Article: Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

[wgscott]

I think the analogy to religious belief is spot-on.

 

In my own experience, I have received threats of death or grievous bodily harm from two sets of people:

 

(1) Christian fundamentalists, in response to scientific publications regarding theories of the origin of life in journals like Nature, Science and Cell.

 

(2) Audiophiles, in response to things I have posted here.

 

The conclusion is inescapable.

 

 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Sometimes I wish everyone would get a thicker skin and not be outraged so easily. We have a global community with countless different native languages and personal backgrounds from tons of cultures. Perhaps we should also give people a break and the benefit of the doubt. 
 

 

 

Well, at least we can console ourselves in the knowledge that much of that outrage is of the faux variety.

 

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

It wasn't about you at all[,] only the statement you made. 

 

This is a fundamental asymmetry that I think leads to many of the conflicts we see here.  Taken to the logical extreme, a subjective viewpoint is inherently a statement about its proponents, so any critique of the viewpoint becomes very difficult to separate from a personal attack, from the subjectivist's point of view. 

[wgscott]

It seems like it is faux outrage about imaginary persecution perpetrated by godless atheist objectivists.

[wgscott]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

 

You don't say?

[wgscott]

This "editorial" is essentially just another (albeit officially-sanctioned) troll-thread designed to bait "objectivists" and possibly to increase site traffic (and therefore advertising revenue).

 

How else are we supposed to interpret stuff like this:

 

Quote

This is why I believe the challengers care so much. Allowing audiophiles to post their subjective conclusions without proof brings them one step closer to accepting those who relate their religious experiences without proof. For them, science is god and a subjective conclusion upends their god and belief system. They fight hard so that doesn’t happen.

This is audio folks. Whether I think I hear something or not isn’t that important. If my audio assessment matters that much to you, I’m guessing you’re anti-religion and/or anti-God. That’s fine. But that explains why something as innocuous as describing the sound of someone’s ethernet cable could elicit such strong and often highly inappropriate comments.

 

The sound of an ethernet cable is like the sound of one hand clapping.

 

What about the sound of a grounding box full of sand?  

 

Where do we draw the line between what should be respectfully accepted on "faith" in the interest of "civility," and what is palpably absurd, or evidence of consumer fraud?

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, joelha said:

Amazing how you know my intentions better than I do, Bill.

 

Aren't you being at least as presumptive about the motivations and beliefs (or lack, thereof) of those who have the audacity to hold an opinion at variance with your own?  

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, joelha said:

Please name s single line or paragraph you find as offensive or even close to being as offensive as if I made a personal negative reference about you.

 

Joel

 

The ones I highlighted in bold-face.

 

(Yes, I get that you don't -- or at least pretend not to -- see it that way.  But that, too, is the point.)

[wgscott]

7 minutes ago, joelha said:

Sorry, I'm missing the point.

 

If you want to take me up on my challenge, please do and show me the specific text you're referring to.

 

Joel

 

The bit quoted here, especially that which I set in bold-faced:

 

But let me add that I am glad you formulated your position in this way, because it gives invaluable insight into how at least one "subjectivist" proponent sees the opposition.

[wgscott]

5 minutes ago, joelha said:

All I get is a link back to the article.

 

Sorry, but I still don't see it.

 

Joel

 

The BB auto-formats the link I fed it.  If you click the "wgscott replied to a topic" link just above where it says "52 minutes ago", you will get the post.  In it, I highlighted the specific text.  It might be easier for me just to do it again.

 

 

It is the same thing I think as what Chris (correctly) identified as being problematic.

 

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, joelha said:

I'm afraid of nothing on this forum.

 

Apparently, you get offended when you're confronted with a calm, rational article you disagree with.

 

I agree with the calm part of your self-assessment.

[wgscott]

Just now, joelha said:

I found it, Bill. Thanks.

 

And I think you're conflating "disagree" with "offense".

 

And if you're really offended by that comment, I'm not sure how ideas (not personal insults) can be offered on this site without risking your being offended by them.

 

Joel

 

I'm not personally offended, and I forgive you.  (It is the Atheist thing to do, after all.)

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I think everyone should see value in his honest editorial. If one doesn't agree at least it shows the reasoning and thought process of someone who doesn't think like you. It's all valuable. 

 

I agree with that, completely (and said so, above).

 

 

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Given this is the lucrative world of niche online publishing, I expect to be swimming in my gold coins, a la Scrooge McDuck, later this evening because of this editorial. Honestly, I don't even take Bill's speculation seriously. 

 

OK, maybe it is merely because it is entertaining to periodically stir up the animals, especially when 11 months of winter have returned...  

 

As someone else mentioned, it sure beats TV.

[wgscott]

I agree with the "calm" part of the (subjective) self-serving assessment.

[wgscott]

 

[wgscott]

We need an "OK, boomer" button for this forum.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

Just an FYI: There is no such term as "radical subjectivism" in philosophy or any other academic field or significant thinker that I have been able to find in several years of occasionally researching this. It is, in my opinion, a fabrication of a forum member here, yet it is used as if it were a recognized concept. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be pointed to the sources I've missed.

 

But I strongly suspect it is b.s. If this member would like to share his background in study that led him to this, we could discuss his interpretations of these sources. My best guess is that they rely on a reading of a theological movement called "Radical Orthodoxy". If anyone wants to look into it, I suspect they'll find some similarities.

 

When it comes to this kind of grand cultural criticism that this member engages, I do wonder if his background and experience is sufficient to be making such strong claims about what members and the owner/moderator need to do to get woke.

 

Apologies for the OT.

 

 

How about Søren Kierkegaard?  (I get the feeling we've been through this before).

 

The term seems apt enough.  "Radical Feminism" is distinct from "Liberal Feminism" in that there are a certain set of assumptions that make it fundamentally different.

 

With subjectivism, the "radical" extreme is the proposition that "science is just another belief system", which we see is a common thread in the OP and in (for example) Creationism and right-wing climate-change denialism, or, more generally, that objective knowledge is non-existent, or at least unknowable.

 

Another candidate:  La Place.

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I always thought the kitten in your avatar offset your alleged reputation for being coarse.  Hard to hate on a kitteh.

 

[wgscott]

48 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'd say lying is making a statement contrary to what one believes to be true.

 

What if one believes something false to be true?

 

I think there has to be intent to mislead or deceive.

[wgscott]

5 hours ago, rando said:

 

Perhaps the reader's social skills were implied.  

 

Hey, look, the OK Rando button got implemented!

 

 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

 

Archie Mago maybe?

 

vs.  

 

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

"Hello, may I speak to Mr. Archie Majo, please?"

 

It's like Led Zeppelin all over again.

[wgscott]

The word "disingenuous" came to mind when I read it.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The glasses in your profile photo are definitely not rose colored :~)

 

They permit seeing things as how they are, rather than as how they ought to be.

[wgscott]

@The Computer Audiophile

 

Any chance we might be able to have a guest editorial from the opposite point of view?

[wgscott]

9 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Leaving aside insistence on opposition - you really think discussing Heads means more than discussing Tails?

 

More pain?

 

No thanks

 

It *was* better than TV - but now 20 pages later it isn't.

 

Why would you rather suppress a differing point of view, rather than simply skip over it if you are not interested?

 

Just because the church's Canon is all you wish to read doesn't mean that this is true for everyone else.