Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Mark D Segal on March 10, 2018, 03:18:26 pm
-
Firstly, Jeremy, I see that no "reply" function is enabled for your post. I don't see why not. Especially when I can reply like I am now.
I'm not going to make a big deal of this, but I don't see why this website needs a piece of the Forum opening up for discussing politics. There are enough other places on the Internet to do that and this is a photography website. In the current political environment, especially in the USA, I see grief coming to this decision because of the risks. I think it is completely pointless.
-
I agree with Mark, and suspect what we'll see isn't reasonable discussion amongst rational people but (more) ugliness. An unwise move IMO.
-Dave-
-
Everybody thinks it's their position that is reasonable and sensible, and that it's everyone else who is an obnoxious idiot. An astonishingly high percentage of people feel that horrible behavior is justifiable if a) I am right (which I always am) and b) the other guy is wrong, and just being offensive and obstructionist (which he always is).
The only way to win is not to play. I vote for not playing.
-
Reply in that post shows up for me...,
-
One of the things that I most value about the LuLa community is the uncommon level of civility I have found in the forum. I never had interest in the "Coffee Corner," and I guess I am blessed to have been spared viewing or becoming ensnared in any of it. I too don't see the point of encouraging political discussion on a site that is narrowly focused on photography. It seems a high-risk experiment that could go horribly wrong. It was not long ago that one of our most active members, who has been extremely generous in sharing his expertise, was lost to the forum for nearly a year because of rude treatment by another participant. This forum is a resource which has taken many years to develop into what it is today. The dynamic may be more fragile than one would hope. I think those who seek conflict and enjoy provocative expression of political opinion should go elsewhere to do so.
-
Firstly, Jeremy, I see that no "reply" function is enabled for your post. I don't see why not. Especially when I can reply like I am now.
Mark, I posted the same message in About this site and in the Coffee Corner. That in the CC is available for responses.
I'm not going to make a big deal of this, but I don't see why this website needs a piece of the Forum opening up for discussing politics. There are enough other places on the Internet to do that and this is a photography website. In the current political environment, especially in the USA, I see grief coming to this decision because of the risks. I think it is completely pointless.
You may be right. We shall see. In the meantime, those who don't wish to participate need neither read those threads nor post in them.
Jeremy
-
You may be right. We shall see. In the meantime, those who don't wish to participate need neither read those threads nor post in them.
Jeremy
That's true but it's not a personal issue - the main risk to the site is reputational. The site is very highly regarded for what it knows how to do well within its field of expertise. I think it is safer to leave it at that.
-
I agree with Mark, and suspect what we'll see isn't reasonable discussion amongst rational people but (more) ugliness. An unwise move IMO.
-Dave-
I too agree with Mark. Any more, political "discussions" come down to parroting propaganda.
Kent in SD
-
Mark, I posted the same message in About this site and in the Coffee Corner. That in the CC is available for responses.
You may be right. We shall see. In the meantime, those who don't wish to participate need neither read those threads nor post in them.
Jeremy
Absolutely right, and I see the alternative as being no more civilized than the bulk burning of books.
Others have made points as follows:
1. a wonderful photographer we all admire felt offended, and took a long sabbatical. If we are thinking of the same contributor, he does not read the CC, and the offence was committed in another, supposedly hi-end section of this site;
2. spill-over, or collateral damage: come on, of which sensitive souls do we speak? Anyone drifting here by accident, finding the wealth of photographic information it contains, is not about to do a van Gogh for a section of the site that has little to offer him, should he be so shrinking a violet. For one, I find it offensive that somebody would imagine me to be so easily upset. And if I were, I'd simply ignore the sections I don't enjoy. For the most part, that was my attitude with the entire Trump saga. It did not at all prevent me enjoying other parts of the CC. That the politically spiced bits are ever going to be manned by acolytes of one side or another is obvious, and thus the pointlessness of the entire threads. But hey, once you realise that... let the others have their jollies. As Two23 wrote, it comes down to political parroting.
This is not a church nor is it a temple of any denomination. Should one seek such an environment, then good luck: few of them offer what LuLa offers. Has it not struck anyone yet that an overdose of saccharine makes one sick? It's exactly the same problem as continued glorification and elevation of everything new to the top of the most-wanted lists. In the end, nobody believes anybody anymore since objectvity has died the death to commercial expediency.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of LuLa, photographic information aside, is to be found in the regular (active) members of the site. Those who read and contribute little, well, contribute little. Period. They remain devoid of identity. If some seek to silence those active participants, then perhaps they should explain exactly why, and then tell us what they, the complainants, are going to offer in place of the lost people. Good intentions mean squat: your participation has to measured in terms of your participation. Good intentions don't create anything to read. Nothing to read means nothing to read, so why even visit?
