Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 180

Thread: Photography and Politics

  1. #21
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: Photography and Politics

    I think much of social Internet trolling has traditionally been people at home either/or drunk or stir-crazy. I went stir crazy a couple years ago when I had a remote office at home instead of face-to-face work with peers. If trolling is dealt with swiftly and meaningfully it would not be much of a problem. (I am aware that professional trolls frequent news sites including local news for politically divisive purposes) I'm enjoying socializing here without the doom and gloom that is Internet political news and opinion at the moment. Yet I do have some portrait shoot ideas that would addess political issues and would expect to be able to post them here. Perhaps polite political discussion is OK if it first involves a photograph, which would get people shooting more. I think shooting (and corresponding sharing) is what can grow the forum and make it richer.

  2. #22
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: Photography and Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    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.
    Thanks, Vaughn. Suggestion appreciated, we are indeed considering such things.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Aalst, Belgium
    Posts
    667

    Re: Photography and Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Jody_S View Post
    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.
    Well said - let's not let it become too sterile... It's a great forum!
    Tom Keymeulen

  4. #24
    Foamer
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    2,430

    Re: Photography and Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post

    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.

    I like that idea. It frustrates me to come upon an otherwise interesting thread a day or so later that took a swerve, after it has been closed. Many basically good threads end up being closed. As for moderators, I think a possible question they could ask themselves is, "Would an LFPF member from Bulgeria or China be interested in a thread containing topics based entirely on U.S. controversies?" I think our regulars here are pretty well educated and OK, but being a public forum we are open to attack. Look at what eventually happened to the old AOL photo forums. The only other photo forum I'm active on is Fred Miranda, but most of what drama there is there is of the usual petty personality conflicts between photographers, and the kerfluffles are mostly about whether the 200-500mm zoom is better than the 300m f4 DO. Anything approaching politically themed bickering/proselytizing is rare and very quickly shut down. Regulars don't even bother with it.

    Another thought--maybe some categories (such as "On Photography") could have a little more lee way than others?


    Kent in SD
    In contento ed allegria
    Notte e di vogliam passar!

  5. #25
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: Photography and Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Jody_S View Post
    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.
    You are right, Jody.

    Please note, however, that we have never yet prevented anyone from posting photos, unless they were of a type that could cause the forum to be labeled in such a way as to prevent it from being viewable by our members at their workplaces, and so on. Pornography is the most obvious example of that, but we can all think of other examples. Truth to tell, I don't recall any time when we had photos like that we had to delete. The biggest controversy we've had concerning actual photographs was whether 6x17 was or was not large format.

    Rick "who has not yet seen a professional troll on this forum, but who has seen quite a few professional spammers, and recommends the same treatment for both" Denney

  6. #26
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chillicothe Missouri USA
    Posts
    3,065

    Re: Photography and Politics

    The historical relationship between photography and political actions is too important to ignore. Consider William Henry Jackson, Louis Hine, and Ansel Adams. Surely we can write about them without rancor. Even controversial photographs and information that illuminates them can contribute to the collective wisdom for which this site should be admired. Of course they will offend some. We can't please all of the people all of the time. However, there is no need to rant about today's moral or political controversies here. Nor should we tolerate personal attacks. Personal opinions unsupported by actual experience or respected references are also suspect. Threads which become too agitated should be closed, although not deleted until the furor they arouse is over. It is frustrating to read pages of comment on a subject that we can no longer access to see just what all the fuss is about.

  7. #27
    Old School Wayne
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    1,255

    Re: Photography and Politics

    This message has been deleted by Pere Casals.
    ---------------------------


    Lol. This place is such a hoot. Don't worry, your secret is somewhat safe with me.

  8. #28
    Old School Wayne
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    1,255

    Re: Photography and Politics

    Anyway in the interest of saying something marginally meaningful or useful, I read everything that was locked/deleted recently and still don't know what the fuss was about. The photos didn't bother me, the text didn't bother me, Kent's comments didn't seem that awful to me, and by far the worst comments of all came from management who seem intent on controlling something that isn't really a problem for most and can't really be controlled anyway. Even Kent's "dang it" thread was locked at first. Such fuss about so little!

  9. #29
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: Photography and Politics

    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

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,675

    Re: Photography and Politics

    As a (former) moderator with the longest tenure, except for Tuan Luong, let me offer some history.

    The days in which discussions involving politics and religion were allowed on the Forum predated the addition of the Lounge. As Sandi aludes, there are times when these discussions relate to large format photography. For example, whether or not one can photograph in National Parks easily becomes a political topic; yet, it's one in which many LF photographers have a stake.

    But after the Lounge Forum was added, discussions involving politics and religion became so incendiary inside the Lounge (talk about mayhem!), that the moderators voted to prohibit any discussion of these topics on the LF Forum. As a result of the current guidelines, the politics of photographing in the National Parks is off limits. Of course, the irony in this, is that the Lounge has little do with the primary purpose of the Forum, which is large format photography. (I've suggested that this is the tail wagging the dog.)

    In my view, a resolution to this problem pivots on whether or not a discussion involving politics or religion occurs inside or outside the Lounge. Clearly, history has shown that, given the wide range of non-LF topics that can occur inside the Lounge, discussion of politics and religion needs to be prohibited.

    However, outside the Lounge, such discussions usually went off-topic (non- LF) well before they reached the combustion point and could be, and often were, deleted on that basis. So, outside the Lounge, there is a control that exists within the guidelines to help prevent discussions involving religion and politics (for example) from reaching destructive levels. To put this another way, any discussion involving religion or politics that occurs outside the Lounge would have to relate to LF photography.

    In a previous thread, Kirk Gittings offered valid logic that forum administrators have the right to censor topics of conversation. But, it’s always been my belief, that a good forum should be an example of free-speech. Administrators have the right to censor, but does this make for the best forum?

    Not in my view.

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Ban on Politics
    By paulr in forum Feedback
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-Jul-2015, 17:02

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
  •