Why should audiophile deniers be allowed on an audiophile forum?

@sns that is the the justification that the Communisty party in China uses. No really, they do.

That said, this place is better than daytime TV. Drama, intrigue, impersonation, factions, people out to get each other .... it is high art even if the stereos are not.

Have to go with audition_audio on this one. There are few Skinheads, nor Neo-Nazis. When one does not have a good argument, one may try to use an exception to prove a rule. It does not work that way. However, there is a good lesson to be learned. "Othering" and ignoring concerns, even of those you don't agree with, lends to radicalization. It is easy to label someone a racist, or Xenophobe or bigot, but just like raising concerns about "Skinheads" or other fringe elements, they may too have a concern that may not be at issue today, but could become one. I don't worry about Skinheads or Neonazis. The elements that drive them tend to be ignorance. However, I do worry about things that will "grow" within the framework of life today, i.e. what could happen from growing economic disparity, from demographics, etc.  I will say one thing, censorship will always be bad, as it is and has always been a tool of oppression.

@twoleftears while I don't agree with the interpretations of the story of Babel, I think the underlying issue is tribalism. The ops post is about tribalism. He would rather people adhere to a tribalist view of a a piece of the world (audio) as opposed to them expressing healthy skepticism. Ultimately I think that is what the Atlantic article is about. Both political sides are expected to accept a tribalistic view to all matters and not question the tribal point of view. The op wants to do the same thing with audio. That's not healthy.

@pani, how do you identify who is who?

What's happening on Twitter is not at all like what's happening here. Way to go out yourself for all to see. The whole motive behind Musk's move is to excite TFG's base so he can manipulate the stock (again) before he dumps it, just like he did with Dogecoin, fleecing the rubes who followed his tweets.

Perhaps, but I still bought a fairly substantial amount of Twitter stock after he did, then sold it after he announced his offer. Too risky to know how it will end. I will take the gains.

Admittedly @nonoise , I have never seen catholic used in that way, so my apologies to you.  I will attempt to delete my offending post.

Absolute hogwash. You're intentionally conflating the concept of "free speech" as written in the Constitution with what can be said on a privately owned site. You don't fool anyone (with an IQ above room temperature) with your victim signaling.

And you are conflating a legal definition with a philosophical concept. There is nothing legally wrong with most cancel culture. Does that make it right?

Obviously you have never been to China and interacted with Chinese people or better yet Taiwan which is truer to Chinese history. They don't like to make fools of themselves, that is their only self censorship criteria. Otherwise they are as outspoken, and anti-establishment as any, maybe more.

Try going on a Porsche forum, just for example, and posting that your Mustang is just as fast 0-60 and that others poster’s claims about their driving experience is “dubious.” See how long that will be tolerated

To the op, @emailists , that you made this part of your original posts seems to show lack of understanding of what an "audiophile" forum is.  If this (or similar) forums was a Passlabs forum, and someone came on and said my "Pick you amp" was 10x better, than your example would apply. This is not a Passlabs forum.

You appear to want to be exposed to only one path to achieving acoustic nirvana. That is both boring, isolationist, and flawed. Both sides of the argument can have value to share with the other side. One side can share with the other how deviating from "perfect" can result in something that you like more, while the other side, can show them, once communicated, how to better achieve their goals.

This thread is a total whine fest and the reason why I rarely participate on audio forums. It always becomes an ignorant shouting match:

If you believe in what some call "high end audio", then prove you can hear differences in controlled listening setting. Don't make excuses, just do it.

If you don't believe in "high end audio" as some call it, then prove those that do can't hear what they claim and/or prove your measurements are accurate wrt to audibility.

Until this happens these continual p---sing matches will never end.

Came to an audio site, ended up on Twitter.

Insane asylum. I have to agree. I am not an advocate of censorship, but some people are incapable of mature discourse.

dekay

4,249 posts

04-16-2022 at 07:04pm 

Political posts here @ A'Gon should be deleted ASAP, IMO, and the posters banned if they continue with such.