-
Make it easy on yourself..... Ban All Political Discussions!! Other wise where do you draw the line? Do you, then, draw the political boundaries? Are you left or right? You see, its easy if there are no political discussions. There are lots of other places for that. But then..... what would some do with themselves?
Victor
-
... the main risk to the site is reputational. The site is very highly regarded for what it knows how to do well within its field of expertise. I think it is safer to leave it at that.
What is the site's field of expertise ?
Edit:
*deleted*
-
Jeremy,
Welcome or congratulations - Global Moderator ?
Sad to see the passing of your 'handle' - was rather fond of 'kikasahi' .
M
-
Firstly, Jeremy, I see that no "reply" function is enabled for your post. I don't see why not. Especially when I can reply like I am now.
I'm not going to make a big deal of this, but I don't see why this website needs a piece of the Forum opening up for discussing politics. There are enough other places on the Internet to do that and this is a photography website. In the current political environment, especially in the USA, I see grief coming to this decision because of the risks. I think it is completely pointless.
+1
Dave
-
Fortunately, LuLa attracts viewers from many countries other than the good ol' US of A. For starters, isn't it of Canadian provenance?
Why do some people think it noble to close down sections which do not interest them? If anything, not only does it smack of misplaced ego, but of a sense of equally misplaced moral superiority.
Unlike with death and taxes, CC is avoidable if it proves too demanding of some part of one's spirit. Ever think about the old one of living and letting live?
On the other hand, it is a bit amusing to discover all these whited sepulchres.
Rob
-
And your point is??? Are you saying that Political discussions have a place at LL?
Victor
-
And your point is??? Are you saying that Political discussions have a place at LL?
Victor
My point is simply this: CC has been established as a zone within LuLa for discussion of matters beyond photography.
So clearly, the answer is yes, there is room for ALL sorts of topics within LuLa, as long as the non-snap ones are in their separate section.
Clear?
Were you to remove CC, it would not take a long time for people, especially those who post regularly and have developed friendships within LuLa, to come to the inevitable realisation that photography is simply not enough. The volume of good photography, anywhere outwith leading photographers' websites, is staggeringly low. It doesn't take much research to locate those websites, and once found, why would those thirsty for good imagery feel compelled to come here? As in the song, there has to be more to love than this.
Rob
-
What is the site's field of expertise ?
Edit:
*deleted*
Reminds me of Elvis: Don't Be Cruel...
;-)
-
Were you to remove CC, it would not take a long time for people, especially those who post regularly and have developed friendships within LuLa, to come to the inevitable realisation that photography is simply not enough. The volume of good photography, anywhere outwith leading photographers' websites, is staggeringly low. It doesn't take much research to locate those websites, and once found, why would those thirsty for good imagery feel compelled to come here? As in the song, there has to be more to love than this.
Rob
CC has its place and the discussions within it are fine...... except for political discussions. THAT is the devil's playground and no matter what will lead to moderation and ultimately locked threads. Clear??
There is no place for political discussions at LL from my perspective.......
Victor
-
CC has its place and the discussions within it are fine...... except for political discussions. 1. THAT is the devil's playground and no matter what will lead to moderation and ultimately locked threads. Clear??
2. There is no place for political discussions at LL from my perspective.......
Victor
1. Why would that worry or concern you if you don't take part, and if your thread, or one to which you have posted opinion, has not been locked?
2. Exactly; that's just one perspective, and from a point of view that doesn't want to play. Other folks' mileages differ, as the length of some threads there has proved. You desire to deny those folks their fun?
Rob
-
My point is simply this: CC has been established as a zone within LuLa for discussion of matters beyond photography.
So clearly, the answer is yes, there is room for ALL sorts of topics within LuLa, as long as the non-snap ones are in their separate section.
Clear?
Were you to remove CC, it would not take a long time for people, especially those who post regularly and have developed friendships within LuLa, to come to the inevitable realisation that photography is simply not enough. The volume of good photography, anywhere outwith leading photographers' websites, is staggeringly low. It doesn't take much research to locate those websites, and once found, why would those thirsty for good imagery feel compelled to come here? As in the song, there has to be more to love than this.
Rob
No it's not clear.
