Is criticism to be frowned upon?

[ack]

Given the numerous attacks against audio equipment criticism on this site - most recently when discussing a Redgum amplifier - I thought I would point to a New York Times article as an example of open, direct and entirely subjective criticism, based mostly on a police video and other yet-unproven (but highly probable and believable) data. They are clearly and openly criticizing the Chicago Police Department and Mayor, with language that is quite strong and caustic, as shown below.

So the question is: in general, is criticism to be frowned upon, when said criticism is simply one's own opinion based [largely?] on unproven data, like in this case with the NYT, or is it freedom of speech? I am sure the thread will get out of track very quickly, and perhaps it should be locked up front, though this is not a political thread, but rather related to audio discussions.

PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS THE NYT or NYT ARTICLE, but rather similar language we sometimes use for audio equipment. I would ask the moderators to just delete any posts discussing the NYT and/or NYT article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/o...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Here, I have highlighted the strong, caustic language from the article:

The cover-up that began 13 months ago when a Chicago police officer executed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald on a busy street might well have included highly ranked officials who ordered subordinates to conceal information. But the conspiracy of concealment exposed last week when the city, under court order, finally released a video of the shooting could also be seen as a kind of autonomic response from a historically corrupt law enforcement agency that is well versed in the art of hiding misconduct, brutality — and even torture.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel demonstrated a willful ignorance when he talked about the murder charges against the police officer who shot Mr. McDonald, seeking to depict the cop as a rogue officer. He showed a complete lack of comprehension on Tuesday when he explained that he had decided to fire his increasingly unpopular police superintendent, Garry McCarthy, not because he failed in his leadership role, but because he had become “a distraction.”

Mr. Emanuel’s announcement that he had appointed a task force that will review the Police Department’s accountability procedures is too little, too late. The fact is, his administration, the Police Department and the prosecutor’s office have lost credibility on this case. Officials must have known what was on that video more than a year ago, and yet they saw no reason to seek a sweeping review of the police procedures until this week.

...

Last week, a manager at a Burger King restaurant near the shooting scene told The Chicago Tribune that more than an hour of surveillance video disappeared from the restaurant’s surveillance system after police officers gained access to it. The dash cam video might have been buried forever had lawyers and journalists not been tipped off to its existence. Mr. Emanuel, who was running for re-election at the time of the shooting, fought to keep it from becoming public, arguing that releasing it might taint a federal investigation.

My answer to my own question is: It's freedom of speech.

 

[Andre Marc]

Given the numerous attacks against audio equipment criticism on this site - most recently when discussing a Redgum amplifier - I thought I would point to a New York Times article as an example of open, direct and entirely subjective criticism, based mostly on a police video and other yet-unproven (but highly probable and believable) data. They are clearly and openly criticizing the Chicago Police Department and Mayor, with language that is quite strong and caustic, as shown below.

So the question is: in general, is criticism to be frowned upon, when said criticism is simply one's own opinion based [largely?] on unproven data, like in this case with the NYT, or is it freedom of speech? I am sure the thread will get out of track very quickly, and perhaps it should be locked up front, though this is not a political thread, but rather related to audio discussions.

PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS THE NYT or NYT ARTICLE, but rather similar language we sometimes use for audio equipment. I would ask the moderators to just delete any posts discussing the NYT and/or NYT article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/o...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Here, I have highlighted the strong, caustic language from the article:



My answer to my own question is: It's freedom of speech.

The point in other threads was made crystal clear. As clear as day actually

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being critical. There is something wrong with thread crapping. Intelligent posters
know the difference. There is something commonly known as the benefit of the doubt.

Constructive critiques are always welcomed by open mined people.

To offer critical opinions that MATTER< one must also have direct experience and not engage in speculation and second hand guess work.

 

[Ronm1]

The BoR's does give individuals the leeway and freedom to make ass??'s of themselves. Our founding fathers obviously understood this basic principle. Now I'm not saying that's what happened here. It's just one of the cherished values we fight for.

 

[Wonner Naus]

There is a big differene between civil constructive criticism and Internet criticism.

If we conducted ourselves in discussion forums as we would in face-to-face disccussions, this question would seldom arise.

