Photography and Politics

[Kirk Gittings]

Anonymity and/or lack of face to face contact is the problem IMHO. People say things online that they would never say to a person's face.

[Vaughn]

Squash the rudeness. I do it in my classes when needed, and we talk about the most controversial issues I can find. This whole kerfuffle would make a great case study.

Trigger warnings have nothing to do with "controversial issues", and I am surprised anyone teaching at a university would not be a little more up on the subject.

If you were teaching 20th Century film, and had a couple Iraq veterans in the class who have PTSD -- and you, without warning, showed scenes from Apocalypse Now, how would you respond to them getting upset? Tell them to man-up and deal with it? Are you willing to be with them the next 12 nights when they are afraid to go to sleep because the nightmares will be waiting for them? That is what trigger warnings are all about.

Or rape victims, suffering their own form of PTSD having to watch a film (or required to read a book) showing a rape scene not that dissimilar to what they experienced in real life.

Students not wanting to hear opposite views is an entirely different situation...and you are correct about that They need both sides.

[bob carnie]

Anonymity and/or lack of face to face contact is the problem IMHO. People say things online that they would never say to a person's face.

I think this was proven over the last few days, I am still wondering why the person who pm'd another here and insulted him is still an active member here. I think there should be some consequences for this kind of action.

[Tin Can]

2 times I have self censored myself in THIS thread.

[Oren Grad]

Oh, no!

Attachment 154361

Here it comes!

What comes is a brief post from me reiterating that we are listening and discussing.

More from us to follow.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, I've dealt with students who have ptsd. Thank you for your concern. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...igger-warning/

[Jac@stafford.net]

Anonymity and/or lack of face to face contact is the problem IMHO. People say things online that they would never say to a person's face.

During the early years, just before the so-called Web matured, many of us considered our anonymity as valuable because it obviated the prejudice others might feel about our appearance, gender, nationality, religion. Well, those days are gone, evaporated, forgotten. During that same brief era we were trading knowledge with the philosophy of "Share what you know" and yes, it was largely about technical issues, just as most of this site lives on with discussions of technical topics.

We have passed through that bubble. This site lives on, moves forward with its policy and moderators. Striking a balance is too daunting for me to judge, and I sense that even our more generous participants would find it the same. It is easier to raise issues than answer them.

So, I look towards a real photo oriented, political site and hope this site persists with the intelligent moderation, the backstory, the moderators discussions in the background.

We (rather, I) must find that alternative site. One certainty is that it will never replace largeformatphotograpy.info which is about info.

[Jody_S]

This might be trite or cliche, but good art challenges the viewer. If any photography that challenges the viewer is banned from LFPF for fear a discussion might arise, we're left with pictures that might be technically perfect and amazing and beautiful to look at, but that have no soul.

This is 2016. We cannot let trolls disrupt conversation on interesting topics. If we do, we let the trolls win. We must remember that trolls are no longer the stereotypical mom's-basement-dwelling posting-in-their-underpants juveniles. Trolls are now professional disruptors, often trained and paid to stifle points of view that they or their paymasters do not want to see discussed. Trolling is now a billion-dollar industry, and sweatshops with trolls-for-hire are available for all political views, commercial ventures, and religious ideologies. If we allow ourselves to be silenced in the face of this onslaught, we lose our humanity. We cede the public square to those who have the muscle to push us out.

I had high hopes for LFPF because here was a good assembly of experienced, mature photographers with differing styles, methods, agendas, projects, who came here because they didn't want to go to commercial sites. It would be a shame, IMHO, if LFPF gave up because the odd troll throws a grenade into a thread. There are not so many users here that we can't tell who is a troll and who wants to discuss images and photography.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] We cannot let trolls disrupt conversation on interesting topics.

Personally, I find no such trolls regarding the thread in question. There is (or are) a couple posts with provocative ideas, but not trolls in the real sense. Trolls cast with no regard to specifics, but only innuendo.
.

[Vaughn]

Yes, I've dealt with students who have ptsd. Thank you for your concern. The administrators at the University of Chicago must not know what they're talking about.

Good to hear.

The concepts are new and are undergoing growth and changes -- the Dean of Students taking those concepts out of context and lumping them in with students demonstrating against speakers they do not agree with does not help. Helps with getting conservative donors, perhaps.

I have dealt with university Deans/administrators -- not necessarily the brightest bulbs outside of their educational specialties...and many times are majors power trippers. Lots of good ones out there, of course...somewhere.

PS -- Oren, thanks to you and our other moderators for giving the (original) topic much consideration. How about "Time outs" for topics that go political? Close them for a couple days, and re-open them after folks have cooled down.