Do you understand the full meaning of reputational risk? Has it occurred to you that the perspective from which one needs to approach discussion on the internet is not necessarily personal but systemic? Once something is published it's a sitting duck, and it can't necessarily be ring-fenced. There are all kinds of people out there whose noses are easily put out of joint, especially nowadays when tolerance and civility are at a low ebb. Develop even the inkling of a reputation that this site is a place where political views they don't like is tolerated and you don't know what skills they have to deploy what kind of vengeance against us; it may not be contained to the Coffee Corner; coffee can spill. For me personally I could care less in a personal sense because I can't be offended by anything said in the Coffee Corner as I don't go there. Rather my concern is for this website, which has a world-wide reputation as being one of the very best resources on the planet for people interested in the very many dimensions of photography. Photography is more than enough for it, and more than enough to keep it financially and intellectually successful. We don't need to pollute it with politics and we take unnecessary risks if we do. This is my advice to the site's management, and I'm going to leave it at that - time to move on - to photography!
-
You desire to deny those folks their fun?
Rob
Its not fun, and you know it. Those 'Political' discussions get heated, mean spirited and generate attack responses. LL should be beyond those types of discussions. You wanna talk politics go somewhere else.
Victor
-
Rob,
Part of the problem is nomenclature.
Replace the word 'political' with 'current affairs' and you've got a different slant.
At what point does a discussion on current affairs turn political, or rather when does it NOT touch on the political ?
Perhaps all those who object so, would also want a blanket ban any discussion that comes under the 'CA' banner - and therein lies the problem 'cos there are plenty of CA topics that touch on photography too ...
OK, I get it ... discuss CA , but just as long as it touches ONLY on photography and stifle any urge to discuss anything else with the people you've come to know through the medium of photography.
Of course we can keep discussing ever narrowing 'fields of expertise' but it isn't going to bring in new blood ..
M
And to Victor, I'd refer you to digitaldog v FranzWaterlander (IIRC) and likewise digitaldog, Schewe et al v Gary Fong - now come back and tell me they didn't have 'fun' - and there wasn't a thread of the political to be found anywhere!
I'm all in favour of 'snowflake utopia' but you need to remove those rose tinted glasses [/levity]
-
And to Victor, I'd refer you to digitaldog v FranzWaterlander (IIRC) and likewise digitaldog, Schewe et al v Gary Fong - now come back and tell me they didn't have 'fun' - and there wasn't a thread of the political to be found anywhere!
I'm all in favour of 'snowflake utopia' but you need to remove those rose tinted glasses [/levity]
Yes...... they had fun, lots of it - at the expense of others. If you got a kick out of the 'Schewe bashing Trump' thread then good for you. I didn't..... not because of my political views but because I thought/think that it was beneath LL for allowing its existence. You can join Rob and start you own site and politicize until you're blue in the face....... just not here.
Victor
-
Yes...... they had fun, lots of it - at the expense of others.
Your word, not mine.
As for the Trump thread - I didn't participate, and nowhere did I say I enjoyed it, but I do know (quite) a few people who did enjoy reading the thread . some of whom joined the site.
If you got a kick out of the 'Schewe bashing Trump' thread then good for you. I didn't..... not because of my political views but because I thought/think that it was beneath LL for allowing its existence. You can join Rob and start you own site and politicize until you're blue in the face...
All of which has b-all to do with my earlier post.
..... just not here.
Which brings me back to my original point which you, probably inadvertently, also made with your opening sentence - vitriol and raised blood pressure isn't the exclusive domain of the CC.
-
I'm steady at 115 over 75 so all is fine here. :) I've made my point and that's the end of it.
Victor
-
No it's not clear.
Do you understand the full meaning of reputational risk? Has it occurred to you that the perspective from which one needs to approach discussion on the internet is not necessarily personal but systemic? Once something is published it's a sitting duck, and it can't necessarily be ring-fenced. There are all kinds of people out there whose noses are easily put out of joint, especially nowadays when tolerance and civility are at a low ebb. Develop even the inkling of a reputation that this site is a place where political views they don't like is tolerated and you don't know what skills they have to deploy what kind of vengeance against us; it may not be contained to the Coffee Corner; coffee can spill. For me personally I could care less in a personal sense because I can't be offended by anything said in the Coffee Corner as I don't go there. Rather my concern is for this website, which has a world-wide reputation as being one of the very best resources on the planet for people interested in the very many dimensions of photography. Photography is more than enough for it, and more than enough to keep it financially and intellectually successful. We don't need to pollute it with politics and we take unnecessary risks if we do. This is my advice to the site's management, and I'm going to leave it at that - time to move on - to photography!
Mark, you have been very helpful to me in the past regarding setting up monitors etc. and I am not going to repay you with vitriol; I leave that conduct to others.
All I would add is that surrender to tyranny, whether from the individual or a crowd, is never a good policy for it only begets more of the same. By extension, rather than protecting LuLa, it merely opens it to extortion from every crackpot who comes its way.
