Capitol

While I can certainly appreciate the great photographic talent of some of the photogs who were there (and there is some great work out there), I don't know what I think about sharing these. As a matter of history, yes, things should be documented. But I would be worried that one or more of my photos would be used without my permission as propaganda or a recruiting tool for others. I have many mixed feelings about photographing riots / protests / demonstrations - and that's why I personally choose not to do it.
 
zuiko85 said:
Can’t we all get along and instead have a peaceful film vs digital dust up?
Click to expand...

"The silent majority still shoots film, you just don't hear about it!"

"I'm fiscally digital, but socially analog"

"There's a secret cabal of Sony users trafficking children in the basement of B&H! Ken Rockwell and Fred Miranda eat babies to produce their reviews and create a new digital world order...!"


There you go, I've entered the fray.
 
peterm1 said:
Nah!
A dispute over politics MIGHT lead to civil war. A dispute over film v digital WILL lead to civil war.
Click to expand...

keytarjunkie said:
"The silent majority still shoots film, you just don't hear about it!"

"I'm fiscally digital, but socially analog"

"There's a secret cabal of Sony users trafficking children in the basement of B&H! Ken Rockwell and Fred Miranda eat babies to produce their reviews and create a new digital world order...!"


There you go, I've entered the fray.
Click to expand...

Legendary tier comments.
 
james.liam said:
Too often the "Nordic states" are held up as the success of socialism. Collectively, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have a population of 20 million with a combined area twice the size of California but concentrated in less than a third of that. Much of it is forrest or tundra. They have relatively uniform populations that for their unique historical reasons led to socialism or "social" democracy. It was an indulgence afforded them living under the protective umbrella of the US, who defeated the Axis, rebuilt a devastated Europe and protected it from predation during a half-century Cold War by creating a world order of mutually-beneficial trade and cultural rebirth after the utter devastation (see: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Germany).

Want to understand why so many are terrified about the specter of Socialism? In the 20th century it rotted out country after country from the inside out (see: Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Algria, the former USSR and some of its satellite states, sub-Saharan Africa, Vietnam as well as India for 50 years after independence) with legacies of corruption, tyranny, scant individual opportunity, decrepit economies, crumbled infrastructure, erasure of individual rights and left tens of millions dead, imprisoned, enslaved or in abject poverty. China evolved into something more sinister; an authoritarian regime with an absence of personal liberty for its people or rule of law and a true Big Brother surveillance state. The more "benign" form, social democracy, left Britain by the 1980's a broken, has-been, post-industrial mess with legions dependent upon government for basic needs and a bleak future.

Anyone who has lived under such systems or whose parents escaped it, have no illusions about it nor an eagerness to "try our hand at it".
Click to expand...

I see your point, but you are clearly mixing up political regimes (authoritarian vs democracy) with economic model (defined by the level of tax re-distribution to support social programs). It’s quite common that an authoritarian regime is accompanied by left leaning economic policies (high tax re-distribution) but it’s not a rule. We often see authoritarian regimes with very little social responsibility (thus calling it socialist is not correct). You give China as a correct example - but it’s not a left, or socialist or social democratic country. It has more “right wing” economic policies attributes than left. USSR was an authoritarian monster. You can call it socialism, but not a social democracy. Most of democratic countries have a level of social programs in place making sure the inequality does not grow and the there is an equality in opportunities. When this is not in place revolutions happen (Russia 1917) .Nobody wants it. The are risks of having too much support from the state - people get lazy and not motivated and economy fails. But the lack of opportunities and inequality leads to something worse - society fails. It’s easier to repair the economy with a bit of “right” reforms. It takes decades to heal the society. The whole socialism term is so manipulative and abusive. It’s either democracy or not. And then simply there is a level of tax money redistribution to social welfare. Higher or lower. It does not have to be in extremes. Most of the European counties are in the middle, Nordics a bit more to the left, US quite a lot to the right.
 
Ambro51 said:
I’m scared. A WAR is Coming. It’s coming to Your and My town. .....be prepared. Currently Loaded..... Winchester 1894 .30-30, Winchester 1400 12 gauge, S&W .357 Magnum (110 gr. HP) and last but not least, Parker 10 gauge (buckshot). Also, we got a Dog. A Mean Ugly Big Dog.
Click to expand...

Sir, I am genuinely concerned for you. In another thread, you made roughly the same comment after the election two months ago. Have you been attacked since then? No? Then, do you enjoy living in constant unnecessary fear? Why? Please, why?
 
keytarjunkie said:
"The silent majority still shoots film, you just don't hear about it!"

"I'm fiscally digital, but socially analog"

"There's a secret cabal of Sony users trafficking children in the basement of B&H! Ken Rockwell and Fred Miranda eat babies to produce their reviews and create a new digital world order...!"


There you go, I've entered the fray.
Click to expand...

