More discussion about Forum policy on politics

[paulr]

Shutting down a discussion like this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?124191-Ban-on-Politics) 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.

[karl french]

Why is it so hard for people to understand this is a forum about large format photography. Not politics, religion, 35mm cameras, medium format cameras, bad jokes or what you ate for breakfast. Not that hard, really. Good luck with those "real idea" forums out there.

[MikeH]

Why is it so hard for people to understand this is a forum about large format photography. Not politics, religion, 35mm cameras, medium format cameras, bad jokes......

+1. I'm in a horse-racing handicapping forum that allows politics, etc., and it's amazing how many decent, educational threads head south as soon as there is any mention of politics. etc. I would hope this forum would never change this rule.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] it's amazing how many decent, educational threads head south as soon as [...]

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

[Kirk Gittings]

What the hell Paul? This is hardly a new policy.

[vinny]

Oren is coming..........

[Oren Grad]

Oren is coming..........

...to report that he's busy thinking about line-drawing and stuff. Play nice, now, 'kay?

[dsphotog]

I come here to escape the TV news, endless barrage of what this, or that candidate said or did today....

[Heroique]

We better not lose Paul – his participation justifies a special concession, quick.

[Sal Santamaura]

We better not lose Paul – his participation justifies a special concession, quick.I appreciate Paul's contributions on photography and would miss them. However, if he were to insistently create threads that agitate against long-standing rules, then make a "grand exit" because politics is off limits and he doesn't think it should be, I'd not be distraught over his departure. Special concessions aren't justified. For anyone.

We had another member who couldn't abide the rules and was banned. I haven't heard of any photography-with-politics forum being started by Frank after that. I don't think anyone who isn't willing to establish their own venue can be taken seriously when attacking this one.


...I'll be away from here, at least for a while.I look forward to your return.

[Old-N-Feeble]

:cool: :cool: VOTE FOR RAND PAUL!! :cool: :cool:

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

Post below... Ron isn't running.

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Wrong paul… :(

[dasBlute]

Shutting down a discussion like this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?124191-Ban-on-Politics) 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.

[paulr]

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.

[Heroique]

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.

[Oren Grad]

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.

[jcoldslabs]

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

[D-tach]

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.

[TXFZ1]

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

[jp]

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.

[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 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?124191-Ban-on-Politics) 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.wordpress.com/2015/07/pd-project-daniel-d-teoli-jr-g300-mr.jpg?w=923&h=1513


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

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/opinions-are-like-assholes-everyones-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!

[Kodachrome25]

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.

A friend of mine is a guard at a prison, he has a tough job too, keeping the inmates in line and what not.

I have noticed that for me personally, there are less and less reasons to come here. I have enough knowledge in LF to have it do the job I need it to. I have all the LF gear I could ever need or want....so what is left then? Web banter that keeps me distracted from reality, away from the darkroom, from making photos and above all, my lovely wife?

This place is just not worth it Paul and neither is any web forum for that matter.
Get out and make photos, make eye contact with real people...that is what is important.

[Oren Grad]

What happened to Ken Lee?
I didn't realize, that he was no longer a current Forum Moderator. :(

After several years of service to the Forum Ken felt it was time to hand off this responsibility. My arrival made it possible for him to do that without causing an acute coverage crunch. However, he asked not to make a fuss about it. Please honor that request.

Thanks.

[Taija71A]

... Please honor that request. Thanks.

No problem Oren. Understood in full. Will do!
Thank-you for the updated information. Greatly appreciated!

Best regards, -Tim.

[Sal Santamaura]

I have no problem with threads where the discussion gets heated or impassioned or even "boils over."...Whether you have a problem or not is of no consequence. What matters is whether this venue's owner and moderators have a problem. Their house, their rules.

[John Kasaian]

I agree with the mods.
It is far better to raise the subject of Art on forums concerned with religion and politics than to raise the subjects of religion and politics on a forum concerned with photography.
An audience obsessed with politics and religion would IMHO benefit greatly by the intellectual discussion of Art.

[Sal Santamaura]

What about a hotlink to an external platform if the discussion get's too close to the 'political' boundaries?...I suspect this forum's owner and moderators would consider that suggestion as soon as you send them the url for your "photography-politics platform."

[Sal Santamaura]

...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 this isn't an "art" (whatever that is) forum. It's not even a general photography forum. It's a large format -- as strictly defined by image sensor size -- photography forum.


