% sure you do not mean to say this, but if I wanted to read it this way I could have...

 

Kind regards,

Peter

[Paul R]

Mayhem is just being contrary - he knows that nobody here can or would forcibly eject him from more than a thread or too. The same goes for Dennis or almost anyone here who claims they are objective in nature. They are not objective of course, but they might have slept in a Holiday Inn Express in the past month or so...

 

-Paul

 

 

My vote had more to do with trolls than objectivist, my misunderstanding. The problem is fixed now. I really don't wish to see this forum diluted into a single point of view, I admit there's a lot to learn that I have yet to appreciate. So, I really meant no offense to you or anyone else. Sorry.

[4est]

I did not say Dennis' position was extreme. I said that I did not like that he attempts to make those who do not agree with him into extremists or outliers when in fact that is not the case at all. The poll numbers indicate many others reside in neither camp and few on the extremes.

Hi 4est,

 

Again, I understand what you are saying. But is the same not true for people that do not agree with Dennis? I submit to you that it all depends on what we believe to be true... You and others may see some of Dennis' posts and opinions/positions as extreme while I do not. On the other hand, I may see some posts going against Dennis with opinions/positions that I feel are rather extreme while you probably do not.

 

For example and given the title of this topic, I could have interpreted your posts as saying "Dennis is a sadist". Now, I am 100% sure you do not mean to say this, but if I wanted to read it this way I could have...

 

Kind regards,

Peter

[mayhem13]

So it seems one for the points of controversy is what a member's intentions are when starting a thread.....that there might...or might not be a hidden or underlying agenda. Left to discovery, members here on the opposite end of the thread starter's position are almost surely going to formulate a conclusion. I submit the question then how do we avoid such for drawn conclusions? I could submit that when a member starts a thread that he/she feels might be controversial, a brief explanation of what the purpose of the thread might be can go a long way towards cooling the climate before I'll spirited replies begin. Members who wish to express a viewpoint will, and those unfamiliar with the topic being discussed remain free to observe or ask questions on points that might require clarification. Those members who feel the topic is too controversial for their liking, can.....and should just avoid the topic all together. Many of us have done this in real world situations such as discussions on politics or religion in the work place. Anyone who partakes in those IMO certainly is asking for trouble! Lol

[wdw]

Mockery is a rust that corrodes all it touches.

 

Milan Kundera

 

 

 

Well to be fair, the poll was asked to leave, not forced to leave.

 

And I have been considering voluntary non-participation. Why tell the truth to those who are happier with the fantasy?

 

They don't like it, and aren't going to accept it.

 

Let me see where that goes in some conjecture.

 

In three years, no 'serious' computer audiophile would consider playing files back at less than 1.536 khz sampling rate nor less than 32 bit. 64 bit DACs being the truly top quality at that time. 64 bit DACs have just a little more air and space and be more like analog.

 

No 'serious' computer audiophile would dare play any alleged music on anything less than a specialized computer with video card based processing done by $1k and up specialized software able to function at more than 300 gigaflops. Said computer obviously not allowed or capable to function in any other way than a glorified iPod music delivery device. Don't even ask what is required to have an audiophile network server for music. You probably cannot afford the cryogenic network wiring and wireless routers much less the entire system. Even buying 'decent' power cords might be a stretch.

 

No high quality music files could be tolerated except when they are burned by mastering companies with special power supplies and shielded conditions onto SSD drives which must be mailed out and plugged into the appropriate computer. Nor can any copies or renaming or moving on those drives be allowed as it would spoil the musical goodness of the files to be treated in that manner. Who would have thought audiophile file quality would answer the prayers of the conglomerates to eliminate piracy concerns.

 

USB cables, obviously the most degrading cable in all of audio, will be replaced with a special psycho-optic SATA 16 cable to be no more than 3 cm in length. Again going longer than 3 cm will cause a loss of air and ease in listening. Toes won't tap, wives won't notice so much from another room etc and so forth.

