Musing on Apple September 2013

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

This forum supports the ability to ignore someone so as long as nobody answers them and quotes them you won't see what they say.

Dale

I'm aware of the ignore option, and I use it on occasion, but this is a different issue. It's not that, say, AFV011's posts arguing that the Nexus, the HTC One, or the Samsung Galaxy 4 are better than the iPhone are bad; it's that he shouldn't come into the Apple forum and make them. They would be perfectly acceptable in the Android forum, or "what device should I buy" forum, or the news or general discussion forum...and probably many other forums as well. I just don't think that they are appropriate for the Apple forum.

As I mentioned, the Kindle and Nook forums, respectively, are places for people to talk about those products - and not places for supporters of competing products to come in and proselytize. Or, worse, insult users of the device which the forum is set up to discuss. (Which AFV did not do).

If discussing all products is on topic in a device specific forum, why even *have* device specific fora? If the Kindle forum were a place not just to talk about the Kindle, but also a place to bash Kindle users and talk about all products competing with the Kindle, it would pretty quickly kill the Kindle forum.

And that's what I don't want the Apple forum to become, and for the same reason. MR has done a pretty good job over the past year, IMO, at eliminating the casual Apple bashing (iSheep, etc.) that used to be acceptable. So I was kind of surprised that the poster I originally objected to casually insulted all Apple users as being ignorant and stupid, *and* that he did in in the Apple forum, *and* that he didn't seem to even realize that what he did might be seen as being objectionable.

TL;DR - No, I don't think that just using the ignore function is the solution to this particular issue.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Reminds me of how when rich people were drafted in the Civil War they often hired poor people to fulfill their service obligation.

I would guess that a few of those "poor but clever people" took the gold (not Union Script) and signed up for more than one of the young rich gentlemen and then went far away from war. Maybe Canada or West under a new name.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I'm aware of the ignore option, and I use it on occasion, but this is a different issue. It's not that, say, AFV011's posts arguing that the Nexus, the HTC One, or the Samsung Galaxy 4 are better than the iPhone are bad; it's that he shouldn't come into the Apple forum and make them. They would be perfectly acceptable in the Android forum, or "what device should I buy" forum, or the news or general discussion forum...and probably many other forums as well. I just don't think that they are appropriate for the Apple forum.

Please, read the posts before starting your complaints. I did not come here bashing the iphone, I replied to a post where it was implied you could only get a good quality phone if you paid iphone prices. The nexus4 clearly proves that point is simply wrong, and that's what my post was about. It is relevant to the discussion, as somebody else introduced the topic of price/value.

[forsooth]

I judge here good place to put "Strobed Warning Blasting Zone Sign" but mobileread site management frowns on startling obtrusive signs.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by afv011

Please, read the posts before starting your complaints. I did not come here bashing the iphone, I replied to a post where it was implied you could only get a good quality phone if you paid iphone prices. The nexus4 clearly proves that point is simply wrong, and that's what my post was about. It is relevant to the discussion, as somebody else introduced the topic of price/value.

afv011, how many times have you whined about someone disrespecting Android or MS. I would guess none. If someone says something bad about Android or MS or Blackberry or any number of other technologies, we might disagree, but I don't think (and of course all humans are fallible) we complain about individuals and their intent to make our poor Android/etc. using lives miserable.

Doggone it, I believe the appropriate expression here is (making this as site palatable as possible) "We are not your enemy!"

[forsooth]

Appears one failed to consider Danger Sign.

"poof!"

[WT Sharpe]

I'm musing on October 15th.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by afv011

Please, read the posts before starting your complaints. I did not come here bashing the iphone, I replied to a post where it was implied you could only get a good quality phone if you paid iphone prices. The nexus4 clearly proves that point is simply wrong, and that's what my post was about. It is relevant to the discussion, as somebody else introduced the topic of price/value.

When you are not attacking apple you are promoting android. I don't think it is appropriate in the Apple forum just like promoting Nooks wouldn't be appropriate in the Kindle forum.

I don't see why Apple users have to constantly defend their use of a product against Android zealots *even in the Apple forum.*

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by frahse

a

Doggone it, I believe the appropriate expression here is (making this as site palatable as possible) "We are not your enemy!"

Then why come to the Apple forum and claim that apple users are ignorant and stupid for not using/considering/knowing about Android?

That is not friendly.

[Prestidigitweeze]

My theory is this: impassioned consumer brand wars reflect people's feelings of social and political powerlessness. Same thing with people who make a point of hating celebrities.

Because we have no real standing or power, and nothing else (apparently) to represent our interests, we ally ourselves with this or that brand as chavs do football teams.

The allure of putting down Apple repeatedly is this:

The assumption that Apple users confuse their purchases with the maverick individuality which is promised traditionally by Apple advertising. To put Apple down is to put down the consumer team and corporate celebrity associated with it.

However, belonging to one consumer group, pointing to another group and characterizing the second group as delusional is also delusional, as shown by that very act.

The mistake is in assuming that everyone who buys an Apple product does so for the same arbitrary reasons, and that one's own reasons for buying a different product are automatically better.

