Photography and Politics

[Darin Boville]

Outstanding forumulation, Neil. That looks about perfect (not to mention nice and simple).

If I might make a small addition (or rather subtraction) I would rephrase your guideline simply as "members are permitted to engage in productive and fruitful discussions of politics and religion that relate to LF photography." No need to bring up the Lounge since non-LF politics/religion is not permitted anywhere (including the Lounge) and LF-related would be permitted everywhere, including the Lounge, if for some reason a member preferred to post there.

Same simple rule everywhere. Nice.

--Darin

[rdenney]

The concern, of course, is that one man's productive and fruitful is another man's flame war. Someone has to make that determination, and whatever we do has to navigate that balance.

Rick "moving in the direction of fewer prescriptions with more discretion" Denney

[Jody_S]

My apologies for ignoring comments, I've been having 'puter troubles and got signed out of everywhere.

1) I am not saying, implying, insinuating that members of LFPF are professional trolls.

2) The general issue with the paid professional trolls and discussions of politics and religion, here or elsewhere, is: "If you build it, they will come." In '16, if you have a discussion about a hot topic, whether religious, political, or critical of a large commercial interest or the wrong billionaire, paid trolls will show up and do their thing. However, the nature of LFPF would make their efforts rather comical.

3) The more serious issue is that as with any other human endeavor, knowledge grows, methods spread. Anyone who spends any amount of time on the W3 has seen trolls in action and understands how to disrupt a conversation if they really want to. Not everyone has it in them, of course, but trolling is so widespread and mundane now that we sometimes mimic trolling without even realizing it, when we're angry or otherwise engaged in a discussion. This often leads to accusations of being a troll when one is a longstanding member of a community, but has become too emotionally engaged in a thread. Obviously, this makes community moderation more of an art form than a simple matter of enforcing rules.

[Wayne]

Wayne, there was a lot more fuss than you realize happening behind the scenes, and often something pretty small is a trigger for a much bigger set of considerations. We know we would not handle it again as we did. We also know that this gives us a chance to review the larger issues that Sandy and others are bringing up, and we are talking it through.

But you have to understand that between three moderators and QT, all of whom are fitting our correspondence to each other amongst many other duties, it takes a bit of time to really talk through things so that we can avoid any unintended consequences of a change in direction. We've already tried the quick response.

Rick "patience, please" Denney

I'm troubled by the notion that behind the scenes whining and whiners ("fuss... happening behind the scenes"...) are influencing the administration/administrators of the board while public comments about the same are consistently suppressed, deleted and locked.

I guess I'm a simpleton, and I while I'm a frequent visitor I read a minority of the threads so I may miss a lot. But I only see the need to bring out the brass knuckles when people are making overt personal attacks and overtly political statements. The latter inevitably but convenientlly always deteriorates into the former and can be determined in that way. The rest is a big messy gray area that only gets messier when the gray lines are heavily policed because few agree where those lines are.

[Tin Can]

Here. Hear. Wayne.

I'm troubled by the notion that behind the scenes whining and whiners ("fuss... happening behind the scenes"...) are influencing the administration/administrators of the board while public comments about the same are consistently suppressed, deleted and locked.

I guess I'm a simpleton, and I while I'm a frequent visitor I read a minority of the threads so I may miss a lot. But I only see the need to bring out the brass knuckles when people are making overt personal attacks and overtly political statements. The latter inevitably but convenientlly always deteriorates into the former and can be determined in that way. The rest is a big messy gray area that only gets messier when the gray lines are heavily policed because few agree where those lines are.

[Two23]

Consequently, I believe that excluding photography related discussions of religion and politics in the (non-Lounge) LF Forums is not in the best interest, nor in the best tradition, of the LF Forum. So, I’ve often suggested to other moderators that we should jettison the Lounge. But in fact, the Lounge has become a well-established, and appreciated forum on the LF site. In retrospect, I think that we can continue to prohibit topics involving religion and politics inside the Lounge, yet still engage in productive and fruitful discussions of politics and religion that relate to LF photography in the regular LF forums.

