If Carl wants to come back and take a swing, I'm ready.
Really though, people who resort to bullying and name calling should be told to go out in the yard and play, which they were.
If you identify with that level of maturity, then you identify it with censorship. If you've grown up, its an iiritant who needs a spanking.
Yes, I'd like to see some more funny people, and am the first one to get provacative, but I think we all know where the line is. Certainly, I'm not willing to tolerate someone a bit funny whose barter for that chuckle is that he/she gets to cognitively beat up on someone because they are stronger.
Anonymous name callers are the worst type and I say good riddance. |
02pete, wonderful post. Balanced, insightful, and how could underlying currents to markets be seen as irrelevant to ours?
Yes, post modern nihlism (read: the aftermath of deconstructionism of matter and mind, thereafter concluding that neither has a ground, resulting in that mind turning further into its focus on the accumulation of matter-products, e.g. capitalism) has run headlong into the notion that "democracy" must be sustained by active citizenry; sustaining a balance between our self-interest and other-interest (empathic identification), but not slipping to a predatory degree that we see every "other" as their prey.
We presently have developed an assumption in western society that infinite greed is "good", and we even make such people our icons and golden calves, but that is a far cry from the mutually reinforced self interest leading to happiness (conceptualized at the time to denote meaning and pleasure)that Smith, Locke et al, our so-called founders, envisioned.
The balance between freedom ("democracy") and self-interest ("capitalism")is a delicate one, and when the minds that constitute "society" cycle into pleasure to avoid the fact that democracy is inherently participatory, then that lack of involvement results in a de-evolvement, namely, back to a feudal past where the King told you he would keep you safe if you let him have power over you (the so-called "Imperial Presidency").
Our species (yes, I'm going that far!), as a group (society) has gone through a progressive pattern of development: from kinship (nomadic clans), to tribe, to polis, to state, to nation-state, to... In each of these shifts the individual in the group, through a conformism to the assumptions of the group, changed his identification to the "other", each time expanding to include more minds that were not like his. This an evolutionary telos that all of our "things", I would submit, are not powerful enough to impede. That we cycle into a progressive attachment to our "things", well, can't be too good...
Hiend audio, although recreational (pleasure), is also, deeper, a search for the beauty in music (meaning). In a group of minds cycling in denial through accumulation of an attachmnet to things, and the assumed power and safety it provides, the experiences of freedom, beauty, meaning, empathy-to-other etc. become progressively marginalized.
Now, 02pete, don't you feel better that they now have someone else, a much better target, to accuse of "going to deep"!
Keep posting 02pete. |
Unsound, I understand your concerns; as you can see above, I'm hardly one to tolerate censorship. My experience has been that people who wanted to beat up on other people have been deterred by 1)the moderators, and 2) some people, like myself, not putting up with them and calling them on it, on a conceptual level.
On the "deep" thing, I think its important to realize that it does have a chilling effect on some people, especially the way I do it sometimes (as above, not like 02pete's). I try to keep this in mind and not "weigh" those others down too early in a thread, or wait until it seems that others of similar inclination have congregated, or the thread is losing its juice. Generally speaking, on content, as opposed to tone, I've found the moderators to be quite indulgent of me.
If you keep it to the ideas, even deep or momentary tangential ideas, then I think you are just fine; if you choose to use superior cognitive agility to talk someone else down coupled with derogatory language, then you get their attention. If you get personal, regardless of merit of thought, you are paid more focused attention until a pattern emerges on that behavior.
I'm pretty provacative - and I'm sure some have complained when they didn't get their way - so I don't think that's the trigger. Its basically decorum, respect and maturity, and, I would submit, those are qualities that any radical egalitarian would be proud of. |
Yes, people are always worried that someone will attack them legally; worried that they will become prey. I was a prosecutor in a former life and I have seen that default to greed (predator) and retreating self-interest (prey). The question is what comes first, chicken or egg; seeking safety through limiting adversarial discussion, that might tangentially be laid at managements door, or seeking to keep dialogue mature?
