Have Audiophiles lost their CIVILTY!

Before this topic is taken down ...

I’ve studied the causes of toxicity, contempt and destain for each other for about 8 years, being involved in several "unite" groups -- including my own. Here are some comments, from a "uniter’s" perspective.

- we’ve gone from the holding certain "idealogies" of the sixties, where we were passionate about specific issues, but still liked and respected each other to "identities", where we ARE the thing we support. It’s VERY personal. We just can’t imaging being anything other than who we are. And those who don’t support the "thing" are the polar opposite of US as individuals. We are intelligent, loving, caring, moral, and ethical. Those who disagree with us are ... quite the opposite. There is no wiggle room whatsoever. We are "the good guys" and they are "the bad guys." 

This "identity" can be healhly, or unhealthy. One who places their indenity as a group member above there identity as a family member, or even their personal identity, can have devastating results. They hate <fill in the blank> more than they love their <fill in family member, lifelong friend, coworker>.

- What’s in it for them? Anyone who contributes to a particular subject has a reason for doing so. It could be that they want to contribute, learn, be challenged or have an intellectual exchange. It could also be not-so-admirable traights (too many to list here). There’s also a difference between an attempt to be persuasive, and an attempt to nullify and humiliate.

The list will continue on the next post. (I want to get these out there before it’s taken down).

Probably to some extent but not as much as the general public.  

Well, since it was asked, I don’t do public spectacles brandishing a chainsaw like some fake pro wrestler so at least that’s something?

Nor do I publish fake AI showing me vacationing like a king in a grand palace in place I just played a role in destroying in the first place to now promote luxury real estate that the locals can’t afford. So I can’t be all that bad right?

- its seems that rigid partisanship leaves little room for nuance.  Driving an initiative through broad, general, typically profound, riveting statements rallies the troops and clearly differentiates the differences between "us" and "them."  What is missing here is the realization that if we discuss items calmly, respectfully, and intellectually, we'll discover that more than one answer can be true.  (I can list several examples). That would form agreement, which is totally unacceptable and would weaken our position. So, we continue to shout out talking points, squash descent, and mock alternative viewpoints.

- the most divisive, highly energetic, events where people were radicalized to the degree of destroying things (including each other) had some element of disinformation attached to them.  The entire premise could based on information that isn't true. Or some elements are intentionally taken out of context, misinterpreted, or "dots" connected where there was no actual connection between them.  Its doesn't have to be true, to get us fired up.  It just has to compelling.  We are beating the snot out of each other based on information that isn't true.  The sad (disgusting) part is that the truth is obtainable (or lies dispelled) but, that could blow up the entire thing we are fired up about.  Can't have that.  Let's just continue to fight. (I can site several examples here, too)