...maybe reconsider why the MFA thread was shut down...Not only was that thread shut down, but my thread seeking clarity on the issue was shut down...It's bullshit.While you may have wanted it to be, your shut down thread's purpose did not appear to be pursuit of clarity. Instead, it read like many others where posters disagree with and dislike this forum's rules. It was a statement of opinion and anger. To wit:


To ban politics—which can be broadly understood as relationships between individuals and groups—is ultimately to ban most topics of substance.

It's nearly impossible to talke about art without politics. You can only talk about surfaces...Remove the possibility of discussing relationships like individual/society, individual/corporation, individual/nation, nation/society, society/government, subculture/society, subculture/government... not to mention art/society, art/government, art/world, art world / artist .... you have discussions of surfaces and tools...The trick is to ban personal attacks, not the substance of the message board.

The idea that the political is "something else" is too dumb for me sit back and agree too. Every time we talk beyond f-stops and chemicals and pixels we are entering, or at least flirting with, the political. Drawing arbitrary lines, like whatever one led to the shutting down of the recent MFA thread, just make this a shallower and dumber place.Your post effectively communicated that you disagree with what the owner and moderators of this forum say it is, which you also denigrate as "of no substance" and "dumb." It seems you wish the forum were something it's not. That opinion has been posted by you and other members here in the past. Rather than a request for clarity, it reads like nothing more than a repetitious complaint. I'm unable to figure out why the moderators closed the thread rather than deleting it completely.

[Jody_S]

It's nearly impossible to talke about art without politics. You can only talk about surfaces. (...) Remove the possibility of discussing relationships like (...).... you have discussions of surfaces and tools.

I completely agree. The resulting discussions on this forum are extremely shallow, about any topic other than LF technique and equipment. But the mods have chosen to prioritize these discussions on technique and equipment over a larger, more meaningful discourse on art and meaning. Since many people use this forum as their primary resource for all things technical as they pertain to LF, I can't say they have made the wrong choice. I just think it's a little sad that a bunch of grown men (well, 99% of us are men) can't mix the two, but that is perhaps just a reflection of society as a whole (American, mostly) that is politically polarized to such a degree that dialogue is now impossible.

[Sal Santamaura]

...This place is just not worth it Paul and neither is any web forum for that matter...Yet, here you are again Dan. At other forums too. Why is that?

[BrianShaw]

I hereby nominate Sal as the official spokesman of the forum owner(s) and moderators. :rolleyes:

[Doug Howk]

There are very few, if any, people here on LFPF who are experts on issues of politics and religion. But there are many who are experts on what this forum is about. I'd suggest sticking to the strengths of this forum, and leave politics/religion to other forums.

[jp]

I think the forum is approaching an existential crisis. I browse through and enjoy most of the image sharing threads, and most of the images are put up by people with relatively few posts. Most of the very smart people who are very productive at yarning and writing banter here post very few images. I try to post images at least monthly based on how often I develop and/or scan. LF photography for me is an action verb partly supported by forum wisdom/creativity. I think the people who post photos with few posts are smart too; at least smart enough to be reserved in their talk and keep shooting.

[Oren Grad]

:cool: :cool: VOTE FOR RAND PAUL!! :cool: :cool:

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

Post below... Ron isn't running.

I let this pass yesterday, but as it has been flagged to the moderators I just wanted to make an observation. Having gotten past the heat of last night, people are making a good-faith effort here to have the meta-discussion about Forum policy that was stillborn in the other thread. We appreciate that; please let it proceed without gratuitous disruption.

[Sal Santamaura]

I hereby nominate Sal as the official spokesman of the forum owner(s) and moderators...Not a spokesman for anyone but myself. I've always enjoyed clearly pointing out reality to anyone who appears oblivious to or desirous of avoiding it.

[Oren Grad]

Sal's point of view duly noted. Rather than worrying about who is a spokesman for what, let's stay focused on the issues being discussed and let others have their say too.

[BrianShaw]

Sal's viewpoint is generally completely on point!

BTW, Oren... I'm very glad you didn't play your TRUMP card and delete ONF's attempt at humor. :D

[Taija71A]

Disclaimer:

The views expressed on the Large Format Photography Forum...

Are those of the Authors only and do not necessarily represent or reflect...
And should not be attributed to the Owner of the Forum or Forum Moderators.

:) ;) :D :p

Therefore, we are now returning back to our 'regularly scheduled' LF Program.