The lounge is a great place to post a photography related link, such as the WW2 film rolls, which aren't really LF. Some of the more eclectic and interesting stuff shows up in the Lounge. It's become an "institution," and I think it should remain. As for "politics & religion," I think that's too narrow. I think in our context "religion" is more than ones' traditional religious faith. I'm more inclined to interpret it here as a more aggressive proselytizing of something. Examples that come to mind are the 911 "Truthers," abortion-topic people (both sides,) climate change*, and other special interests that have a cult like following. These are much more troublesome than any religion seem to be.

My favorite example, LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p80hXaM4QgU

Kent in SD

*After visiting Glacier(less) National Park this month,
I do have an opinion on the topic. I'm not one of the
"deniers." However, posting to the LF forum that in 50
years there'll be no farming in the Midwest is just pure
hysteria. For some, "climate change" has become a
sort of religion.

[Wayne]

These are much more troublesome than any religion seem to be.

.

Then why you do keep bringing them up?

[Jody_S]

I think in our context "religion" is more than ones' traditional religious faith. I'm more inclined to interpret it here as a more aggressive proselytizing of something.
(...)
However, posting to the LF forum that in 50
years there'll be no farming in the Midwest is just pure
hysteria. For some, "climate change" has become a
sort of religion.

I apologize if my comment came over as proselytizing. Sometimes, trying to be concise, I leave my words open to many interpretations. What I meant is that large scale, geologically rapid change is apparently upon us. Our photographs of ordinary subjects do have a political implication, they will be part of the record of how life used to be, before the great change (with the added benefit of being perhaps more permanent than the digital snapshots that comprise 99.9% of the record). Others will photograph the transition, like Dorothea Lange did with her migrant camp photographs in the transition from homesteading and sharecropping agriculture to industrialized farming. At the time, we could not fully understand the implications of what was going on, we could only see people suffering and others becoming rich, while the Midwest dried up and blew away.

My comment that most of us would not be alive to see the end is simply a disclaimer to those who believe global warming isn't happening. None of us will live long enough to say "I told you so!" Periods of transition invite discord, conspiracy theories, political pandering and gaslighting, revolutions, and generally both the best and the worst of humanity come to the front. The old Chinese curse of "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind. I feel an obligation, as a photographer, to be involved in documenting it all, but I'm not a climate scientist to make predictions of specific changes. However, this does make my landscape photography political, in intent even if that's not what immediately comes to mind upon viewing, today. I am documenting the world as I see it so my grandchildren will have a record of how things used to be. Perhaps it will be not much different for them and they will not find my photographs interesting. That would be great.

[Peter Lewin]

The last posts, from Jody and Two23, are an example of where we, the members of the Forum, have a responsibility to self-censor (not the two posts I mention, but the issue they raise). Let's assume that someone makes a project out of climate change, taking a series of photographs that they believe illustrate climate impacts, and posts the series on the forum. It is perfectly possible to critique the photographs regardless of whether we believe climate change is real or not. One can comment on whether the images are technically well done, and whether or not they support the photographer's intent. At the same time, we can avoid posting our thoughts on whether climate change is real or not, and certainly avoid subjective phrasing such as implying that a belief in climate change is a religion or a form of hysteria (or conversely that anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is blind or dumb). It goes back to my comment in a much earlier post that much of photography is political, and we shouldn't forbid the images because we can't control our own responses to the images.

[jnantz]

if the hot button topics that are political or religious or whatever, are a necessity for this site
maybe the site-architects+moderators can make a totally unmoderated "soapbox"
and all the grief and BS that follows those types of threads around like the plague
will be isolated into 1 place, and not pollute the rest of the forum. and the moderators won't have any moderating to do there.
and if threads go south in the main forum because of political/religious thread-drift the whole thread can be moved to the soapbox.