But this is the Internet. I can claim 2+2=17 and then hide behind the "but that's my opinion" wangle.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I'm not gonna get into the "Freedom of Speech" thing, because that should be a given. However, regarding criticism, I find far too many instances whereby those critiques are overly argumentative in nature and that needs to stop. JMO!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's free speech, and when it's thoughtful, even skeptically thoughtful, it is the result of critical thinking and should be protected speech. It should be a lot more common.

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

There is a big differene between civil constructive criticism and Internet criticism.

If we conducted ourselves in discussion forums as we would in face-to-face disccussions, this question would seldom arise.

But this is the Internet. I can claim 2+2=17 and then hide behind the "but that's my opinion" wangle.

Correct. It is amazing how brave some people can be behind an anonymous moniker.

 

[Steve Williams]

There is a big differene between civil constructive criticism and Internet criticism.

If we conducted ourselves in discussion forums as we would in face-to-face disccussions, this question would seldom arise.

But this is the Internet. I can claim 2+2=17 and then hide behind the "but that's my opinion" wangle.

I agree completely

Mike Lavigne summarized it perfectly a few days ago when he posted.......

to me the standard should be how one communicates face to face. if you go to an audio show, or local audio club meeting, or visit someone's home.......and a new product is being presented, how would that typically go? what would you say to someone who was talking about it? would you start out skeptical and look for flaws, and make a strong case for those perceived issues, or would you attempt to connect with it and understand it first? would common courtesy inhibit any initial strong criticism?

if your reaction face to face is different than how it is behind a keyboard then we just view things differently.

I guess it's reasonable that our on-line character differs from our face-to-face character sometimes. but to me that is sad.

I certainly know curmudgeons who are outwardly negative on most everything. I can tell you I don't look to spend much time with them.

I like to learn stuff, and seek the truth. interpreting my posts in this thread as somehow being afraid to learn simply misses my points. being a community means being communal. I suppose we all have our own ideas on what that means.

I have also said ad nauseum here that it is often not so much about the information but the manner in which the poster presented. One should ask if the poster's techniques would be the same if he were in a face to face with the other party.

All too many of these posters IMHO lack the social skills necessary to understand the basic premiss of face to face dialog. We have several such posters here IMO.

I also agree with Johnny that this confrontational and argumentative posturing must stop

 

[ack]

I don't think anyone disagrees about decorum, and I agree with everything said about those not following it. However, the question is strictly about "criticism", however harsh (and to the point) it may be, *within the confines of decorum*. When someone discusses and criticizes a component's _architecture_ or build quality, there is nothing wrong with it. Or is there. The words "crapped all over it" were used to counter some of what was written, but to me this is not what criticizing an architecture and/or build quality is. Rather, it's harsh criticism. As such, is it frowned upon.

 

[Andre Marc]

I don't think anyone disagrees about decorum, and I agree with everything said about those not following it. However, the question is strictly about "criticism", however harsh (and to the point) it may be, *within the confines of decorum*. When someone discusses and criticizes a component's _architecture_ or build quality, there is nothing wrong with it. Or is there. The words "crapped all over it" were used to counter some of what was written, but to me this is not what criticizing an architecture and/or build quality is. Rather, it's harsh criticism. As such, is it frowned upon.

Rubbish. If you cannot tell the difference between constructive, inquisitive critique and speculative negativity, than either you are playing dumb or trolling.

One cannot offer definitive, opinion-as fact-comments on something (in this case an audio component or speaker) one has not heard, interfaced with, and seen in person.

Very simple to understand.

