why do so many discussions turn contentious?

Could this be more about the characteristics of personal belief than of science?  The same basic issues of religion and empiricism?

Audio-goners:

You might find Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement to be of use. Paul is a tech nerd with a number of valuable patents to his name. He noticed that social media by its very nature tends towards conflict because it generates more traffic. 

See

https://blog.adioma.com/how-to-argue-pg-hierarchy-of-disagreement/

and

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Follow these simple guidelines, not much can go wrong.

Read and reread many of the responses and it's easy to agree with many who offer objective, rational insights into the swampy fringe areas. The fringe area as named has persisted since the invention of printing press.  However, now with the availability and freedom of the Net, those  compelled to wrap themselves in self-righteous garb and spread the plague of misinformation find support with little effort.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/12/philip-agre-ai-disappeared/

 

Philip Agre, a computer scientist turned humanities professor, was prescient about many of the ways technology would impact the world

By Reed Albertotti

August 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. EDT

In 1994 — before most Americans had an email address or Internet access or even a personal computer — Philip Agre foresaw that computers would one day facilitate the mass collection of data on everything in society.

That process would change and simplify human behavior, wrote the then-UCLA humanities professor. And because that data would be collected not by a single, powerful “big brother” government but by lots of entities for lots of different purposes, he predicted that people would willingly part with massive amounts of information about their most personal fears and desires.

“Genuinely worrisome developments can seem ‘not so bad’ simply for lacking the overt horrors of Orwell’s dystopia,” wrote Agre, who has a doctorate in computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an academic paper.

Nearly 30 years later, Agre’s paper seems eerily prescient, a startling vision of a future that has come to pass in the form of a data industrial complex that knows no borders and few laws.

I have learned a lot from this site in the past few years, much of which has enabled me to improve the sound of my system for far less $$ than swapping out boxes, which may or may not improve my sound. In decades of stereo enjoyment these improvements were never suggested by stereo retailers who view the improvements as too small or not worth their time, so I was never even aware they should be considered. I take advantage of some of them after some logical thinking and pass on others. If some people say they hear a tremendous improvement, who am I to say it doesn't exist? I don't know their environment, music tastes, etc., and mainly their hearing capacity and sensitivity. 

There is lots of humor, some good videos posted, and some thinly (or not at all-only sold direct) distributed brands worth considering discussed that do not advertise. 

I ignore the political nonsense showing the poster's tribalism - anyone who does not think for themselves on any particular issue to me is insecure in their intelligence. As Woody Allen said, I would never join a club that would have me as a member (or something like that). Personal attacks show the same insecurity so I ignore them, and topics where I have no interest. Mostly, I don't take it as life or death, just a passionate hobby that provides thousands of hours of enjoyment. Better SQ makes those hours more enjoyable.

Plus you might meet a friend or two....