Another common brand war tactic is to attack a given product for fun and then laugh at people who are serious enough to respond to one's attacks. Apple attracts that sort of troll simply because its ads promise pseudo-individuality, giving the troll the chance to repeat endlessly that Apple's promise is a lie and that those who fall for it are sheep.

The irony of putting down Apple users is that, in privileging your own brand choices as less credulous than those of the diehard Apple customer, you are doing the exact thing you claim to criticize -- confusing mere brand choices with evidence of individual superiority. You are demonstrating that you, too, baa-baa-baa when the screen is dark and the wallet is full.

To associate humility or wisdom with Android users and arrogance or credulousness with Apple users is itself an admission that one has been hypnotized by marketing.

Having to repeat that association over and over year after year in forum after forum reminds me of the words of Freud:

"A neurotic repeats the same behavior without remembering the cause."

It's been over a decade since the first iPod was introduced. At this point, I don't really care which team wins an Apple vs. Android debate.

What I do wish is that the same compulsive arguments weren't always being made, and that people might occasionally talk about something else.

It's strange to leave a room and come back years later, only to find that the same people are still in that room saying the same things and engaged in the same fight. How can it be fun to argue for one team over another in a public forum if the argument itself never changes? And how active can anyone be who is self-defined as a passive consumer?

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Having to repeat that association over and over year after year in forum after forum reminds me of the words of Freud:

"A neurotic repeats the same behavior without remembering the cause."

Interesting. I sometimes quote the saying: "A neurotic builds imaginary castles in the sky, and a psychotic attempts to live in those castles."

Is there a parallel saying for your "words of Freud" for a psychotic?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

Interesting. I sometimes quote the saying: "A neurotic builds imaginary castles in the sky, and a psychotic attempts to live in those castles."

Is there a parallel saying for your "words of Freud" for a psychotic?

The phrase "in the words of Freud" tends to be used to give credit to Sigmund Freud for the words (as translated) which are being quoted. There's nothing more to it than that.

Freud wrote about psychotics quite often, so I'm sure you could find a Freud quote that seemed to illustrate the point of your comment.

However, your comment seems not to be a response to my post. It quotes decontextualized words from my post, and addresses me in the rhetorical sense, but I'm not sure it addressed the point of what I said.

Contrasting the neurotic with the psychotic -- possibly in order to suggest an inherent difference between Apple fanboys and anti-fanboys? -- looks to be related to the stereotyping I mentioned in my post, but it might also be an example of that kind of stereotyping.

The trap would be associating a mindset with a brand and, by extension, everyone who buys products made by the company that owns it. Cf. my diagnosing you with an Oedipal complex based on your wearing Duckie Browns instead of Seavees.

Personally, I wouldn't characterize all Apple users as psychotic any more than I would all Android or PC users as neurotic. The need to engage in any sort of consumer's brand war is what seems neurotic to me, not the particular choice of brand to which the warrior happens to prove loyal.

But perhaps you were only asking whether I could recommend a useful Freud quote to you. In fact I have two clinical psychologists and a therapist in my family, so I could certainly ask. One of them has the job you often see in forensic shows -- the fellow who profiles dangerous criminals -- and he might have some particularly good one-liners about psychotics. Trouble is, they won't be quotes from Freud.

[forsooth]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

'''
My theory is this: impassioned consumer brand wars reflect people's feelings of social and political powerlessness. Same thing with people who make a point of hating celebrities.

Because we have no real standing or power, and nothing else (apparently) to represent our interests, we ally ourselves with this or that brand as chavs do football teams.
'''

Why not contrary meaning?
Why not power not powerlessness?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by forsooth

Why not contrary meaning?
Why not power not powerlessness?

Because the powerful run this. By living our lives, we're already their Roman arena.

If the powerless didn't need the misdirect of vicarious catharsis, then the public Roman arena would never have existed. In one sense, internet brand wars are a virtual Death Race 2000 in which consumers participate, just as hating celebs is the metaphorical equivalent of feeding Christians to lions: Haters want to be lions. In another sense, it's just a variation on playing the dozens. The art of the insult.

The only relatively positive thing about any of it is the replacement of literal human blood with the metaphorical kind. But if we weren't calling for one another's blood at all, we might be in a better position to understand the true source of our anger.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Because the powerful run this. By living our lives, we're already their Roman arena.

Quote:
Posted by forsooth
Why not contrary meaning?
Why not power not powerlessness?

If the powerless didn't need the misdirect of vicarious catharsis, then the public Roman arena would never have existed. In one sense, internet brand wars are a virtual Death Race 2000 in which consumers participate, just as hating celebs is the metaphorical equivalent of feeding Christians to lions: Haters want to be lions. In another sense, it's just a variation on playing the dozens. The art of the insult.

The only relatively positive thing about any of it is the replacement of literal human blood with the metaphorical kind. But if we weren't calling for one another's blood at all, we might be in a better position to understand the true source of our anger.

I see your point, Prestidigitweeze, and I also see Forsooths.

I think the trap you have fallen into is to only have 2 categories.
I love some celebrities. I hate some celebrities.

It can't just be the powerful and the weak or there wouldn't be these splits.
Some brands I admire. Others I stay away from.

For years I stayed away from Acer. Now it has become quite respectable in general.
I used to swear by Dell. Now they hardly enter my consciousness.

Surely you see things are not strictly dichotomies.