 

[Bill Hart]

Ack: I'm not sure that example from the Times is relevant in the context of audio (without getting into the merits). If I were to pick a model, it might be scientific debate- I know, another area fraught with controversy these days, and highly politicized as well. But, think about the what the old medical, science and exploration societies in England were supposed to be about: an arena to share knowledge, to make critical observations of theories, studies and experiments, all aimed ostensibly at advancing knowledge in a particular field. Yes, I know that in reality, these organizations were themselves very "political," cast unorthodox views as outliers or frauds, and did as much to suppress knowledge as advance it. But, somewhere in intellectual history, there is a model for these kinds of endeavors. I suppose that one of the many reasons that critical discussion goes off the rails is that it is grounded in commercial products for the most part; there is a vested interest in promoting, competing and holding a market. Perhaps the DIY community offers a model that has less commercial influence- I've certainly read threads on DIY fora where various participants weigh in to say, "Yeah, I tried that circuit [or design] and found X." As with all information, whether it is "news," "opinion" or analysis of any sort, in any field, it is incumbent on the reader to do his/her own work as well. I know that in researching anything, whether it is of a professional nature, or simply a hobby, one source and one point of view is very limiting. Getting "all the facts" is often impossible and we work with what we have. Real knowledge, in my experience, is fraught with some degree of uncertainty, because real advancement doesn't come from pronounced truth- it derives from a willingness to modify or change one's view as the learning curve gets steeper. In the fields where I have considerable expertise, I am the first to acknowledge how little I really know.

 

[DaveyF]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone criticizing a product from a number of different angles, if that person has heard the product, or if that same person has some experience of the product in any other way...then I believe it is all good. However, there need to be a few provisos besides the ones I just stated...the primary being the disclosure that the opinion/criticism is that of the author and not necessarily any one else's. Plus ( since we are talking audio here), the fact that the audience needs to hear the product for themselves and always come to their own conclusions.
So as ack states above, with the confines of decorum, I believe criticism is potentially valuable.
I also believe that in the audio hobby, there is far too little discrimination as to the value and the overall place of the gear in relation to the sound of 'live' instruments. Therefore, far too much hyperbole about high end gear.

 

[Wonner Naus]

I don't think anyone disagrees about decorum, and I agree with everything said about those not following it. However, the question is strictly about "criticism", however harsh (and to the point) it may be, *within the confines of decorum*. When someone discusses and criticizes a component's _architecture_ or build quality, there is nothing wrong with it. Or is there. The words "crapped all over it" were used to counter some of what was written, but to me this is not what criticizing an architecture and/or build quality is. Rather, it's harsh criticism. As such, is it frowned upon.

What is the benefit of harsh criticism?

 

[amirm]

I agree completely

Mike Lavigne summarized it perfectly a few days ago when he posted.......

I hope he doesn't mind my directness but Mike is almost an entirely different person when you meet him than in forums. I am shocked that you have met him but don't see that difference. Certainly speaking for myself, the manner in which speaks to me here is completely different than when we meet face to face.

But yes, I absolutely believe in what he says there about conducting ourselves as we would in person. If you don't curse in public, why do you do it here? If you don't insult a person to their face, addressing them directly, why do you do it here?

On AVS Forum people sent me death threats, reported me to my boss (Sr. VP of the entire Windows division), had reporters chase me on what I had said, made racist remarks, wishes that I get fired, etc. Yet, I remained calm and endured through.

We created this forum to be free of such things but while members have not gone this far, they certainly are way past the point that I wish they would. So on this front, use of profanity, directly insulting members as people, etc. is not protected speech in our forum. Any more than it is to be invited to someone's house and after finding out they are from the opposite political party, try to insult them in their face with every curse word you learned in school.

And how is that justified? Oh, they said something about audio you disagree with? Are you kidding me? Some have taken it as far as complaining about the threads that they are not a party to! They like to see those silenced too.

Back to Ack's post, I am will put it in this context. I live my life on principals. Some I have learned the hard way but many have been created by people with far more wisdom than me. Such is the case with our US founding fathers. As an American, I rely on freedom of speech as one of those principals. Over the life of this forum, each camp in audio has taken turns attempting to tailor the forum to their interest. We have resisted that and in my case, strongly so. No forum that I am a part of will attempt to censor certain members views just because some other people don't like them personally or don't have emotional maturity to ignore what people say that they disagree with. And certain can't justify being insulting and mean spirited towards the individual because they have a different view about audio.

Profanities need to stop. Protests over sharing of information needs to stop. Criticism is good. It makes you think twice as to whether your ideas are right. And in my case, often sends me to go and learn more. Friendliness, as much as possible, should be practiced around here. Respect your hosts who have to manage through all of this without pay or compensation. And oh yes act like you would do in person....