 

DBT testing in audio will be banned as harmful to the happiness and free expression of musical goodness as no good has ever come from knowledge. Knowledge is stressful and interferes with musical enjoyment. No knowledgeable people can possibly be actual music lovers.

 

Industry publications will have articles explaining how it is possible to have budget computer audio rigs costing no more than $10k, and will also have articles exploring what is needed to save high end audio.

 

And in truth a few people will know a basic USB/SPDIF converter and a third hand netbook playing 48/24 files will provide all the fidelity humans can perceive. Such perverted individuals will hide in the shame appropriate to them.

 

Meanwhile MP3's played over smartwatches using $6 Beats headphones will represent 99.997% of all music consumption in the world.

[wgscott]

parody is the highest form of flattery

[Paul R]

Well, yeah. That is a good idea. Avoiding mocking the opposition is also quite good form as well. Demeaning the opposition is one sure way to irritate some folks, and then of course, if anyone says anything about it, it is "unfairly picking on" the "rational" side of things.

 

See the trap there?

 

What it really is is playing games to make one of the many sides stand out as "rational" while having a perfectly legitimate way to label the other sides as "irrational." Dumb debating tactic that everyone learned in their Freshman year I suppose.

 

-Paul

 

So it seems one for the points of controversy is what a member's intentions are when starting a thread.....that there might...or might not be a hidden or underlying agenda. Left to discovery, members here on the opposite end of the thread starter's position are almost surely going to formulate a conclusion. I submit the question then how do we avoid such for drawn conclusions? I could submit that when a member starts a thread that he/she feels might be controversial, a brief explanation of what the purpose of the thread might be can go a long way towards cooling the climate before I'll spirited replies begin. Members who wish to express a viewpoint will, and those unfamiliar with the topic being discussed remain free to observe or ask questions on points that might require clarification. Those members who feel the topic is too controversial for their liking, can.....and should just avoid the topic all together. Many of us have done this in real world situations such as discussions on politics or religion in the work place. Anyone who partakes in those IMO certainly is asking for trouble! Lol

[Paul R]

Sure - if both sides are smart enough to accept it as humor and the equivalent of a scripted television comedy.

 

Parody is also one of the most effective advertising and propaganda tools ever invented.

 

-Paul

parody is the highest form of flattery

[wgscott]

Do you really not distinguish between making fun of an idea and making fun of a person?

[InfernoSTi]

Perhaps one unfinished part of this discussion has to do with the actual health of the forum.

 

Here is a neat little article on forum health for those that like numbers: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/rowem/files/mrowe-iswc2011.pdf

 

Here is a tidy summary of their findings:

 

 

Our analysis of community forums has explored the correlation between community composition and health, and how predictions can be performed. Through this analysis we have identified four key take-home messages:

 

1. Healthy communities contain more elitists and popular participants.

 

2. Unhealthy communities contain many taciturns and ignored users.

 

3. Communities exhibit idiosyncratic compositions, thus reflecting the differing dynamics that are required/exhibited by individual communities.

 

4. A stable composition, with a mix of roles, increases community health.

 

To me, this shows that we have a lot more categories than "trolls" or "objectivist/subjectivist" that can be applied, regardless of posting subject.

 

This new set of categories demonstrates that a mix of roles and an active voice, regardless of topic, is generally more healthy. Unfortunately, when people are turned off and don't post or they feel ignored, the health of the forum is lower. So it turns out, statistically speaking, the health of the forum is related to inclusion, not exclusion, meaning participation (i.e. if you post, you get a reply), as well as that mix of participants generally not changing (i.e. the forum is predictable rather than one way one day and different the next).

 

In digesting this information, the main issue I have outstanding is early posters with a simple question that get a snarky response they don't understand that is basically an on-going "discussion" OT…we see this all the time. This behavior seems to be more of an issue to forum health than a long and heated debate amongst "elitists" on some nuanced issues. Perhaps we could all agree to make new members feel welcome and engage them as opposed to using their posts to beat that dead horse to water to make it drink?

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Best,

John

[PopPop]

Hmmm, good point wgscott. But, if you make fun of someones beliefs wouldn't you expect them to take it personally? At least on some level? Although I like to throw out humor I honestly think I'm the worst when it comes to "getting" the intent of what people say.