An unfortunate truth.

I see your propensity for being wrong extends to other topics. How many years of your life have you spent in China or Taiwan? Taiwan is culturally "old China". Mainland China is but a shadow with most real Chinese culture lost through communism. Taiwan has spent more time as a modern nation than the mainland and you may incorrectly view that as Americanized, but that is a statement based on ignorance. Taiwan is no more "Americanized" than any other Asian nation, arguably less.

because they prefered to integrate in their midst invaders  and make commercial alliance  than brutal  imperialism like Romans did...

You really need to spend more time reading about Chinese history before writing about it on the internet. There simply is not truth in this statement. Some dynasties emphasized trade (while building great armies), others conquered. The only difference is China has always been at some level isolationist. The Chinese people are not so much self policed, certainly not throughout history, as policed, ruled under tight control, likely because they are strong minded and not individualistic.

I spoke here about the general culture not about some modern chinese individuals you meet in their modern business buildings ...they are like us they want freedom...but their culture, history and backgrounds differ completely...

Most modern Chinese, in their modern business building have less attachment or even feeling for their past culture than Western people do. They know of their history, but it carries little influence.

Perhaps you, in your modern Western accommodation should quote less what they have read in books to someone who has spent years engaged in a culture and experienced.

You really are out of touch. "One Child" has been the law until recently in China since 1980. A massive number of Chinese, from early adulthood and on, have barely any interaction with their families except during CNY and on the phone. They "obey" their parents, but their influence is near 0. Whole generations of adult Chinese are growing up with barely any influence from their parents / elders, far less than the average Westerner.

You keep regurgitating what you read in books and articles, but have no lived experience in this matter.

That is a nice fantasy world you live in @djones51 , BUT, we have payment companies cancelling people, we have ISP’s cancelling people.

Obviously there is a need for much stronger laws in this current technical environment to protect free speech. WHY? Because government has allowed private companies to take on responsibility for what would have traditionally been at some level "public utilities".

Banks, Credit Card companies, ISPs, etc. and other government regulated entities should not be allowed to refuse service unless the intended usage is illegal.

That has benefits to both the public with w.r.t. to protecting both not only the concept of free speech, but also for these entities as they stop being targets for malicious public abuse by the "mob".

We need to be concerned with more than just the present legal definition of free speech and start acting on the principle of free speech and what enables (or disables it).

These "private" entities such as Banks, ISPs, Credit Card companies rely on the good will of government and public to operate, whether it is access to virtual money to lend, public physical property on which to run their cables, even roads to transport goods.

Keep in mind, I am no way advocating socialism, simply that the Government needs to be for the people and needs to look out for the best interests of people more than they currently are.

We have enshrined protections preventing discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, gender, ....... but perhaps are missing the big picture, discrimination for what you think.

@djones51 , I will try to unpack this as best as I can. Let's start by saying that this place, is, for the most part, not infrastructure so what I would apply to other entities, even Facebook, would not appear here.

If you're saying that the internet should be regulated by the FCC the same as the airspace is for broadcast TV then that's a different discussion and not one I would necessarily be against.  

I am saying that we have allowed the line between "Private" entities and public utilities to blur too far. Many aspects of Facebook, especially the communications aspects, are an effective equivalent of a public utility. In the past, a telephone could not be refused by Ma Bell unless bills were not paid or the phone was used for illegal purposes. No one was threatening to burn down their offices because someone, someone did not like, was allowed to have a telephone.

I would put Banks, and credit cards / payment processing into that, i.e. Paypal. There is enough concentration into few enough companies, that I think a legal requirement to serve is essential if we want to preserve the concept of free speech. Ditto would be for ISPs and access to the Internet.

Today, say the wrong thing, upset the wrong 10%, 25%, etc. of the population and Credit Card companies will refuse to process your payments, etc. even though you are doing nothing illegal. ISPs may refuse you service, etc.