Rob
-
Mark, you have been very helpful to me in the past regarding setting up monitors etc. and I am not going to repay you with vitriol; I leave that conduct to others.
All I would add is that surrender to tyranny, whether from the individual or a crowd, is never a good policy for it only begets more of the same. By extension, rather than protecting LuLa, it merely opens it to extortion from every crackpot who comes its way.
Rob
Rob, there's a place for everything and all I'm suggesting, for the reasons I've stated, is that this website is opening itself to unnecessary reputational and security risk by taking on political discussion. There will be no compromise of defense from tyranny if LuLa sticks to photography. With this, I have said what I have to say about this topic so I am closing out of it.
-
I have to say I agree with Mark. I regret the return of politics into LuLa. As a relatively new user here I found it really unpleasant when I first wandered into CC. The ugliness expressed there really does have an impact upon how I felt about the site and I would say the site's reputation.
I am here for the expertise, the detailed technical knowledge and the overall curiosity about matters photographic. I'm ignoring certain users and CC as suggested. Moving on, but it's disappointing to see it return.
-
Jeremy,
Welcome or congratulations - Global Moderator ?
I know. Sounds awfully grand, doesn't it? I'm trying not to let it go to my head ;)
Sad to see the passing of your 'handle' - was rather fond of 'kikasahi' .
Yes, so was I. I use it as a login pretty much everywhere. But I thought I'd better not lay myself open to any accusation of hiding behind anonymity.
Jeremy
-
I'd like to request moving my "New Camera Orbiting Jupiter" thread out of the Coffee Corner and into Landscape Showcase. That way folks wishing to avoid rant & chant threads will be more likely to see it. JunoCam's photos are kinda landscapes anyway.
-Dave-
-
I'd like to request moving my "New Camera Orbiting Jupiter" thread out of the Coffee Corner and into Landscape Showcase. That way folks wishing to avoid rant & chant threads will be more likely to see it. JunoCam's photos are kinda landscapes anyway.
Good call.
-
I've not visited the site for a while - but I did used to read the Coffee Corner quite often. I thought it was a mistake to ban political and heated topics. There probably are many other forums that cover politics - but I don't subscribe to any of them. LL is the only forum I have visited and commented in regularly.
Personally I have enjoyed reading many of the topics in the CC over the years - particularly the ones on gun control in the US - I have been exposed to people who's views are polar opposite to mine. That is an education and I value their views, even if I disagree with them.
Jim
-
I've not visited the site for a while - but I did used to read the Coffee Corner quite often. I thought it was a mistake to ban political and heated topics. There probably are many other forums that cover politics - but I don't subscribe to any of them. LL is the only forum I have visited and commented in regularly.
Personally I have enjoyed reading many of the topics in the CC over the years - particularly the ones on gun control in the US - I have been exposed to people who's views are polar opposite to mine. That is an education and I value their views, even if I disagree with them.
Jim
Sounds pretty damned reasonable a position to me.
Rob
-
I don't mind, and sometimes even enjoy, discussions on heated topics when they're reasoned and cordial. This has increasingly not been the case here, to the point where I suspect it's no longer even possible amongst LuLa's current forum membership. I wouldn't mind being proved wrong…
-Dave-
-
"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people... Religion, Politics, and The Great Pumpkin." -- Charles Schulz
-
"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people... Religion, Politics, and The Great Pumpkin." -- Charles Schulz
I agree with two of them being unwise ventures.
Rob
-
Repeating my above request.
I'd like to request moving my "New Camera Orbiting Jupiter" thread out of the Coffee Corner and into Landscape Showcase. That way folks wishing to avoid rant & chant threads will be more likely to see it. JunoCam's photos are kinda landscapes anyway.
-Dave-
-
Reading the CC political and climate change threads I discovered that a number of people whose photography I had admired are actually rather pathetic human beings. No reason necessarily why those things should be mutually exclusive but I found it saddening. I'd have preferred to look at the pictures in ignorance.
-
I'd like to request moving my "New Camera Orbiting Jupiter" thread out of the Coffee Corner and into Landscape Showcase. That way folks wishing to avoid rant & chant threads will be more likely to see it. JunoCam's photos are kinda landscapes anyway.
Done. If you have requests such as this in future, it would be better to make them directly to me, Chris or Kevin rather than by a post in an unrelated thread.
Jeremy
-
Reading the CC political and climate change threads I discovered that a number of people whose photography I had admired are actually rather pathetic human beings. No reason necessarily why those things should be mutually exclusive but I found it saddening. I'd have preferred to look at the pictures in ignorance.
