A lack of civility...

[Robert Roaldi]

It's not politics but factual.  States set up laws for voting and only 6% of the white male population was eligible to vote initially.  Interest in voting had nothing to do with it.  As per the Constitution, slaves did not have citizenship and were counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.  They did not get the right to vote until the 14th amendment was passed in 1868.  Women did not get the right to vote until a lot later; I think Wyoming was the first state to have universal suffrage.  Full voting rights were not in place until the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920.

This timeline is useful for those wanting further information.

Thanks, this is very interesting, but in general people prefer mythology to facts.

[RSL]

It's not politics but factual.  States set up laws for voting and only 6% of the white male population was eligible to vote initially.  Interest in voting had nothing to do with it.  As per the Constitution, slaves did not have citizenship and were counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.  They did not get the right to vote until the 14th amendment was passed in 1868.  Women did not get the right to vote until a lot later; I think Wyoming was the first state to have universal suffrage.  Full voting rights were not in place until the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920.

This timeline is useful for those wanting further information.

Thanks for the refresher, Alan. That was all taught in grade school when I was in grade school. Since your age is N/A it’s unlikely it was taught in grade school when you were in grade school. You probably learned it in college.

Yes, I shouldn’t have used the term “interested in voting.” It’s confusing. But you gotta remember I was around in the days when Congress fixed things with “separate but equal” schools. I was going through a course at Air University at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery Alabama shortly after that went into effect. We lived out in the country, not far from a separate but equal school where they taught the girls to do housework and the boys to do farm work. They kept blacks from voting with taxes and other similar disincentives. I won’t go into the other disincentives that were in place. When I came out at night there always were Klan flyers under the wipers on my car. Earlier, when I went through pilot training in Texas, women could vote, but they couldn’t own property free and clear as long as their husbands were alive.

I could go on and on about situations in those days that we all see as big problems now. But unless you lived in that time you have absolutely no grasp of public attitudes then. As I said, “Hindsight always is twenty-twenty.” You can gaze out your posterior orifice and make all sorts of judgements about what the world should have been like before you were in it.

But this is too close to politics to go on with.

[Robert Roaldi]

That made damned good sense.

We have several parties in the UK with that inclination: generosity with the money of others.

I'd go one further, and say that a minimum, measured level of education should be mandatory if you want to vote. It could both encourage people to pay attention in school and thus get the right to vote and, incidentally perhaps, a better chance at a better job. Win all round for the individual, and a worthwhile instance of carrot on stick.

Based on what logic would the vote of a guy with a straw hanging out of his ear and a match from his lips be as valuably valid as that of an architect or lawyer? (In my innocence, I assume neither of the latter two types are given to getting themselves rolled in the hay - at least not just before voting.) Perhaps another class of person that might justifiably be denied a vote would be the politician: he or she is the last group that I would trust with my wallet; I feel I'd have more chance of getting it back intact from our friend with the straw. Unfortunately for my thesis, there are as many over-educated nutters as of any other kind.

;-)

I am sure you were being hyperbolic for amusement, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Accusing political parties of being generous with other people's money is funny. Isn't that what all lobbying is in aid of? Believing that this desire occurs in some parties and not others is an odd point of view. The municipal/regional authorities in Long Island recently handed over millions (if not a billion or more) to Amazon so they could build a warehouse there. You'd think that Amazon, of all companies, could afford investing in their own future without the need of taxpayer help.

Maybe we should restrict voting to CEOs only. After all, they're not biased, they're always thinking of what's best for the country. And they're successful and probably spent some time in school too, so they meet a lot of criteria.

[faberryman]

Could we drop this entire line of discussion and return to photography? To get us back on track, I'll quote the original post:

A lack of civility...

Posting images is fine...once comments are offered, welcomed or not, it's social media. Battle lines are drawn, a very different thing than a discussion in the real world. The are no rules here in that regard. In live face to face forums that I have taken a part in, civility still stands. Too much craziness exists here because of the anonymity of too many of the participants. No real names, makes for an ugly discourse. To debate with people in a live setting is thrilling, educational and informative. One knows the the caliber of who stands in front of you. Not here. Here it all goes to crap...

[amolitor]

In my experience, the vast majority of the time that someone "requests" to see a critic's pictures, the asker has:

1. Made up their mind that the critic's pictures are garbage, and
2. wishes only to confirm that impression, and
3. invariably will, regardless of what the critic's pictures look like.

Furthermore, I do not think a "real names" policy changes incivility much. It is not the anonymity as much as the distance/medium. Facebook has, I believe, a real names policy, and is not exactly famous for its civil and uplifting discussions.

[Rob C]

I am sure you were being hyperbolic for amusement, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Accusing political parties of being generous with other people's money is funny. Isn't that what all lobbying is in aid of? Believing that this desire occurs in some parties and not others is an odd point of view. The municipal/regional authorities in Long Island recently handed over millions (if not a billion or more) to Amazon so they could build a warehouse there. You'd think that Amazon, of all companies, could afford investing in their own future without the need of taxpayer help.

Maybe we should restrict voting to CEOs only. After all, they're not biased, they're always thinking of what's best for the country. And they're successful and probably spent some time in school too, so they meet a lot of criteria.

No, no! Giving money to the Amazons of this world isn't help: it's "incentive" to encourage them to build in your bailiwick! It creates jobs, you see, slave jobs, AFAIK. So within a couple of centuries or more, that money will have been returned to the community whence it was raised, unless the company vanishes, of course, or the community also sinks under the waves.

Let's see: the alternatives are rebuilding old car plants and foundries, bringing back more trains and digging more coal out of the ground where it was so safely stored out of harm's (our) way.

:-)

[James Clark]

In my experience, the vast majority of the time that someone "requests" to see a critic's pictures, the asker has:

1. Made up their mind that the critic's pictures are garbage, and
2. wishes only to confirm that impression, and
3. invariably will, regardless of what the critic's pictures look like.

Furthermore, I do not think a "real names" policy changes incivility much. It is not the anonymity as much as the distance/medium. Facebook has, I believe, a real names policy, and is not exactly famous for its civil and uplifting discussions.

Agreed 100%

[Rob C]

I think giving advice is more an expression of giver ego than of asker naivety.

It's always been my position that people must find their own way; in the end, that's the way they will find joy or whatever else they seek. Trying to implement instructions from a third party strikes me as downing a beer when you'd far rather sip a gin and tonic. The best that third party can offer you is help to recognize the appropriate glass.

Civility depends on a lot of background influences, though, as well as personal proclivities. I'm not so sure at all that the medium is the cause, though I do expect that for some it releases them of the pressure to behave properly just because their identity might remain unknown to their peers. A cowardly approach, then, which of itself means the perp recognizes the error of his ways, but can't resist, this adding failure upon failure.

Yet, have we not all already met the person who is rude and aggressive in all circumstances? Perhaps we are just bumping into him again online, too.

Rob

[petermfiore]

Could we drop this entire line of discussion and return to photography? To get us back on track, I'll quote the original post:

Thank you Franklin for the nudge...

How did, and why did this thread meander into the weeds on Voting rights...

Peter

[jeremyrh]

Thank you Franklin for the nudge...

How did, and why did this thread meander into the weeds on Voting rights...

Peter

To be fair, the original post didn't have much to do with photography, and the progression to voting rights was via a consideration of how to judge the value of opinions.

[petermfiore]

To be fair, the original post didn't have much to do with photography, and the progression to voting rights was via a consideration of how to judge the value of opinions.

...it had to do with a lack of civility in the discussing of Images. Not voting rights, which at best was a short walk into the weeds.

Peter

[JNB_Rare]

Could we drop this entire line of discussion and return to photography? To get us back on track, I'll quote the original post:

The issue is much wider than photography and it predates social media. I remember when our company first introduced email (long before microcomputers). Within days there were email firestorms and insulting language the like of which we'd never seen/heard before. Some of it was due to poor language and/or misinterpretation of what was written. Much was caused by people simply being more casual/flippant. In a face-to-face meeting there are body/facial/intonation clues to accompany words. Emoticons are a poor substitute (though they're better than nothing). As someone who, in the past, has administered such communications systems, I can't count how many times I've had to send out cautionary messages, talk to people in person, and even hold "training sessions" on email/digital media etiquette.

In the early days, we talked about the growing need for "digital education", to address issues such as etiquette, truth, and digital malevolence (viruses, scams, trolls, cyber bullying) in this new medium. Most of those discussions were drowned by the tidal wave of the Internet. I still believe that the basics (language and communication, critical thinking) are vitally important skills, and should be 'top of mind' in school curriculum.

All this is to say that there is no easy solution, especially with international participation and differing/evolving social/cultural norms. One can only ask for and model civility (thank-you, Peter), hope that civil behaviour and language is reciprocated, and monitor/intervene when things get out of hand (hats off to the monitors – it's a thankless job).

[Rob C]

It probably all comes down to personal background, early experiences and education.

So much contemporary usage of poor language and grammar does not help - all that nonsense of i where it should be I, and the rest of the shortcuts that texting has produced. Is it really so difficult to use capital letters where they apply? Is it cool to appear ignorant? Maybe it is.

Rob

[RSL]

There certainly are a lot of people giving it a try, Rob.

[Robert Roaldi]

Civility depends on a lot of background influences, though, as well as personal proclivities. I'm not so sure at all that the medium is the cause, though I do expect that for some it releases them of the pressure to behave properly just because their identity might remain unknown to their peers. A cowardly approach, then, which of itself means the perp recognizes the error of his ways, but can't resist, this adding failure upon failure.

A worthwhile discussion requires an honest desire to exchange points of view. Exchange means to listen as well as to talk. Some people just can't do that.

[petermfiore]

A worthwhile discussion requires an honest desire to exchange points of view. Exchange means to listen as well as to talk. Some people just can't do that.

An added bonus of a face to face event...

Peter

[Rob C]

An added bonus of a face to face event...

Peter

Indeed, and why virtuous virtual sex will never replace the real thing where both remain as options.

:-)

[Robert Roaldi]

Indeed, and why virtuous virtual sex will never replace the real thing where both remain as options.

:-)

Sorry to go off on another tangent, which some people don't appreciate, but have a listen to this series of podcasts about that very topic: BBC 4's Addicted to Sex.. It consists of 6 episodes, which appears daunting at first but the combined length is probably less than 2 hours, and, well, it's about sex, which is rarely boring.

[petermfiore]

...Some people just can't do that.

to listen as well as to talk...A must for a mature individual to be taken seriously.

Peter