[sepstein17]

A definite +1

[TXFZ1]

I let this pass yesterday, but as it has been flagged to the moderators I just wanted to make an observation. Having gotten past the heat of last night, people are making a good-faith effort here to have the meta-discussion about Forum policy that was stillborn in the other thread. We appreciate that; please let it proceed without gratuitous disruption.

Maybe you should move this from the lounge to the feedback section, if you as a moderator want to stiffle all humor.

David

[goamules]

Again, I ask:

Would anyone be ok if there was a new forum section, "For Politics Only?" (Though even the Lounge has become bickering matches and attacks as soon as religion or politics come up.) I could tolerate/ignore that.

Or is it that some 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? I don't want that.

There was a Vietnam Vet who worked for me in one of my jobs. Every day, no matter what was going on in office discussions, he would shift the discussion to one of two things. 1. The fact he was a big war hero who was in Vietnam. 2. The fact he hated the current president, and his party.

It was wearisome, each and every day, to have our discussions on training, food, office furniture, ANYthing get shifted to #1, and #2. Until we former Navy vets just applied the shipboard tactic of baiting him into a tirade each day - 10 minutes before he was slated to leave for the day. It took him a week or two to realize when we said "hey Robert, what do you think the Pres is going to do about xxx?" we were just trying to keep him late (his other stated rule was "I never stay late.")

So, we can all heckle each other, and have moderators do more work, and have some people turned away in disgust, and have some loudmouths have a soapbox platform to go off on political tangents. Or ------ we can leave the working rules as they are. I've seen most Moderators are pretty lenient, and don't delete a post instantly that has one word related to politics. Because you can associate just about anything with politics. That's ok. But deep, macro analysis and debate is not needed here.

[Drew Wiley]

For once, I'm trying to stay neutral. But if it's so important to you, why not just establish a different forum dedicated to the philosophical or political aspects of this? There must be something in the Photojournalism arena already. "Large Format Forum" just has a ring to it, which is in fact technical, as in large format tools, techniques, and travel temptations.

[Sal Santamaura]

...this is the lounge after all.But should this thread be in the Lounge? Or should it be categorized "Feedback," since it's really about forum rules?

[Oren Grad]

This is indeed appropriate for the Feedback section, will move it.

[Jody_S]

There are very few, if any, people here on LFPF who are experts on issues of politics and religion. But there are many who are experts on what this forum is about. I'd suggest sticking to the strengths of this forum, and leave politics/religion to other forums.


Art is political. That is, creating art, and displaying art, are political actions. Therefore, if any of us have any pretension to being artists, we are banning the discussion of our photography by banning politics on this forum. That's why our discussions are limited to technical aspects of the craft, or "oooh, look at the pretty picture!" comments.

FFS, the patron saint of half the forum, Ansel Adams, was overtly political with his photography (http://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-the-role-of-the-artist-in-the-environmental-movement/).

[BrianShaw]

But should this thread be in the Lounge? Or should it be categorized "Feedback," since it's really about forum rules?

Ahhh, that's better. :)

[Tin Can]

Art is political. That is, creating art, and displaying art, are political actions. Therefore, if any of us have any pretension to being artists, we are banning the discussion of our photography by banning politics on this forum. That's why our discussions are limited to technical aspects of the craft, or "oooh, look at the pretty picture!" comments.

FFS, the patron saint of half the forum, Ansel Adams, was overtly political with his photography (http://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-the-role-of-the-artist-in-the-environmental-movement/).

Exactly.

However...

Real Art discussion will never happen here.

Technique, gear and Golden age lamentations are all that is proper

I can live with that...

[Mark Sawyer]

FFS, the patron saint of half the forum, Ansel Adams, was overtly political with his photography (http://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-the-role-of-the-artist-in-the-environmental-movement/).

Report him to the moderators! And if he and Mortensen start arguing again, we'll permanently ban both of them!

*sigh* This is why we can't have nice things...

[Old-N-Feeble]

:rolleyes: :D You're ALL banned... DAMMIT!!! :mad: :cool:

[Bruce Barlow]

:rolleyes: :D You're ALL banned... DAMMIT!!! :mad: :cool:

Good! Now I have an excuse to go photograph.

[Drew Wiley]

That's the dilemma. Never mind current squabbles. Lots of LF has historically been over an axe to grind. Not just the Civil War, but tons of classic stuff during the Depression Era, then the whole NP and Wilderness movement. And even a realistic assessment of that has been proscript. Don't know the answer, except that most of that anybody halfway informed just takes for granted. Now are shots of melting glacial pools in Greenland going to be banned just because somebody in the Flat Earth Society objects and claims it's all a hoax? There must be some kind of common sense middle ground.