Have you stopped to consider that, in the general scheme of creation, we all are?
Never mind photography, just look at Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin; no need even to think about musicians: their feet and souls of clay are notoriously legion.
On some levels, I believe you can look upon most art forms as little but eloquent screams of anguish.
Rob
-
Reading the CC political and climate change threads I discovered that a number of people whose photography I had admired are actually rather pathetic human beings. No reason necessarily why those things should be mutually exclusive but I found it saddening. I'd have preferred to look at the pictures in ignorance.
I wish I could erase the political views expressed by those I used to admire from my memory and return to a LuLa that was a photographic forum rather than a debating society/social media platform, but sadly I can't.
What's done is done.
-
I wish I could erase the political views expressed by those I used to admire from my memory and return to a LuLa that was a photographic forum rather than a debating society/social media platform, but sadly I can't.
What's done is done.
+1
-
Done. If you have requests such as this in future, it would be better to make them directly to me, Chris or Kevin rather than by a post in an unrelated thread.
Got it. Thanks! (I looked through the forum docs before posting but didn't find anything on moving threads.)
-Dave-
-
+1
Why the long faces?
Simply ignore the sections of LuLa that displease you: simple.
I couldn't give a damn about Sarah Moon's or Hans Feurer's or even good ol' Bailey's governmental system preferences; I just love the photographs they can make. That's what I want from them. Period.
Judging their value to me by whether or not they endorse the same religion, party or anything else outwith their art, seems kinda pointless.
After all, who started the thread on the long tall oilman who got fired yesterday? :-)
Rob
-
Why the long faces?
Simply ignore the sections of LuLa that displease you: simple.
I couldn't give a damn about Sarah Moon's or Hans Feurer's or even good ol' Bailey's governmental system preferences; I just love the photographs they can make. That's what I want from them. Period.
Judging their value to me by whether or not they endorse the same religion, party or anything else outwith their art, seems kinda pointless.
Rob
That would be closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Unfortunately I read the threads and can't erase them or the views expressed from my memory.
The folk concerned - and it's not present company - are neither Sarah Moon nor Hans Feurer.
-
I couldn't give a damn about Sarah Moon's or Hans Feurer's or even good ol' Bailey's governmental system preferences; I just love the photographs they can make. That's what I want from them. Period.
Judging their value to me by whether or not they endorse the same religion, party or anything else outwith their art, seems kinda pointless.
I think everyone draws the line on this at some point. My dad, who loved much of Wagner's music despite the man's well-known issues, nonetheless wouldn't listen to certain of his works due to historical circumstances I'm sure you're familiar with. IMO great art can transcend anti-great character. But never completely.
I was never bothered much in the past by LuLa's tolerance of polemical threads or by the avid participators in such threads. Hell, I even threw in an occasional post of my own. But when they started really curdling I was glad to see 'em go. Now that LuLa has chosen to reindulge them I look at both them and it in a different light, with my line drawn at a different place.
-Dave-
-
I think everyone draws the line on this at some point. My dad, who loved much of Wagner's music despite the man's well-known issues, nonetheless wouldn't listen to certain of his works due to historical circumstances I'm sure you're familiar with. IMO great art can transcend anti-great character. But never completely.
I was never bothered much in the past by LuLa's tolerance of polemical threads or by the avid participators in such threads. Hell, I even threw in an occasional post of my own. But when they started really curdling I was glad to see 'em go. Now that LuLa has chosen to reindulge them I look at both them and it in a different light, with my line drawn at a different place.
-Dave-
Hi Dave. Some of us are making a real and honest attempt to elevate the discussion and actively discourage personal attacks and the kind of thing that leads to them. Speaking personally, I've also resolved to post at least one photo-related post for every non-photo-related comment I make. I'm behind today but I'm going to give myself a pass on this one. ;)
-
Hi Dave. Some of us are making a real and honest attempt to elevate the discussion and actively discourage personal attacks and the kind of thing that leads to them. Speaking personally, I've also resolved to post at least one photo-related post for every non-photo-related comment I make. I'm behind today but I'm going to give myself a pass on this one. ;)
That's good, and I hope it does good. Now that these discussions are back I'm fine with letting 'em rise or fall on their own merits.
-Dave-
-
That would be closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Unfortunately I read the threads and can't erase them or the views expressed from my memory.
The folk concerned - and it's not present company - are neither Sarah Moon nor Hans Feurer.
Exactly.
And it wasn't merely the views, but the horrible, disrespectful logic behind it.
