More discussion about Forum policy on politics

[cdholden]

Why is it always called South? That, sir, is political as hell.
Is there something wrong with the polar opposite of North?

I'm offended or something.

[goamules]

Question to the OP: Would you be ok if there was a new forum section, "For Politics Only?" Or is it that you want to be able to interject political discourse into any thread, in any section, when it pleases you, and no matter if it is irrelevant and off tangent?

Or maybe in rare threads, that are inherently political, (Does the current Administration allow more media photography access than the last?", etc.) it should be allowed, upon consensus, for just that thread. I've seen moderators allow some short comments that have a political bent.

I just want to be able to ignore politics, which is why I come to hobby forums that disallow it. There are many. There are probably many that allow political discussions too. Why does it have to be here?

[invisibleflash]

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.

Hey, I've been kicked out of almost every photo forum under the sun. I started my own blog and say any damn thing I please now. I read what the camera fodnelrs talk about on the banned forums and answer them as I please on my blog. You start your own blog and talk away.

This forum is composed of anal, stodgy types. Those are the personality types that gravitate to LF.

https://danielteolijr.files.wordpres...g?w=923&h=1513


They don't go for new thinking much. That is my experience anyway.

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/...yones-got-one/

[koh303]

This forum is composed of anal, stodgy types. Those are the personality types that gravitate to LF.

I am shocked and appalled to know i am not the only person who thinks that. I guess two is better then none.

[Richard Wasserman]

At the risk of somewhat swimming upstream on this, I have to say I agree with Paul. Most people here seem to be using a much more narrow definition of politics than he is, as government. Politics in the US (and I assume elsewhere) have become radically polarized and it is probably best to avoid those discussions. But politics can also deal with how people interact, and the distribution of power in society. These I think can be important topics for artists to discuss and work on.

[BrianShaw]

Why is it always called South? That, sir, is political as hell.
Is there something wrong with the polar opposite of North?

It would be just as bad to use the latest lingo of "gone to the left", eh?

[Ari]

If I understand correctly, Paul means something more along the lines of "small-p" political, not left vs right, etc.
It's a subtlety of discussion that's worth examining here on the forum, if only to permit livelier and farther-ranging points of view.

The mods have a tough job, and they can't consider every request for leeway; they have to stop trouble at the source, which is, by necessity, a sweeping and sometimes broad action that sometimes deprives us of some worthy discussions.

I'm gonne toe the line here, and say that while I wish we could have more room for broader, less generic points of view, I realize that this isn't the place where I'll find such things.
I do, however, greatly enjoy the forum for what it is already.

[Corran]

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.

+1

[Chuck Pere]

Maybe the originator of the thread should be allowed to edit the thread. They don't like something and it's gone. You don't like how they do it start your own thread. Also makes it easier on the moderators.

[Taija71A]

The trouble is that no one has defined "politics."

Exactly. How can you 'enforce' a basic usage guideline...
When it has not even yet been defined?

At the risk of somewhat swimming upstream on this, I have to say I agree with Paul. Most people here seem to be using a much more narrow definition of politics than he is, as government. Politics in the US (and I assume elsewhere) have become radically polarized and it is probably best to avoid those discussions. But politics can also deal with how people interact, and the distribution of power in society. These I think can be important topics for artists to discuss and work on.

+1 and very well stated Richard!