You are right, your gut, that is. It is probably both. The question then becomes whether this monitoring is over zealous. Or, another way, when do people tell themselves that they are doing something for the collective good and really they are doing it to protect themselves (inauthenticity), and, secondly, even in that context, does the action taken exceed what would be proper if they were, in fact, looking out for the general good?
I think, in the beginning, the former behavior was more prominent. This is understandable because 1) the fear of litigation was highest, or highest felt, and 2) this was coupled with management becoming acclimitized to the measured use of power and 3) a situation in need of being addressed (the flamers that were hiding anonymously as cute and smarter; another issue of inauthenticity). In fact, I have contacted the management previously for explanation, specifically when someone told me that they had been warned for something while posting with me (opposed to me, conceptually) that I didn't think was a big deal. I think, however, with a reduction of some of the more egregious offenders the finger has come off the trigger a bit. Its a matter of inexperience breeding over reaction. I think that period had dissipated, but, obviously left a bad taste in some peope's mouth (which, hint, is what apologizing is for... but then, that would be admitting nunc pro tunc culpability, which might lead to...).
So, the question is, regardless of one's fear of being sued (coersion from other), do you nonetheless strive ahead in favor of unfettered freedom for the all (inclusiveness with other = empathy), even if materialistically unviable?
Well, I never have been much of an appeaser, and have lived a life of the later, at my materialistic loss, but would note that the society you live in - democratic-capitalism - does not function with these objects in mind. The management, in that context, is merely doing the "American" thing. Any self-inetrest exhibited is only a reactive symptom. One that, I would assume - as you see it in the world, not just here - has made you chafe...
So, then, what to do about it?
Starting at audiogon - the symptom - seems to miss the cause.
Which is...? |
What question was rejected? I am not aware of this, so you will have to help and be more specific.
Yes, the law is for sale, as a tacit dynamic. Its an aristocratic transient oligarchy run as an imperialistic capitalist empire; socio-economic status significantly effects outcome. I thought everyone knew that...You see no latin up my sleeve, so percieved.
Nunc pro tunc means retroactive effectiveness, in this context, retroactive responsibility. |
Unsound, send it to me personally.
On manufacturers, throughout the hiend there is a dynamic - again, tacit - that 1) justifiably protects reputations from incendiary comments that can ruin a small manufacturer (I've seen reviewers do it), and 2) seeks to hide from you the reliability issues involving a particular model.
So, I can understand a ceratin level of moderation/mediation that protects people who aren't in the position to protect themselves - particularly personal and/or unsubstantiated accusations (remember, a manufacturer would be a fool to engage a disgruntled person on a thread).
But, I can not respect censorship of substantiated ideas, even anecdotal, and particularly if the reason is to protect the reputation of someone whose bad acts should be disclosed (I don't believe that a website provider is responsible for third party liability issues, but I could be wrong - maybe we could be enlightened about this. Audiogon, hint, hint).
The ability to converse with each other about reliability and service, in addition to performance, should be an integral part of the service of this site - but that's just my opinion. If it is not, then, IMO, the management should be explicit in those parameters, which are theirs to set (its a private company). And, then, ours to accept or reject as a proffered product. Again, if they wish, regardless of the letter of the law, to "play it safe" for business reasons, then that is their choice. They should be willing, if so, to stand up and say so, however. BUT, again, that's just my opinion, because other than authenticity issues, they have no legal obligation to do so, i.e. capitalism has no interest in authenticity.
Ah, the vagaries of capitalism (self-interest) and the interplay with democracy (freedom). I always love when the capitalist-identified run into the inherencies of the system they are so attached to...
If you are an "American" then you must be a capitalist. If you are a capitalist, then you must agree with the proposition that for-profit enterprises can set their own rules, within the law, on the disemination of information on their property, and particularly if it is for a profit motive (the only definition we have for a corporate entity is one "for profit", not a word about freedom, authenticity, compassion, etc...).
So, do you feel like an "American" this morning? |