What is the point of having a legal right to criticize the government, etc. if private companies are able to eliminate your ability to have a voice. You can't even create your own platform unless you are exceedingly wealthy because again, Credit Cards won't process your payments, ISPs won't allow you access, etc. Very very dangerous precedent.

I see right to access laws as beneficial for these companies as well. One has to expect that while some of their banning is partisan politics, a lot of it is just knee jerk reactions because it is easier to ban one person, then it is to stand up to the mobs insisting that person is cancelled. If these companies are not legally able to cancel that person, except for illegal activity, then those companies don't have to worry about the outraged mobs.

To wit, YOU can boycott Hobby Lobby all you want, same as I can avoid ULINE if at all possible (I really wish they had some effective competition).

However, what I don't think is acceptable, is that you and an outraged mob, lobby Hobby Lobby's bank, which I consider an essential service, effectively infrastructure, such that the bank feels pressured to drop them as a client. I would likely extend that to Facebook as it has become ubiquitous, and perhaps even Youtube. You-tube does not like your politics and they demonetize your videos (but happily capitalize on the mindshare of the viewers you bring to their platform).

These are private entities, BUT they rely heavily on public infrastructure to survive, including physical space, airwaves, etc.  Private company, you don't want to allow XXX to use your network, that's okay, we will take usage of 1.5-1.75GHz away from you, I hope it was not important.  Mr. Bank, you don't want to serve this customer? No problem. Now you must have 100% assets to match your lending because you don't get to print money from the central bank any more. Youtube, you don't want to allow certain people? No problem, your data can longer be carried on any infrastructure that makes use of public land.

It is all about deciding what type of society you want to live in.

I got that impression because that is effectively what you wrote. While things are screwed up here, wrt free speech and free thought, no, it has not been screwed up here till somewhat recently. Now we have both sides trying to screw each other. How is that working out?

JK Rowling was not blown out of proportion, nor is the issue with female athletes competing with trans people. This is mainstream news including JK. Do you have any female friends?

There are not some people unaware. There are whole countries of people, 100's of millions of people if not billion+ totally unaware, and should be aware. That is where censorship leads. It is and had always been about control.

Mahgister is an adult and you seem as worked up as him.

How is the alternative going to cost them more?  It will right now, but if companies in critical infrastructure cannot drop clients then there would be no downside as you can't drop them, so you can't be blamed for having them as a client.

@nonoise ,

I feel your position is clouded by a belief that because things are relatively good today, that they will always be so. I don't share that belief and history is on my side.

As for anyone about to be "canceled" , are you feeling guilty about something?
Is a negative response to what you say enough to drive you over the cliff decrying "cancel culture"? If so, that sounds a lot like projection on your part and a device to hide behind, which is what claiming "cancel culture" is, after all.

This post to me is ignorant of today's reality. Take for instance, and I would appreciate some leeway from mods, trans rights to participate in sport. I don't feel at all guilty saying that biological women are at a disadvantage and this should not be allowed. I also don't feel guilty saying that a biological woman's live experience is different from a trans person. However, it today's world, there is a large contingent that will want to cancel you. Just look at J.K. Rowling.

Similarly, there is a large body of scientific evidence that shows that our brains continue to develop till our early 20's and that most teens with gender dysphoria naturally gravitate to their biological sex over time. Even stating that, which is pure scientific data, can get you a slap on the wrist on Twitter and don't even consider suggesting that reasonable limits for gender transition for teens is a good idea in some circles, or you will be labelled all kinds of nasty things even though your position is based on scientific facts.

I could give you many examples where having reasonable views will have people attempt to cancel you. The end result is lack of communication and societal division.

In Russia right now, many people are totally unaware that Russians are somewhat indiscriminately killing people in Ukraine. People in China are also unaware. You think that can't happen here? There are many examples in our world today where freedom, especially around speech, but as much communication of thought, are being reduced. To think it will not happen here and not impact your family directly is not a supportable position.