 

[Andre Marc]

I hope he doesn't mind my directness but Mike is almost an entirely different person when you meet him than in forums. I am shocked that you have met him but don't see that difference. Certainly speaking for myself, the manner in which speaks to me here is completely different than when we meet face to face.

But yes, I absolutely believe in what he says there about conducting ourselves as we would in person. If you don't curse in public, why do you do it here? If you don't insult a person to their face, addressing them directly, why do you do it here?

On AVS Forum people sent me death threats, reported me to my boss (Sr. VP of the entire Windows division), had reporters chase me on what I had said, hears racist remarks, wishes that I get fired, etc. Yet, I remained calm and endured through. We created this forum to be free of such things but while members have not gone this far, they certainly are way past the point that I wish they would stop. So on this front, use of profanity, directly insulting members as people, etc. is not protected speech in our forum. Any more than it is to be invited to someone's house and after finding out they are from the opposite political party, try to insult them in their face.

And how is that justified? Oh, they said something about audio you disagree with? Are you kidding me? Some have taken it as far as complaining about the threads that they are not a party to! They like to see those silenced too.

Back to Ack's post, I am happy to put it in this context. I live my life on principals. Some I have learned the hard way but many have been created by people with far more wisdom than me. Such is the case with our US founding fathers. As an American, I rely on freedom of speech as one of those principals. Over the life of this forum, each camp in audio has taken turns attempting to tailor the forum to their interest. We have resisted that and in my case, strongly so. No forum that I am a part of will attempt to censor certain members views just because some other people don't like them personally or don't have emotional maturity to ignore what people say that they disagree with. And certain can't justify being insulting and mean spirited towards the individual because they have a different view about audio.

Profanities need to stop. Protests over sharing of information needs to stop. Criticism is good. It makes you twice as to whether your ideas are right. And in my case, often sends me to go and learn more. Friendliness, as much as possible, should be practiced around here. Respect your hosts who have to manage through all of this without pay or compensation. And oh yes act like you would do in person....

Since you posted about it, I think it is fair for you to explain to us how Mike is different in person than on this forum. (I have not met Mike).

 

[DaveyF]

I hope he doesn't mind my directness but Mike is almost an entirely different person when you meet him than in forums. I am shocked that you have met him but don't see that difference. Certainly speaking for myself, the manner in which speaks to me here is completely different than when we meet face to face.

But yes, I absolutely believe in what he says there about conducting ourselves as we would in person. If you don't curse in public, why do you do it here? If you don't insult a person to their face, addressing them directly, why do you do it here?

On AVS Forum people sent me death threats, reported me to my boss (Sr. VP of the entire Windows division), had reporters chase me on what I had said, made racist remarks, wishes that I get fired, etc. Yet, I remained calm and endured through.

We created this forum to be free of such things but while members have not gone this far, they certainly are way past the point that I wish they would. So on this front, use of profanity, directly insulting members as people, etc. is not protected speech in our forum. Any more than it is to be invited to someone's house and after finding out they are from the opposite political party, try to insult them in their face with every curse word you learned in school.

And how is that justified? Oh, they said something about audio you disagree with? Are you kidding me? Some have taken it as far as complaining about the threads that they are not a party to! They like to see those silenced too.

Back to Ack's post, I am happy to put it in this context. I live my life on principals. Some I have learned the hard way but many have been created by people with far more wisdom than me. Such is the case with our US founding fathers. As an American, I rely on freedom of speech as one of those principals. Over the life of this forum, each camp in audio has taken turns attempting to tailor the forum to their interest. We have resisted that and in my case, strongly so. No forum that I am a part of will attempt to censor certain members views just because some other people don't like them personally or don't have emotional maturity to ignore what people say that they disagree with. And certain can't justify being insulting and mean spirited towards the individual because they have a different view about audio.

Profanities need to stop. Protests over sharing of information needs to stop. Criticism is good. It makes you twice as to whether your ideas are right. And in my case, often sends me to go and learn more. Friendliness, as much as possible, should be practiced around here. Respect your hosts who have to manage through all of this without pay or compensation. And oh yes act like you would do in person....