[Tin Can]

That's the dilemma. Never mind current squabbles. Lots of LF has historically been over an axe to grind. Not just the Civil War, but tons of classic stuff during the Depression Era, then the whole NP and Wilderness movement. And even a realistic assessment of that has been proscript. Don't know the answer, except that most of that anybody halfway informed just takes for granted. Now are shots of melting glacial pools in Greenland going to be banned just because somebody in the Flat Earth Society objects and claims it's all a hoax? There must be some kind of common sense middle ground.

How about LF image with no comments thread that deals with contemporary issues? No words allowed.

I think we can handle images, but political commentary is not my best suit.

We need to be careful how we name the thread...

Maybe Mods need to define that thread?

[Drew Wiley]

Even QT briefly got shown in one of Ken Burn's distinctly political documentaries related to the Parks. AA was almost synonymous with it, not to mention E.Porter
a step further. It's a very blurry line if basic history is even left intact at all. And that's just amidst the landscape genre!

[jp]

if you actually read Eliot Porter's books (with his writing, not Thoreau's) , the writing isn't awardwinning. Summer island is more or less a rambling journal describing the place, people, challenges.

The intimate landscape photos have power that is sometimes political. And it comes off as if the photos are relaying the message from the subject, as if the subject has a political/theological wisdom nugget in need of a photographer to first listen and hear it, then relay it in a beautiful two dimensional medium.

We need more photography and less writing. I like the idea of images doing the talking.

I think the idea of concisely defining what is not cool for political discussion is good and could be helpful to everyone.

[Leszek Vogt]

Art (around us) is full of innuendos and often has myriad of political nuances. It's an inherit dimension and how we emphasize it says more about the individual. Some of the folks here are absolutists and that rubs others the wrong way. OK, back to: **oh, it's a nice color** or **wonderful contrast** etc...

Now, 'Going South'....somehow I was under the impression that this would be a concept that was born in Canada. :>) Indeed, some would see it as being a pejorative. Would this quip get me fired ?....to add some other dimension to it ? Jac, last time I checked gravity...it was not going North. :confused::)

Les

[Oren Grad]

I'm seeing two distinct issues here:

1) What do the guidelines mean by "politics"?

2) Is there any difference in how the limitation with respect to politics should apply to core large format photography topics - i.e., in the main discussion sections - as opposed to Lounge topics?

We will address both questions.

Other observations in the various comments noted too.

Is there anything else we should consider on this that hasn't come up yet?

[pdh]

But to get into a lengthy discussion about what we perceive as the significance of the images is beyond the capabilities of most if not all here. Sorry, training in visualization does not include qualifications as philosopher, Art historian, politician, etc..
.

If it were a criterion for entering into a discussion on an internet forum that the writer be an expert or trained in the subject under attention, there would be about two threads in total across the entire web ...

[diversey]

The politics related to LF photography should be allowed to discuss in this forum, others should be forbidden.

[Corran]

If it were a criterion for entering into a discussion on an internet forum that the writer be an expert or trained in the subject under attention, there would be about two threads in total across the entire web ...

Exactly.

[Tin Can]

Images with text could be inflammatory.

Obvious porn should be not allowed.

[Corran]

Define porn?
(Half-joking here, but anything "nude" is porn to some people. This has been a debate for ages hasn't it? I have seen photos at colleges censored for nudity.)

[Tin Can]

Define porn?
(Half-joking here, but anything "nude" is porn to some people. This has been a debate for ages hasn't it? I have seen photos at colleges censored for nudity.)

Well it has to be a dressed...

[sun of sand]

Maybe what the net needs
Society in general needs
Is to have more well rounded people capable of having civil discussions with those having different viewpoints

Never going to get that by banning subjects from entire communities
Be it online forums
Dinner tables
Date nights


Segregate subjects to some basement to be found far from where most are willing to travel
The only ones to be found within will likely be the ones scheming to keep the machine going as is
Of benefit to them and those like them..opposing party included


Isn't it strange how everyone on the internet is brilliant and complains about the lack of civility yet in threads like this so many can state that certain topics like these ultimately turn negative and just cannot be allowed
I think somones fullofshit

[Oren Grad]

Looks like a good time to close this. We will process and report back in due course.