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
-
Reading the CC political and climate change threads I discovered that a number of people whose photography I had admired are actually rather pathetic human beings. No reason necessarily why those things should be mutually exclusive but I found it saddening. I'd have preferred to look at the pictures in ignorance.
This is a very sad statement. It is perfectly clear that you are not talking about half of the United States (aka the basket of deplorables). It is perfectly clear that you are not making a group insult, e.g., "all conservatives are pathetic human beings." You are clearly addressing a pretty small, easily identifiable group of individuals, members of this forum. I am pretty sure you had me in mind, among others.
Now, I've been called names on this forum before. Dick, jerk, or worse. I do not mind. I believe in "stick & stones..." I do not mind if you call me idiot or stupid. I do not mind if you call all Serbs "war criminals" (I've been getting PMs on this forum with questions like "How many women and children you murdered, you jerk?")
But a "pathetic human being"!? For having an opinion you don't like!? For daring to express it against the chorus of one-sided, politically correct ones, currently in vogue? For pointing out that things are not that simple as you (collective you) wants us to believe!? For annoying you!?
"Pathetic human being"!? I never raped or killed anyone, not even touched "inappropriately." My "sexual harassment" consisted of "you have a beautiful smile" thought meant for a passing colleague at work, but never pronounced. Never broke the law and never accused of or charged with anything (ok, I admit, I had two speeding tickets in my life).
So I am, and few others who I can guarantee you are very similar in deeds and in their lives to me, a "pathetic human being"!?
I strongly resent that. And as it is clearly a personal attack on a few, easily identifiable, forum members and thus against the forum rules, I am reporting you to the moderator.
Enough is enough.
-
This is a very sad statement. [...] And as it is clearly a personal attack on a few, easily identifiable, forum members and thus against the forum rules, I am reporting you to the moderator.
I'm curious as to why you should feel targeted.
It's not an unsurprising response (*) from someone who may feel strongly on one side or other of an argument.
Was he referring to the avid Anti-Brexiteers (I'm one) or those so very much in favour?
Was he referring to those 'white gloves' so opposed to Trump's stance on the Paris accord, or those who support his (arguably foolhardy) decision?
Was he referring to those you often refer to as the 'Liberal Elite' or those with a distinct right-wing bias ?
I could go on ...
Why you ?
Edit:
(*) jeremyrh's post in your quote above
-
I'm curious as to why you should feel targeted.
It's not an unsurprising response (*) from someone who may feel strongly on one side or other of an argument.
+1
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm curious as to why you should feel targeted.
It's not an unsurprising response (*) from someone who may feel strongly on one side or other of an argument...
Seriously!?
Does it matter if it is me or not? Is it ok to consider those we disagree with "rather pathetic human beings" and state it so publicly? Speaking about "progressive hostility" from the other thread I started, this is then a great example.
But it was not a general statement. This was a highly targeted statement, because it is not just those who posted conservative views, already a rather small number here, but those whose photography is worth admiring. A small number of participants in political discussions post their photographs, and even smaller number of conservative posters post theirs.
Feel free to name those, apart from Rob, Russ and me (sorry if I forgot someone) who are conservative posters and post their photographs regularly.
-
So the secret is to be just ambiguous enough that you can squirm around and deny something is directed at any participant here, then it's OK to deride them as you see fit?
-
So the secret is to be just ambiguous enough that you can squirm around and deny something is directed at any participant here, then it's OK to deride them as you see fit?
Am I correct to assume you refer to jeremyrh, here?
Your post has been a little abiguous, as in the best of street photography.
But yes, Slobodan makes an interesting point, which I'd amplify to say that it really does surprise me that so many avid amateur politicans here seldom, if at all, post images by which we may gather an indication of either their photographc competence or, indeed, the direction in which their mind travels. Odd one would choose to inhabit a photography forum, yet hardly ever show any work... perhaps the photography quotient simply provides a volume, a forum for disruptive behaviour that might just as well consist of fishermen or potters.
Rob
-
Or people can just be interested, or have other technical competencies, or post now and then, or have reasons for not being too overtly present, or, or, or, etc.
-
... it really does surprise me that so many avid amateur politicans here seldom, if at all, post images by which we may gather an indication of either their photographc competence or, indeed, the direction in which their mind travels.
Why would that surprise you ? Other than those who use LuLa as something akin to a camera club (a perfectly valid reason) I can think of little reason to show your shots unless you're looking for either 'user critique', peer input or a pat on the back.
Times change. LuLa was/is the place to come to on technical matters. Today, ALL the togs I know (and a large majority, I suspect, of those I don't) post on Instagram. If you're looking for a more targeted 'home', GetDPI and Fred Miranda.