[wdw]

parody is the highest form of flattery

 

parody without wit is just mean-spirited

[Allan F]

But, if you make fun of someones beliefs wouldn't you expect them to take it personally?

 

parody without wit is just mean-spirited

 

+1

 

More importantly, IMO, parody and mockery are hardly the same thing. The former may be satirical but it lacks the element of ridicule and derision that characterizes the latter.

[wgscott]

There are some people who kind of enjoy taking sanctimonious offense to pretty much any statement other than "I really like vanilla." The intensity of the reaction is directly proportional to the ridiculousness of the belief, and spares the believer from having to think about the merits of the belief.

 

This is, in essence, why one "side" can make comments like "flat-earth objectivists" and not see it as trolling, but sees a claim like "all power cables sound the same if you close your eyes" as pointless trolling. It is also instructive to see which "side" is always calling for curtailment of discussion. I submit it is the "side" that has the most to lose from having their beliefs challenged in any respect.

[Paul R]

I admit I always see that distinction in your posts, and your stuff is often hilariously funny.

 

But other's are not so skilled as you are, and I include myself with that group.

 

Paul

 

 

Do you really not distinguish between making fun of an idea and making fun of a person?

[mayhem13]

Well, yeah. That is a good idea. Avoiding mocking the opposition is also quite good form as well. Demeaning the opposition is one sure way to irritate some folks, and then of course, if anyone says anything about it, it is "unfairly picking on" the "rational" side of things.

 

See the trap there?

 

What it really is is playing games to make one of the many sides stand out as "rational" while having a perfectly legitimate way to label the other sides as "irrational." Dumb debating tactic that everyone learned in their Freshman year I suppose.

 

-Paul

 

You see Paul, replies like this are exactly what makes it difficult for you and I to share a mutual respect for each other. Did I misunderstand your reply?.....or did you intend to clearly convey that my suggestion is a juvenile attempt to placate the more intelligent members here?.....like yourself?..........or that I misunderstand the intentions of those posting controversial topics? Would it be fair to group all those who raise controversial topics as trolls, rabble rousers, trouble makers?

 

Just so we're clear, that's pretty much my comprehension of what's quoted here. All this mutual respect......what's it really based on? Do you respect my opinions or me yours? Does anyone really respect an opinion that differs from theirs? Do we need to take on the roles of teacher and student as suggested so many times in threads here where someone suggests to listen and learn? For me, that's where the end of respect begins.....and the learning certainly stops. Maybe that's the real root of many of these conflicts here....people being told either directly or in context that the readers isn't a reader but a student.

 

......and how do we sidestep conveying that message?.....aaaah....the ever popular IMO, IMHO ( why, is one more credible than the other? ),YMMV.....and so on. Does this really exonerate the poster from taking on the role of teacher, but instead merely sharing an opinion? I would offer for consideration that could it be the reader's predisposition which determines the tone of how the discussion continues?......just as I have done here.

[Paul R]

Yeah, I can see that. But remember, most people (average Joes) are going to come into the forum and be presented with 15 "impossible" things before they can even get their bearings. Power cables make a difference? Digital files can sound different? Isn't CD still perfect forever? Why do I need an external DAC, why isn't the one in my MacBook good enough? All this is compared to a turntable? - I can go on for QUITE a while - that is a pretty deep rabbit hole.

 

It is, in fact, enough to make the bristles spring up on anyone's neck and initiate a defensive response. The next thing you know is the armchair engineers are firing up and - well - the war is on.

 

Some basic and easy to understand introduction to all this would be nice, and an area where people can ask questions without getting into the middle of the equivalent of the War of the Roses might be a good idea. A parody free, argument free, zone - on the surface - sounds like a good idea.

 

The kicker of course, is that building and maintaining such a zone is a lot of work and people are going to get tired of doing the work straight up. Also, that section of the site would be rather boring in some ways.

