Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: More discussion about Forum policy on politics

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    VOTE FOR RAND PAUL!!

    I hope people understand I'm just trying to be funny.

    Post below... Ron isn't running.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    El Cajon, CA
    Posts
    674

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    Wrong paul…
    Michael Cienfuegos

  3. #13
    Tim Sandstrom
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    318

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulr View Post
    Shutting down a discussion like this is just flat-out anti-intellectualism. If you refuse to even define your anti-idea policies in a way that makes sense, you're just begging for the abolition of real ideas.
    I'll be away from here, at least for a while.
    hyperbole.

    I have found your ideas on art to be contrary to some of mine, and that can be fruitful;
    your knowledge of the lenses I have noted as well, I would miss those postings;
    and your sweet ruin project I found interesting on a number of levels;
    all of those contributions to this site I would miss.

    the other stuff... not so much.

  4. #14
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    The trouble is that no one has defined "politics." I think some people mean the grade school level definition of liberal vs. conservative, or vote for this guy vs. that. But politics means vastly more than that, at least if you're trying to have intelligent discussions about the world and things in it (including art).

    Saying that we're here to discuss photography, not politics, is akin to saying we're here to discuss photography, not people. Or photography, not the world.

    We should be smarter than this, and we should expect people making the rules to be smarter than this.

    Don't accuse me of semantics. I don't know how to talk about art without involving politics on some level. And unless you believe it's imperative to stick to f-stops and chemicals, neither do you. It's simply an unnatural line to draw in the sand.

    But if you're going to draw a line in the sand, be explicit about it. Define "politics" for the purposes of this forum. Or better yet, call it something else rather than hijacking a word that is vital and far-reaching.

    And maybe reconsider why the MFA thread was shut down. I don't expect moderators to be perfect. It's unreasonable to expect people who are being paid to be perfect, and I know they're volunteering. But let's still think about this one. Not only was that thread shut down, but my thread seeking clarity on the issue was shut down. So the topic of "what is political" was deemed too political. And THAT is anti-intellectual, anti-thought, anti-reason. It's bullshit.

  5. #15
    Land-Scapegrace Heroique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Wash.
    Posts
    2,929

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    Thank you Paul.

    Yes, I'd enjoy the moderators giving a simple try to the request.

    "Politics," in a few sentences, or several if that's best. Perhaps submit it for a limited discussion.

  6. #16
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    Paul, that definitional discussion is well underway - we are not entirely oblivious.

    In the meantime: our policy is an "anti-letting-the-pot-boil-over" and an "anti-letting-the-tail (Lounge)-wag-the-dog (Forum)" policy, not an anti-idea policy. What kinds of things tend to make the pot boil over is an empirical question for us, not an ideological one. Where to draw the line in terms of trying to prevent train wrecks rather than cleaning up the mess afterward is also a pragmatic one, though difficult to get just right.

    If an idea that ends up missing the cut is something that one cares deeply about, believes to be relevant, and perhaps even worries is under siege in the world more generally, I can understand how it might seem otherwise.

    By the same token, the feedback thread was shut down not because it was political - in principle, a meta-discussion about whether we should have a policy is within bounds. Rather, it was shut down because that basic policy is not going to change, and so the inevitable heat, which was already starting to show, was to no useful end.

    However, the request made here for a clarification of what counts as politics is a reasonable one, and we'll respond.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3,326

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    I have no problem with threads where the discussion gets heated or impassioned or even "boils over." Personal attacks is where I would draw the line, not disagreements about ideology.

    Jonathan

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Aalst, Belgium
    Posts
    667

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    What about a hotlink to an external platform if the discussion get's too close to the 'political' boundaries? The moderators (or a member) could create a topic there and provide a link in the closing post of the thread. Perhaps less work for them instead of constantly having to monitor the thread getting too 'hot'...? Might be a nice experiment to see how things move on in 'Nomansland' :-) But what could that Nomansland be...? Perhaps a stupid idea after all.
    Tom Keymeulen

  9. #19
    Lurker
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    212

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    There is a huge difference between Paul 's and Frank's discussion about politics. Frank wanted to debate presidential platforms and world issues. Paul wanted to discuss the future of MFA programs. The world is not black and white.

    Discussing difference in ideologies is acceptable to me. The issue I have is the moderators believe they can read the person's tone or inflection through the text without ever meeting that person. It is impossible and leads to pre-mature thread closures.

    David

  10. #20
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: I am beyond disappointed.

    You can still post a photo of politics or religion, taken 4x5" or larger negative. They've been good art themes for a very long time.

    Many of us are better with photos than words, (meant as a compliment to the fine photographers here and an honest reason for some of us to avoid written discussion of topics this place isn't for).

    I enjoy banter on the banned topics, but do appreciate the lack of it here. I get plenty that stuff on facebook and news and enjoy sticking to photography here.

Similar Threads

  1. Muir Woods policy change
    By Drew Wiley in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 13-Jul-2015, 10:53
  2. New forum : Image Sharing and Discussion
    By gevalia in forum On Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15-Dec-2009, 11:51
  3. B&H Photo Return Policy?
    By alec4444 in forum Resources
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 29-Oct-2008, 12:22
  4. What Happened To The New FS Policy?
    By Brian Ellis in forum Feedback
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 4-May-2008, 17:57

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •