I'm a newcomer here and in general find this site to be friendly and helpful. There are some very obvious exceptions. Many sites are not welcoming or friendly to those who are just learning about the given subject of the site and I commend Adiogon for not being like that.
I think not feeding the trolls is really good advice that I often fail to take and have failed to exercise it here. I'll try not to make that mistake again.
I have moderated on other technical websites. It is hard to do well in part because it is easy to be biased for whatever points and beliefs you hold to be true and in regard to personalities. It is easy to abuse the role of moderator especially within a site that allows them a heavy hand.
I would agree with those who have said leave things alone here. For now.
I have also been a member of a paid website or two that had a specific forum for gloves-off discussions. The member is warned before entering. It worked well on one site where the general membership was generally intelligent and thoughtful. In the other site it was just pure acrimony and nothing else. |
I find that in a lot of high tech, high dollar hobbies like this the gear becomes the main attraction whether it be cars, cameras, guns, you name it.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that but it does seem to generate heated discussions. People self-identify with their gear. Telling someone you don't like their gear is like insulting them.
People seem to get less offended by taste in music. I couldn't care less if someone doesn't like the music I like.
And if it is all about the sound, really and truly about the sound then "I like the way my system sounds" or "switching to ceramic speaker spikes makes a world of difference to me" should end every argument.....even if the system is a Bose Wave radio or the ceramic speaker spikes are on Realistic speakers from a Radio Shack close-out. |
I think almost everyone understands precisely the nature of this thread except for the one or two people it was clearly aimed at who clearly don't. |
inna, as an anarchist on what grounds would you not support insults? If freedom of expression is sacrosanct is it still okay to put _some_ limits on it, even if those limits are personal approbation? Is it possible to be a quasi-anarchist? If so, I think I might be one. (All in fun....I've just never met an anarchist in person or on line although I did attend a march in Verona. It was very disorganized.)
All kidding aside, I think we have to remember that this site belongs to someone. It is not a truly public forum. There are no guarantees of free speech in such places. No moral or ethical boundaries are crossed of they are censored. It helps me to think of privately owned forums like this as someone else's cocktail party that I've been invited to and behave accordingly. There are always those guests who don't. You don't want to be "that guy"....but on occasion I have been "that guy" but at least have the capability of regretting it. Some seem to take pride in it.
|
inna, thank you for your candid responses. From my perspective (I know next to nothing about it) anarchism seems fraught with contradiction that seems almost logically impossible to overcome and seems, as you describe it, very much like existentialism if not exactly like it. While contradiction within belief structures is certainly not unique to anarchism, the most serious of existentialists found their beliefs to ultimately lead to absurdity.....like everyone should just be nice but it is no one’s place to actually suggest that.....And in the end, Sartre could not get past pushing his own political beliefs on others as absolutes.
Anyway, not the forum to discuss this but I appreciate you not taking my curiosity as insult.
Oh, in terms of authenticity, well, I have been authentically me since the day I was born. Always be yourself, as they say........unless you can be Batman, then be Batman. ;-) |
elizabeth wrote:
The connection made between existentialism and anarchy is interesting. I would say existentialism is an introvert, personal World view, while anarchism is an extroverted vision of a similar (though not identical) World view. Both make the assertion that one is totally self responsible for the condition one finds oneself in. And that oneself as the only agent capable of changing it.The dark side of existentialism is giving in to the hopelessness in the emptiness
No, actually, according to Sartre, Camu and Neitzsche existentialism was very much of a projected world view. And the dark side of existentialism is not so much a matter of giving in. The dark side is that in order to be intellectually honest with oneself one has to understand that existentialism IS hopelessness and emptiness. To do otherwise is to hold a delusional world view. It seems to me that anarchism is subject to the same logical conclusion: despair and absurdity. "Not giving in" to that logical truth is to delude oneself.
With both existentialism and anarchism you cannot logically overcome the idea that if everything is okay then everything is okay. There is no room for approbation of anything. That would include the popular evils of racism or sexism. In the world of existentialism those are nothing more than individual choices and are no worse or better than love or philanthropy. |
Hume: "We can't know anything for sure." Including that statement.
Given the heated discussions regarding cable burn-in (etc) maybe Hume should be the patron saint of audiophiles.
I think the problem with a Socratic model (as defined above....I know nothing about it) in regard to how it relates to the contentious topics here is that so many of them are so very subjective and that there is often a very even demarcation between believers and naysayers. Both of these are hard to overcome in a Socratic model.
Nevertheless, it certainly stands head and shoulders above personal attacks and incivility. |
Someone said:
Critical thinking requires energy. I for one don’t waste such energy on forum threads. Besides, I can’t overcome my bias inherent to much of my belief structure. Bias gets in the way of most critical thought as a means of protecting inner voice ego.
I've learned a lot on some forums, especially the ones that challenge my belief structure. In order to do that they have to be civil places. They are hard to find.
It is hard work to put your beliefs on trial. But that is the only real way to do it. Dig deep into the ideas that conflict with yours. If you can't support them then you change your beliefs. If you can you can then stand firm and defend them rather than just cling to them. I'm not even sure it is necessary, as Socrates suggested, but it certainly is liberating.
One of my favorite quotes:
"God is dead."
Neitschze
"Neitschze is dead."