+1000

 

[Andre Marc]

I hope he doesn't mind my directness but Mike is almost an entirely different person when you meet him than in forums. I am shocked that you have met him but don't see that difference. Certainly speaking for myself, the manner in which speaks to me here is completely different than when we meet face to face.

But yes, I absolutely believe in what he says there about conducting ourselves as we would in person. If you don't curse in public, why do you do it here? If you don't insult a person to their face, addressing them directly, why do you do it here?

On AVS Forum people sent me death threats, reported me to my boss (Sr. VP of the entire Windows division), had reporters chase me on what I had said, made racist remarks, wishes that I get fired, etc. Yet, I remained calm and endured through.

We created this forum to be free of such things but while members have not gone this far, they certainly are way past the point that I wish they would. So on this front, use of profanity, directly insulting members as people, etc. is not protected speech in our forum. Any more than it is to be invited to someone's house and after finding out they are from the opposite political party, try to insult them in their face with every curse word you learned in school.

And how is that justified? Oh, they said something about audio you disagree with? Are you kidding me? Some have taken it as far as complaining about the threads that they are not a party to! They like to see those silenced too.

Back to Ack's post, I am will put it in this context. I live my life on principals. Some I have learned the hard way but many have been created by people with far more wisdom than me. Such is the case with our US founding fathers. As an American, I rely on freedom of speech as one of those principals. Over the life of this forum, each camp in audio has taken turns attempting to tailor the forum to their interest. We have resisted that and in my case, strongly so. No forum that I am a part of will attempt to censor certain members views just because some other people don't like them personally or don't have emotional maturity to ignore what people say that they disagree with. And certain can't justify being insulting and mean spirited towards the individual because they have a different view about audio.

Profanities need to stop. Protests over sharing of information needs to stop. Criticism is good. It makes you twice as to whether your ideas are right. And in my case, often sends me to go and learn more. Friendliness, as much as possible, should be practiced around here. Respect your hosts who have to manage through all of this without pay or compensation. And oh yes act like you would do in person....

Rudeness, being presumptuous, and over reaching must stop as well. This is directed to all members.

 

[amirm]

What is the benefit of harsh criticism?

If it is factual, brings learning to the overall community if not the person being addressed.

 

[microstrip]

(...) So the question is: in general, is criticism to be frowned upon, when said criticism is simply one's own opinion based [largely?] on unproven data, like in this case with the NYT, or is it freedom of speech? I am sure the thread will get out of track very quickly, and perhaps it should be locked up front, though this is not a political thread, but rather related to audio discussions.

Although you are mainly focusing on the caustic language , your question in bold deals with the crux of the question "based [largely?] on unproven data". My main objection is about the use of the technical methods, graphs and knowledge to create the hypothetical suspicion and do not giving the fundamental factual quantifiable data about the situation being debated, that could easily debated in a way everyone clearly understands.

The large majority of WBF readers and equipment reviewers do not have electronics knowledge enough to follow and understand the complex and intricate aspects of applied electronics, and can not really contribute in that specific part of the debates. However, fortunately freedom of speech gives then the right to participate, and most of the time the caustic language is applied nonchalantly to the posters, not to the arguments.

Since you were brave enough to start the discussion, I just used some freedom of speech. I am sure some others will disagree with me I hope they will stay civilized in their posts.

BTW, I agree about the positive/negative difference. If you want to post something negative you must substantiate it very carefully and assume the possible consequences. In the high-end positives are considered opinions, but negatives have a strong tendency to become statements.

 

[amirm]

Rudeness, being presumptuous, and over reaching must stop as well. This is directed to all members.

When you see rudeness you report the post. You do not take matters in your own hands and go to two in whatever emotional manner you see fit. Doing so violates our founding principals:

"6. Please do not attempt to moderate the forum on your own. If you see objectionable posts, please report them. We will deal with them. Above all, focus on the topic being discussed, rather than the person discussing it."

This system works because we can view the situation without the emotional stake you have in it. There is wisdom in it and hence the reason it is part of the TOS of many forums. Make up your own rules and we have chaos and unfriendly forum.