Last time I looked, Schewe, digitaldog, Bart et al don't post photographs.
Doesn't make their input any less valuable.
ps
What have you got against fishermen or potters?
They're just as entitled to practice photography as you and I, and equally entitled to their own opinion.
----
Edit:
For Rob C
https://www.instagram.com/inezandvinoodh/
https://www.instagram.com/giovanni_gastel/
https://www.instagram.com/patrickdemarchelier/
https://www.instagram.com/markseliger/
https://www.instagram.com/richardyoung110/
https://www.instagram.com/profotoglobal/
-
This is a very sad statement. It is perfectly clear that you are not talking about half of the United States (aka the basket of deplorables). It is perfectly clear that you are not making a group insult, e.g., "all conservatives are pathetic human beings." You are clearly addressing a pretty small, easily identifiable group of individuals, members of this forum.....
+1, I don't think calling any members of this forum "deplorable human beings" is signalling understanding of the etiquette on the site, especially in the thread that deals with exactly this issue.
-
Why would that surprise you ? Other than those who use LuLa as something akin to a camera club (a perfectly valid reason) I can think of little reason to show your shots unless you're looking for either 'user critique', peer input or a pat on the back.
Times change. LuLa was/is the place to come to on technical matters. Today, ALL the togs I know (and a large majority, I suspect, of those I don't) post on Instagram. If you're looking for a more targeted 'home', GetDPI and Fred Miranda.
Last time I looked, Schewe, digitaldog, Bart et al don't post photographs.
Doesn't make their input any less valuable.
ps
What have you got against fishermen or potters?
They're just as entitled to practice photography as you and I, and equally entitled to their own opinion.
----
Edit:
For Rob C
https://www.instagram.com/inezandvinoodh/
https://www.instagram.com/giovanni_gastel/
https://www.instagram.com/patrickdemarchelier/
https://www.instagram.com/markseliger/
https://www.instagram.com/richardyoung110/
https://www.instagram.com/profotoglobal/
I don't have anything against fishermen or potters; why should I? I love fish more than beef, and always make sure I have a pot left to piss in.
I don't have anything to do with Insta. Twitter, FB or any of the other means of mass communication. The last thing I desire - well, one of the last things - is getting into some social media network that becomes even more of a time-consuming monster that is LuLa which, at least, is fairly pleasant.
Regarding Schewe, I seem to remember having suggested that he post images here as I believe he led/leads a high-level advertising photography life. That's pretty much the kind of photography that, naturally, oils my hinges.
Rob
-
...Now, I've been called names on this forum before. Dick, jerk, or worse. I do not mind. I believe in "stick & stones..." I do not mind if you call me idiot or stupid. I do not mind if you call all Serbs "war criminals" (I've been getting PMs on this forum with questions like "How many women and children you murdered, you jerk?")...
Abusive and objectionable personal Messages (PMs) may be reported to Moderators as as easily as posts and will be dealt with appropriately.
Anyone sending a message such as you describe will be permanently banned, the IP address used and other personal information will be noted for any further action that may be necessary.
Chris
-
This is a very sad statement. It is perfectly clear that you are not talking about half of the United States (aka the basket of deplorables). It is perfectly clear that you are not making a group insult, e.g., "all conservatives are pathetic human beings." You are clearly addressing a pretty small, easily identifiable group of individuals, members of this forum. I am pretty sure you had me in mind, among others.
Now, I've been called names on this forum before. Dick, jerk, or worse. I do not mind. I believe in "stick & stones..." I do not mind if you call me idiot or stupid. I do not mind if you call all Serbs "war criminals" (I've been getting PMs on this forum with questions like "How many women and children you murdered, you jerk?")
But a "pathetic human being"!? For having an opinion you don't like!? For daring to express it against the chorus of one-sided, politically correct ones, currently in vogue? For pointing out that things are not that simple as you (collective you) wants us to believe!? For annoying you!?
"Pathetic human being"!? I never raped or killed anyone, not even touched "inappropriately." My "sexual harassment" consisted of "you have a beautiful smile" thought meant for a passing colleague at work, but never pronounced. Never broke the law and never accused of or charged with anything (ok, I admit, I had two speeding tickets in my life).
So I am, and few others who I can guarantee you are very similar in deeds and in their lives to me, a "pathetic human being"!?
I strongly resent that. And as it is clearly a personal attack on a few, easily identifiable, forum members and thus against the forum rules, I am reporting you to the moderator.
Enough is enough.
Slobodan..... report to the current moderator? He publicly condones all of this. Lets see how low all of this can go.