That’s great, see, we do have a sense of humor. Did anyone see the YouTube video, ‘If anti-maskers had been on the Titanic’
 
valdas said:
I see your point, but you are clearly mixing up political regimes (authoritarian vs democracy) with economic model (defined by the level of tax re-distribution to support social programs). It’s quite common that an authoritarian regime is accompanied by left leaning economic policies (high tax re-distribution) but it’s not a rule. We often see authoritarian regimes with very little social responsibility (thus calling it socialist is not correct). You give China as a correct example - but it’s not a left, or socialist or social democratic country. It has more “right wing” economic policies attributes than left. USSR was an authoritarian monster. You can call it socialism, but not a social democracy. Most of democratic countries have a level of social programs in place making sure the inequality does not grow and the there is an equality in opportunities. When this is not in place revolutions happen (Russia 1917) .Nobody wants it. The are risks of having too much support from the state - people get lazy and not motivated and economy fails. But the lack of opportunities and inequality leads to something worse - society fails. It’s easier to repair the economy with a bit of “right” reforms. It takes decades to heal the society. The whole socialism term is so manipulative and abusive. It’s either democracy or not. And then simply there is a level of tax money redistribution to social welfare. Higher or lower. It does not have to be in extremes. Most of the European counties are in the middle, Nordics a bit more to the left, US quite a lot to the right.
Click to expand...

The appellations of "Left/Right" dating from the French Revolution and continued into the 20th century have become irrelevant nowadays.
Statism and Corporatism are better ways of looking at it and with the former, diversity of speech is no longer a sacred standard (as vulgar as it may at times become, see above). It is yet another 'commodity' for regulation and compliance to bureaucratic standards. This trend flourishes in the EU and is growing in the US, where standards are applied arbitrarily (as arbitrary as the definition of 'Hate Speech' has become). This is the true enemy of Free Speech.

In 1917, when there was considerable opposition to the US entry into WWI, newspapers that had the temerity of standing up to Pres. Wilson, found their 'allocation' of newsprint evaporate. At various other times, the audit powers of the IRS has been used to squelch political opposition. That sort of thing.
 
james.liam said:
The appellations of "Left/Right" dating from the French Revolution and continued into the 20th century have become irrelevant nowadays.
Statism and Corporatism are better ways of looking at it and with the former, diversity of speech is no longer a sacred standard (as vulgar as it may at times become). It is yet another 'commodity' for regulation and compliance to bureaucratic standards.
Click to expand...

Amen and Awomen
 
james.liam said:
The appellations of "Left/Right" dating from the French Revolution and continued into the 20th century have become irrelevant nowadays.
Statism and Corporatism are better ways of looking at it and with the former, diversity of speech is no longer a sacred standard (as vulgar as it may at times become, see above). It is yet another 'commodity' for regulation and compliance to bureaucratic standards. This trend flourishes in the EU and is growing in the US, where standards are applied arbitrarily (as arbitrary as the definition of 'Hate Speech' has become). This is the true enemy of Free Speech.

In 1917, when there was considerable opposition to the US entry into WWI, newspapers that had the temerity of standing up to Pres. Wilson, found their 'allocation' of newsprint evaporate. At various other times, the audit powers of the IRS has been used to squelch political opposition. That sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Right/Left are still relevant speaking of economic policies. Statism/Corporatism - agree, those do exist, but more as additional dimensions which can exist both under left and right.
 
Please, let's stop. Outrage at an outrageous act is appropriate if all similar acts are looked at equally. The Kavanaugh hearings in the Senate were stormed. Luckily no one was shot. Portland court house was stormed and set ablaze and crickets last summer. Let's recognize a loss of civility.

Let's just be outraged about it all and do what we can to agitate for tolerance and coexistence.
 
Yeah, there are a few stories out there about photographers and reporters being attacked.

It’ll be worth taking extra care at events the coming weeks. I’ve followed some of the discussions that are leading to some of the social media shutdowns; a subset of people are using increasingly violent rhetoric (talking about being better armed in the future, about targets to attack - both individuals and infrastructure)... 99% of it is likely internet tough guy talk but there will inevitably be a few who follow through. Some people reacted violently against people they perceived as media. Now that arrests have happened based on people identified in the building, there may be more aggressive opposition to being photographed at future events.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
Numerous guns, as well as pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails were recovered from the crime scene.
I suppose those were brought solely for self-defense? Or maybe planted by "Antifa"? Space aliens?

Chris
Click to expand...
But not used. The cops did shoot in DC, very different from WI and Portland as Brian has presented.
 
I suspect Pelosi's 'stolen' laptop
has alot of Dirt & Secrets on it...

The Saga continues for both sides, all engaged parties
More Drama for 2021

So much for beginning a Happy New Year ~
 
As for Bill’s thread
This might prove to be a busy year for Photographers

Whether they are Covering:
Differing Political Agendas, Covid, Vaccines, Unemployment, Evictions & the New coming Homeless...
The list will go on and on
and that’s just dealing in US soil
Not even discussing Foreign Policies and Affairs , lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom