Ad revenue drying up, what next for free websites?

[Rob C]

I'd get to bed if I were you me old mucker, you're not making sense now.

That's what happens when people quote you: it doesn't make sense. And you only see that when it comes back from a source other than yourself.

Q.E.D.

(But seriously, let's just ignore each other and do the forum a favour. There never was anything in common, not even in what we euphemistically call 'photography', there never could be, and your disappointments were not mine.)

Rob C

[Rob C]

PC is not about treating people with respect.  It's about shutting people up who may have a valid point to make about a subject that people don't want discussed, often for political reasons.  When someone raises the statistic that out-of-wedlock births and single parent families are creating more problems in black families, the speaker is silenced by calling him a racist.  When a university president states that he believes men make better scientists and engineers or at least are more attracted to these fields than women, he is accused of sexism and is forced to resign.  Even if people's views are misinformed, they disserve the right to speak their minds.  And many views are right on the mark.   "Treating people with respect" is a two-way street. Yet the speakers, often people of good will, are silenced due to fear of losing their jobs and having their careers destroyed for not spouting the "party" line.   

In a free country,  speech that is "damned" creates uninformed, closed-minded and fearful people.  It's akin to book burning.

Absolutely right; and it's spread into educational qualifications, too.

I listen to a Louisiana swamp pop rock station most evenings when I sit at the computer doing something or the other, and last night I almost fell off the stool at a news report: on KLEB-AM they report that a local college is celebrating a much higher number of pass results since lowering the pass levels.

And this spoken seriously. It scares the hell out of me for the future of the western world.

How can people be so blind, so desperate to feel 'equal'? Why the hell do they want to feel 'equal', 'equal' to what, to whom? Isn't it better simply to be who we actually are, and just get on with it?

Rob C

[Justinr]

That's what happens when people quote you: it doesn't make sense. And you only see that when it comes back from a source other than yourself.

Q.E.D.

(But seriously, let's just ignore each other and do the forum a favour. There never was anything in common, not even in what we euphemistically call 'photography', there never could be, and your disappointments were not mine.)

Rob C

Sorry mate, you trying to project your problems on to others smacks of denial on your part. I'll just continue as I see fit.

[jjj]

PC is not about treating people with respect.  It's about shutting people up who may have a valid point to make about a subject that people don't want discussed, often for political reasons.  When someone raises the statistic that out-of-wedlock births and single parent families are creating more problems in black families, the speaker is silenced by calling him a racist.  When a university president states that he believes men make better scientists and engineers or at least are more attracted to these fields than women, he is accused of sexism and is forced to resign.  Even if people's views are misinformed, they disserve the right to speak their minds.  And many views are right on the mark.   "Treating people with respect" is a two-way street. Yet the speakers, often people of good will, are silenced due to fear of losing their jobs and having their careers destroyed for not spouting the "party" line.   

In a free country,  speech that is "damned" creates uninformed, closed-minded and fearful people.  It's akin to book burning. 

No it means exactly what I said it meant above. It however gets misused by idiots and also by those who wish to say deliberately hateful things who then use the mythical fear/supposed censorship of PC to appear as if they are the ones being wronged, when in fact they are being vile people.

[jjj]

Absolutely right; and it's spread into educational qualifications, too.

I listen to a Louisiana swamp pop rock station most evenings when I sit at the computer doing something or the other, and last night I almost fell off the stool at a news report: on KLEB-AM they report that a local college is celebrating a much higher number of pass results since lowering the pass levels.

And this spoken seriously. It scares the hell out of me for the future of the western world.

How can people be so blind, so desperate to feel 'equal'? Why the hell do they want to feel 'equal', 'equal' to what, to whom? Isn't it better simply to be who we actually are, and just get on with it?

Rob C

Nothing to do with being PC. As I said above swap the very abused and misrepresented phase with 'treating people with respect' gets the true meaning. Lowering the pass mark for good exam results is doing the exact opposite in my view because it's patronising and fake. Anything but respectful.
Using PC to blame for everything is so very lazy and usually missing the point as your rant here and the one above about calendars girls/wolf whistling above demonstrated rather well.

[Rob C]

Nothing to do with being PC. As I said above swap the very abused and misrepresented phase with 'treating people with respect' gets the true meaning. Lowering the pass mark for good exam results is doing the exact opposite in my view because it's patronising and fake. Anything but respectful.
Using PC to blame for everything is so very lazy and usually missing the point as your rant here and the one above about calendars girls/wolf whistling above demonstrated rather well.

Of course, that's just your point of view today, jjj, and I'm sure you could manage to change it completely to suit any argument you choose to join, especially when you feel bored.

;-)

Rob C

[jjj]

Of course, that's just your point of view today, jjj, and I'm sure you could manage to change it completely to suit any argument you choose to join, especially when you feel bored.

Why not justify you viewpoint rather than being rude and inaccurately insulting Rob.
Being able to debate neutrally, does not mean I'm changing my point of view which is actually quite consistent i.e. don't be racist, misogynistic, sectarian, ideological, bigoted, partisan, hateful etc. It simply means I'm not blinded by my prejudices which is how too many people sadly like to 'argue' their 'point'.
Also do not think that because I do not agree with your cliched Daily Mail style, right wing viewpoints that I am therefore left wing. I actually come from a pretty right wing background, but personally I am in favour of politics that actually work and have zero time for politics of hate. Regardless of which party espouses such things.

[Rob C]

Neither rude nor anything unpleasantly else, jjj: observant. I've known your posts over many a year, and the pattern is clear to me if not to you.

But that's fine: has no impact on my way of thinking, as I know mine hasn't on your's, either. Win - win. I did giggle over the Daily Mail, though - didn't you remember The Sun? It used to have one good page a day for quite some time.

;-)

Rob C

[Telecaster]

Villifying "PC" is easy for privileged white guys like ourselves (presumably) to do. We're good at self righteousness. And for sure some folks go overboard in their desire not to hear anything potentially offensive to them. They're good at self righteousness too. But at the core it's not a black & white thing. Along with privilege comes a disconnect, to varying degrees, from the lives other people less privileged than we live. We presume to know more about those lives than we actually do. It's largely this unwarranted presumption of knowledge, combined with the loudness of our privileged voices, that drives PC efforts. As my Aunt Anna frequently needed to tell me when I was an arrogant teenager who knew it all: "Hush up now and listen!"

In an environment where people can listen to and actually hear each other, arrogance and misunderstanding are reduced along with extreme attitudes and behavior. How to foster such an environment when most of us would rather pontificate than listen…that's the question.

-Dave-

[Justinr]

Villifying "PC" is easy for privileged white guys like ourselves (presumably) to do. We're good at self righteousness. And for sure some folks go overboard in their desire not to hear anything potentially offensive to them. They're good at self righteousness too. But at the core it's not a black & white thing. Along with privilege comes a disconnect, to varying degrees, from the lives other people less privileged than we live. We presume to know more about those lives than we actually do. It's largely this unwarranted presumption of knowledge, combined with the loudness of our privileged voices, that drives PC efforts. As my Aunt Anna frequently needed to tell me when I was an arrogant teenager who knew it all: "Hush up now and listen!"

In an environment where people can listen to and actually hear each other, arrogance and misunderstanding are reduced along with extreme attitudes and behavior. How to foster such an environment when most of us would rather pontificate than listen…that's the question.

-Dave-

I think we also have to be careful about blaming PC for all the developments in society that we don't like or go against our interests. The question of images of naked women on posters in the workplace has been raised but I don't think the demise of such displays has anything to do with PC, it's just a fad that has passed and it all seems a little bit passe and perhaps silly nowadays. We all have to accept the fact that the world is in constant flux and adapt to it, or maybe even try and influence the direction in which it is heading if we are really feeling brave.

[jjj]

Neither rude nor anything unpleasantly else, jjj: observant. I've known your posts over many a year, and the pattern is clear to me if not to you.

So you are consistent in your misinterpretations. That's all.

But that's fine: has no impact on my way of thinking

I doubt anything has since the sixties Rob.

[jjj]

Villifying "PC" is easy for privileged white guys like ourselves (presumably) to do. We're good at self righteousness. And for sure some folks go overboard in their desire not to hear anything potentially offensive to them. They're good at self righteousness too. But at the core it's not a black & white thing. Along with privilege comes a disconnect, to varying degrees, from the lives other people less privileged than we live. We presume to know more about those lives than we actually do. It's largely this unwarranted presumption of knowledge, combined with the loudness of our privileged voices, that drives PC efforts.

And why is will never be appreciated by those lacking empathy.
I gather than when a man has a sex change and becomes a woman, they more than anyone else realise how very biased society is against women as they genuinely have experienced both sides of the coin.

As my Aunt Anna frequently needed to tell me when I was an arrogant teenager who knew it all: "Hush up now and listen!"

My Mum used to comment, "If teenagers knew so much, why aren't they running the world?"

In an environment where people can listen to and actually hear each other, arrogance and misunderstanding are reduced along with extreme attitudes and behavior. How to foster such an environment when most of us would rather pontificate than listen…that's the question.

The main issue is that when people are listening, they are often hearing nothing is isn't filtered through their own preconceptions and biases. So if so and so said or did whatever, then people all too often incorrectly assume so and so said or did it for the same reasons as they would have. Which leads to so many pointless   misunderstandings. I quickly noticed this growing up as people so frequently misattributed my motivation about so many things, so now I do not presume my motives onto others. Way too often people ascribe behaviour on others which is more revealing about themselves that who they are commenting on. Happens here a lot.
A major misunderstanding is that if you are not for something, then you must be against it. People like Rob demonstrated above, do not seem to get that there can be a middle neutral ground.

[jjj]

I think we also have to be careful about blaming PC for all the developments in society that we don't like or go against our interests.

As I said above, it's a lazy and cliched way of way of bemoaning that things change. My old next door neighbour used to complain that he wasn't allowed to use racist terms and slag off coloured people as "it wasn't PC anymore".

The question of images of naked women on posters in the workplace has been raised but I don't think the demise of such displays has anything to do with PC, it's just a fad that has passed and it all seems a little bit passe and perhaps silly nowadays. We all have to accept the fact that the world is in constant flux and adapt to it, or maybe even try and influence the direction in which it is heading if we are really feeling brave.

The thing that old fogeys like Rob miss when they bemoan the passing of naked women being used to sell things, is not that is anti nudity. The women I know who dislike such advertising have zero problem with nudity or sexuality being shown and are equally likely to object to FB not allowing female nipple to be seen. It's the context that they disapprove of.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... when a man has a sex change and becomes a woman, they more than anyone else realise how very biased society is against women..

Which raises the question why would they still want to do that? Masochism?

Or they know something you apparently don't, that women have a privileged position in our society...always had, always will.

[jjj]

Which raises the question why would they still want to do that? Masochism?

Or they know something you apparently don't, that women have a privileged position in our society...always had, always will.

Two remarkably ignorant and inaccurate statements.

[Rob C]

Slobodan, give up now. You can't reach the parts where there are no parts.

(Only two guys in this forum are always right, and we are not those two guys any more than are Michael and Kevin.)

;-)

Rob C

[NancyP]

Rob C : "I listen to a Louisiana swamp pop rock station most evenings when I sit at the computer doing something or the other, and last night I almost fell off the stool at a news report: on KLEB-AM they report that a local college is celebrating a much higher number of pass results since lowering the pass levels."

Rob - this is unfortunate, but entirely predictable. This is the result of free markets in operation in an education system where credentials, and not knowledge, are valued purely for the purpose of getting higher pay. If an employee knows that he or she will get a pay raise for merely presenting a college degree of any content from any source to their employer, of course that employee will go to the college that "guarantees" passing grades for minimal effort. The question should be "why should businesses reward formal credentials over demonstrated skills appropriate to the job"? Much of the time, HR departments use college degree qualification as a proxy for "middle class upbringing", Ivy League / Oxford-Cambridge degree (vs state school / red-brick Uni) as a proxy for "a person the upper management types will feel comfortable mentoring'. It is hard for HR to evaluate a batch of junior-level candidates on writing skills, sales skills, social skills, organizational skills that matter in the day to day job on  offer.

Slobodan: As far as I can tell from the outside, knowing a few transgender women on a social / church basis, the trans women have a sense of not fitting in with "boy stuff" from early on, though not all identify as girls at a young age. This is pretty strong stuff, considering that the most common outcome was and is job loss and impoverishment. "Masochism" is way off base, considering that there are easier ways to be masochistic, eg, alcoholism, certain BDSM relationships, some hypercompetitiveness in the gym or elsewhere. I don't "get" transgender identity, but I don't have to, all I have to do is mind my own business and not get nosy about other (non-S.O.) people's genitals.

[jjj]

Slobodan: As far as I can tell from the outside, knowing a few transgender women on a social / church basis, the trans women have a sense of not fitting in with "boy stuff" from early on, though not all identify as girls at a young age. This is pretty strong stuff, considering that the most common outcome was and is job loss and impoverishment. "Masochism" is way off base, considering that there are easier ways to be masochistic, eg, alcoholism, certain BDSM relationships, some hypercompetitiveness in the gym or elsewhere. I don't "get" transgender identity, but I don't have to, all I have to do is mind my own business and not get nosy about other (non-S.O.) people's genitals.

You can't go saying such sensible and reasonable things in this forum. The old codgers get upset by such statements.
Speaking of which....

Slobodan, give up now. You can't reach the parts where there are no parts.

(Only two guys in this forum are always right, and we are not those two guys any more than are Michael and Kevin.)

You're no more accurate whilst being patronising than when being directly insulting.

[Rob C]

Rob C : "I listen to a Louisiana swamp pop rock station most evenings when I sit at the computer doing something or the other, and last night I almost fell off the stool at a news report: on KLEB-AM they report that a local college is celebrating a much higher number of pass results since lowering the pass levels."

Rob - this is unfortunate, but entirely predictable. This is the result of free markets in operation in an education system where credentials, and not knowledge, are valued purely for the purpose of getting higher pay. If an employee knows that he or she will get a pay raise for merely presenting a college degree of any content from any source to their employer, of course that employee will go to the college that "guarantees" passing grades for minimal effort.

1. The question should be "why should businesses reward formal credentials over demonstrated skills appropriate to the job"?

2. Much of the time, HR departments use college degree qualification as a proxy for "middle class upbringing", Ivy League / Oxford-Cambridge degree (vs state school / red-brick Uni) as a proxy for "a person the upper management types will feel comfortable mentoring'. It is hard for HR to evaluate a batch of junior-level candidates on writing skills, sales skills, social skills, organizational skills that matter in the day to day job on  offer.

Slobodan: As far as I can tell from the outside, knowing a few transgender women on a social / church basis, the trans women have a sense of not fitting in with "boy stuff" from early on, though not all identify as girls at a young age. This is pretty strong stuff, considering that the most common outcome was and is job loss and impoverishment. "Masochism" is way off base, considering that there are easier ways to be masochistic, eg, alcoholism, certain BDSM relationships, some hypercompetitiveness in the gym or elsewhere. I don't "get" transgender identity, but I don't have to, all I have to do is mind my own business and not get nosy about other (non-S.O.) people's genitals.

Nancy,

Forgive me for messing up your paragraph into numbered points, it's just easier to answer them that way.

1. Some jobs simply require the applicant to have demonstrated a very exceptional quality of personality and achievement for the clear reason that those jobs themselves are demanding of those special abilities that the students have displayed. Degrees don't always/only reflect parrot ability. The job interview also takes cognizance of the other, additional things that the graduate has done in the pursuit of his/her degree, things outwith the strict requirements of the course, self-motivated interests in branches of the subject that (s)he has done on his/her own initiative. For example, a law graduate who has also excelled in inter-university debate; a medical student who has performed lots of voluntary work in various situations where it's applicable, such as first-aid at sporting events etc. People showing willingness beyond the formal, educational part of whatever they are involved with have that on their CV too... So in answer to the question, a good CV reveals the graduate's wider input and value.

2.  But it isn't just about "a person the upper management types will feel comfortable mentoring''  it's also very much about whom the managements' clients will feel comfortable opening up to/with in business and even social situations. If you have top-end clients, you don't want them to feel they are dealing with 'idiots', because those 'idiots' directly represent the company the clients have hired.

Regarding 'junior level' candidates, maybe none of this applies to them. The song Tulsa Time expresses this very well in the line:

"Don't need no more schoolin'
When it's just to walk the line..."

But hey, did you know that some universities in the UK have to spend time with first year students just to bring them up to speed in English, before they can get on with the course? Hardly surprising, then, that written English can be a stumbling block even before we face the thorny question of regional accents!

Much easier a life in photography... I think.

Rob C

[Justinr]

Nancy,

Forgive me for messing up your paragraph into numbered points, it's just easier to answer them that way.

1. Some jobs simply require the applicant to have demonstrated a very exceptional quality of personality and achievement for the clear reason that those jobs themselves are demanding of those special abilities that the students have displayed. Degrees don't always/only reflect parrot ability. The job interview also takes cognizance of the other, additional things that the graduate has done in the pursuit of his/her degree, things outwith the strict requirements of the course, self-motivated interests in branches of the subject that (s)he has done on his/her own initiative. For example, a law graduate who has also excelled in inter-university debate; a medical student who has performed lots of voluntary work in various situations where it's applicable, such as first-aid at sporting events etc. People showing willingness beyond the formal, educational part of whatever they are involved with have that on their CV too... So in answer to the question, a good CV reveals the graduate's wider input and value.

2.  But it isn't just about "a person the upper management types will feel comfortable mentoring''  it's also very much about whom the managements' clients will feel comfortable opening up to/with in business and even social situations. If you have top-end clients, you don't want them to feel they are dealing with 'idiots', because those 'idiots' directly represent the company the clients have hired.

Regarding 'junior level' candidates, maybe none of this applies to them. The song Tulsa Time expresses this very well in the line:

"Don't need no more schoolin'
When it's just to walk the line..."

But hey, did you know that some universities in the UK have to spend time with first year students just to bring them up to speed in English, before they can get on with the course? Hardly surprising, then, that written English can be a stumbling block even before we face the thorny question of regional accents!

Much easier a life in photography... I think.

Rob C

It wasn't an irregular occurrence when I was at college well over 30 years ago, but that was lads who'd had spoken nothing but Welsh at home,  are they as deserving of scorn even though they are as British as you and I?