 

Nothing comes without a cost.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

There are some people who kind of enjoy taking sanctimonious offense to pretty much any statement other than "I really like vanilla." The intensity of the reaction is directly proportional to the ridiculousness of the belief, and spares the believer from having to think about the merits of the belief.

 

This is, in essence, why one "side" can make comments like "flat-earth objectivists" and not see it as trolling, but sees a claim like "all power cables sound the same if you close your eyes" as pointless trolling. It is also instructive to see which "side" is always calling for curtailment of discussion. I submit it is the "side" that has the most to lose from having their beliefs challenged in any respect.

[wgscott]

The "think of the newbie" argument cuts both ways. If Joe hears that copying or downloading a lossless digital file degrades it, md5sums can't detect audible changes, and if Joe thinks he needs to re-rip 10,000 CDs because he ripped to ALAC and has since been convinced wav is better and he can't get there just by converting the pre-ripped lossless files to a new lossless format, are you really doing Joe a favor by not allowing such claims to be challenged?

[Paul R]

That would depend - the first two sentances referred to your post - 'Well, yeah. That is a good idea."

 

The rest of the post amplified and worked with your idea, but was not a direct comment on it.

 

What would have made that clearer to you? Adding a paragraph break after the first two sentences? I would have probably signaled non-verbally that I was moving on from commenting on your post to talking about the ideas there. So let's break it down a little more.

 

Avoiding mocking the opposition is also quite good form as well.

Is this something you agree or disagree with?

 

Demaning the opposition is one sure way to irritate some folks,

Agree or disagree?

... then of course, if anyone says anything about it, it is "unfairly picking on" the "rational" side of things.

Agree or disagree?

 

Just in case it is not clear, this is a reference to those who claim to only be following the tenants of good science, or doing this to protect the dear peepul from untruth, or whatever rationalization they use to defend their purposes. They claim the rational high ground.

 

See the trap there?

Do you see that the gambit often played is a simple conversational trap?

 

The rest of the post is just amplifying that the tactic is neither particularly valid nor anything particularly new.

 

Where in any of that can you draw a conclusion that I was pointing a finger to you? I was talking about people that routinely apply this tactic. It is not restricted to "old timers" here either. You can see it sometimes in people new to the forum but with experience at other forums that are less - civilized.

 

If you want an honest example, I think Dennis sometimes skirts the edge of this behavior - look at his provocative thread titles and the number of them. Since I believe he does this without malice, I'll live with it. He has brains and ofttimes shares his thinking. I do not view Dennis as an audiophile authority either, so I at least, would automatically cut him plenty of slack.

 

Indeed, I rather like Dennis, for all that I do not agree with his thinking or conclusions. (shrug) So what? Nobody elected me God and demanded I bring the heathen to heal. Wouldn't want the job even if they did.

 

And back to the point, you honestly had trouble parsing that out of those few lines?

 

-Paul

 

 

You see Paul, replies like this are exactly what makes it difficult for you and I to share a mutual respect for each other. Did I misunderstand your reply?.....or did you intend to clearly convey that my suggestion is a juvenile attempt to placate the more intelligent members here?.....like yourself?..........or that I misunderstand the intentions of those posting controversial topics? Would it be fair to group all those who raise controversial topics as trolls, rabble rousers, trouble makers?

 

Just so we're clear, that's pretty much my comprehension of what's quoted here. All this mutual respect......what's it really based on? Do you respect my opinions or me yours? Does anyone really respect an opinion that differs from theirs? Do we need to take on the roles of teacher and student as suggested so many times in threads here where someone suggests to listen and learn? For me, that's where the end of respect begins.....and the learning certainly stops. Maybe that's the real root of many of these conflicts here....people being told either directly or in context that the readers isn't a reader but a student.

 

......and how do we sidestep conveying that message?.....aaaah....the ever popular IMO, IMHO ( why, is one more credible than the other? ),YMMV.....and so on. Does this really exonerate the poster from taking on the role of teacher, but instead merely sharing an opinion? I would offer for consideration that could it be the reader's predisposition which determines the tone of how the discussion continues?......just as I have done here.