Victor
-
..... report to the current moderator? He publicly condones all of this.
I have no doubt Jeremy can and will answer for himself, but ITM, honestly - just grow up.
-
Although tempted I have resisted adding to this discussion before - if only because to do so was to encourage the very things I regret in the discussion.
If I want to read about photographic things I come / go to photographic sites that I respect for their photographic / art information and expertise - like this one.
If I want to read about financial / economic matters I go to The Economist / FT or similar.
If I want to read about political / social policy ideas I go a site which has expert and constructively conflicting views on those subjects to obtain a broad spectrum of knowledge of such things.
I find that it is rarely worthwhile to spend time confusing those sources.
I do not believe that economic, political or religious opinions shed much light on art - for example one of my favourite late 19th and early 20th century artists is Eric Gill and from choice I always use his fonts yet I believe him to have been an utterly odious person.
Similarly I have never felt that the opinions about 'art' have been relevant to an assessment of the worth of my colleagues on work matters.
For me the unfortunate tone of some of the discussion in this thread demonstrates very clearly that it diminishes an art / photographic site to stray into irrelevant areas - diminishes it both in terms of respect for the artistic work and views of some members with whom one would be at odds for their "other" views and in terms of the civility with which each should regard their fellow contributors.
In very simple terms would not LuLa be a better and more comfortable place for all of us if we all concentrated on its prime purpose ??
-
I have no doubt Jeremy can and will answer for himself, but ITM, honestly - just grow up.
I am grown up, Manoli...... why don't you, then, let our current moderator speak for himself and stop grandstanding for him.
Victor
-
I don't have anything to do with Insta ...
Rob,
All you've got to do is click on those links, I'm sure you'll enjoy a lot of the photography. Best of all - it's waffle free! [/light-hearted-quip]
-
Feel free to name those, apart from Rob, Russ and me (sorry if I forgot someone) who are conservative posters and post their photographs regularly.
Just saw this thread. How could you forget me when I was the first one (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=105418.msg868203#msg868203) here to predict and then vote for President T?
I decided long ago that the reason I come to LuLa is for Photography and so I give a wide berth to political discussions and threads.
-
Rob,
All you've got to do is click on those links, I'm sure you'll enjoy a lot of the photography. Best of all - it's waffle free! [/light-hearted-quip]
Yes, I'm familiar with these people; however, there's a massive problem associated with so much of contemporary fashion photography, which is that the influence of Photoshop has made snappers almost all end up looking like one person.
It's one of the reasons that I like Hans Feurer, Peter Lindbergh and Albert Watson, along with Sarah Moon; they still appear able to hang on to identify, though I gather at least two of them have pretty much left fashion behind. I understand it comes down to being contemporary etc. but people used to be able to be contemporary yet individualistic, too.
Truth to tell, though I would love to be back shooting fashion, I couldn't get into the current way. I'd still be the same old me but with different models. Models; yes, never overlook the huge difference they make to any photographer's work. Would Bailey have become Bailey without Shrimpton? I often think about that.
However, I think I have zero interest in shooting pin-ups anymore, not that I do, of course. And even there, the input of the right model made me look good, whereas being stuck with somebody I hadn't chosen and/or felt nothing for, was a nightmare.
Could be an age thing, though, but I do like seeing pretty women even if I'm not photographing them. Probably more than if I were working with them. I guess everything has its time.
-
"pathetic human being" is a term of abuse that I will not tolerate. It is irrelevant and unnecessary; it does not contribute to the discussion. It matters not whether any individual, on this forum or elsewhere, is identifiable.
"basket of deplorables" at least has the pseudo-merit of being a quotation from a former candidate for President. However, it too is an awful phrase and does not merit repeating.
Grow up, the lot of you. I do not wish to moderate this group as though it were a children's playground.
Jeremy
-
"pathetic human being" is a term of abuse that I will not tolerate. It is irrelevant and unnecessary; it does not contribute to the discussion. It matters not whether any individual, on this forum or elsewhere, is identifiable.
"basket of deplorables" at least has the pseudo-merit of being a quotation from a former candidate for President. However, it too is an awful phrase and does not merit repeating.
Grow up, the lot of you. I do not wish to moderate this group as though it were a children's playground.
Jeremy
Jeremy, I think it's getting to you!
Now, coming from you, legal eagle etc., I feel far more confident in my own diagnosis of some "six-year-olds" but hey, who'd bring that up!
Look at it this way: LuLa is still the place we like to visit, through thick and thin, and where we get the most buzz posting our chat and our photographs, so at the end of the day, the old place is all very worth it, despite the occasional grief. C'est la vie.
;-)
Rob