God |
celander said:
Sometimes incivility can dissociate one’s bias from one’s belief, thereby liberating one to adopt a different belief. But civility rarely achieves this.
I don't understand that.
inna said:
If someone needs a moderator he/she should not say we. I have no need for this, as far as I know. In other words, who is anyone to define what I need or have to ?
But if I think you do need a moderator then from the standpoint of an anarchist who are you to say that I am wrong? And if you have no basis for declaring that I am wrong for trying to control you then what recourse do you have? Violence? And do you think in your wildest dreams you are prepared to face unbridled, self interested violence?
If an anarchist says we all decide our own course then as a fellow anarchist I might decide my course is to subject you and everyone like you. Will you tell me I am wrong for truly embracing anarchy? |
inna said:
I will not. I might say that you appear to be unprepared yet to "truly embracing" it. You have no real contact with these things so far. You are just talking your talk.
How quickly it devolves into insults. I thought you were above that. I think you even said so in this discussion.
No, I am not "unprepared yet" to embrace it but I am fully prepared to reject the actual true implications of anarchy.
I get the impression that present day anarchists exist, in the U.S. anyway, only because they know that the authority they hate will allow them to embrace an ideology they could not live with if that very same authority did not guarantee their freedom, safety and economic stability. |
|
"responsible anarchy" is no more than utopianism at its worst. And all of the prominent, and intellectually honest, existentialists realized this pretty early on.
And you say:
Everybody does whatever they want, but not bother others along the way.
What you have done here is introduced a rule, i.e. don't bother others. Anarchy rejects rules, at least on the surface, because rules require enforcement and consequence. Enforcement of rules requires some form of authority. Anarchists reject authority. It is oxymoronic to say the least. To say otherwise is to be logically dishonest.
And if an anarchist is logically honest he needs to embrace anarchy and all the chaos, lawlessness and violence that goes with any philosophy bereft of any basis for proper behavior.
Freedom, safety, economic stability. Hmmmm, that would be a hard sell to many more than just declared anarchists. Not saying that it is not true, but that many would disagree based on their surroundings and pocketbooks.
Yes, well, that may be. But it becomes relative when compared to the majority of the world's population, much less those of us enjoying esoteric philosophical conversations on a web site in which there is currently a set of speakers for sale for nearly half a million dollars.
|
elizabeth, you seem to hunger for power. They say the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship..........but then that never works out for long, does it?
And why all the consternation from everyone about the turn this thread has taken? Was it ever really that important?
inna, "responsible anarchy" is an oxymoron on so many levels. Maybe "logically consistent" and "intellectual honesty" are too. |
inna said:
just because one fears death one does not commit suicide. In reality, often does. One should not.
There you go with the shoulds and should-nots. Are you sure you're really an anarchist?
And:
n80, people are in many ways oxymorons.
On that we agree.
uberwaltz said:
Oxymoron?
Well I might use part of that word.....
Don't feel bad, that's the only part of the word that some people can understand. ;-) |
inna said: "To quote someone.- Whatever you think I am or want me to be I am -"
That sounds like the exact opposite of anarchism. It also sounds like Paul: "For though I am free from all.......I have become all things to all people"
I’m pretty sure he was not an anarchist. The exact opposite in fact.
glupson, I have seen this sort of discussion frequently on other up-scale web sites usually involving expensive high tech equipment. I do not think it is elitist to say that a lot of people involved in this sort of hobby are intelligent and multi-dimensional and often well-read. On the automotive (racing) websites I frequent, this sort of conversation is non-existent. I find the participants there to be just as intelligent, but often in a more practical sense...street smarts....or track smarts...and there tends to be less debate about subjective things. If it doesn’t result in faster track times or durability then it doesn’t matter and no one is going to wax philosophical about it. I think this sorts of discussions are harmless. No one came to this particular thread looking for technical info. Nothing lost. And there has been some entertaining wit exchanged and so far no one wants to kill anyone else. |
glupson, ignore him (you should already know this by now). Pointing out grammar and spelling errors on discussion forums is the lowest form of trolling. |
Two things:
1.When we talk about him, even if we don't talk to him, he likes it. I'm guilty again.
2.I would not equate him with a real bully. He just isn't effective in that role. Which is doubly sad because I think that is what he wants most to be. |
OMG why do you all keep talking to him? |
elizabeth wrote:
"Geoff is not a troll."
I’ve only been here a short time but in that short time it is clear that geoff’s ratio of contribution vs insult/blather is poor enough to qualify as a troll.
"He may be annoying to some folks, but he is definitely not a troll"
If he is not annoying to you then "some folks" is accurate. But he seems to be plenty annoying to everyone else. Thus=troll.
"I would say he creates a lot of difficulty for those with problems understanding sarcastic humor, that is a fer’ sure."
No, no, no, no, no. There may be some here who don’t have a sense of humor or who may not appreciate sarcasm but that is hardly the issue. The problem does not lie with the rest of the members here. Sarcasm and humor are one thing. Geoff’s posts are closer to what you would encounter on an elementary school playground....and that is a compliment. Good witty sarcasm is wonderful to behold. Geoff does not have that gift.
|
Yes, geoff calling someone else a stalker is rather rich. But, it massages his ego to think that he has one. |
