Helen Hill finally says Ciao ... it's been Fun

So sad for that news Helen. Maybe just tired of online forums in general?
I recommend Filmwasters, a bunch of folks just as happy as if we had our right minds.
 
rhl-oregon said:
med_U45148I1597362018.SEQ.2.jpg


A lotus for Helen

—and anyone else who forgets in their eyes and heart why we are here
Click to expand...

Thanks, Robert! :)
 
coogee said:
It seems very unfair to reward this enormously passive aggressive behaviour in such a one sided manner. Surely it’s better to have a more adult and more discreet discussion if there is disagreement. It’s all so narcissistic. I don’t go around in real life telling people I won’t be speaking to them ever again, I just don’t speak to them if that is the get go.
I’m embarrassed for all these ‘shining light’ type posts. Get a grip!
Click to expand...

Well, you might say something to an old friend before you never speak to them again... perhaps that’s how Helen feels.
 
Paul T. said:
Is the man who said that the Germans were forced into World War 2 by Jews and Left Wingers really still in the forum?

Someone please tell me it isn't true.
Click to expand...

From what I see the person in question had several different identities over the years, most if not all are gone.

It's the same problem that FaceBook has with figuring out if you really are who you say you are. Trolls are very good at finding ways around the checks and balances in place.

I don't want to know if someone believes that stuff. In my later years I've changed from being against that to being "Anti". I will take to the streets, protest, and use my mind and voice to change hearts and minds.

I don't believe that this very mistaken beliefs are new, I know they have been around for a LOT of years in a large number. I am happy that it's out in the open and now we have a chance to review the facts in an open and honest way. But not here.

While I was a mod it took a lot for someone to be banned, I'm sure that hasn't been changed. A big thank you to everyone who has stepped up to be a mod, past and present.

He's gone now, but we and the Mods must be ever vigilant.

B2 (;-<
 
A question to responders to my comment above: Why would anyone have a problem being recognized on the web if all their posts were thoughtful and unhurtful?? The internet is pushing many of us toward abusive behavior. Somehow this trend needs to be reined in.
 
I totally get where you're coming from and would normally agree with you on most of your points below, but in the case of "Bart Bart" he has a long history here of not being here for discussion or exchange of ideas. What he was here to do was troll people under the auspiciousness and disingenuousness of "Free Speech." Whichis why he's been banned in the past.

peterm1 said:
Paul I have to say I do not agree with you on this. I am a Jew on both my mother and father's side and naturally disagree with everything that guy thought and stood for. I recall the thread in question and was shocked at exactly what he was saying. But I cannot say that I am OK with banning people merely for having egregious views. I think its a different matter however if someone is banned for being relentlessly abusive towards others (other than a one time incident of overly heated words in a post). That is an entirely different matter and justifies banning.
I happen to think that there is far too much banning of people in the world today for their thoughts - even if some of those views are outright horrid. The world has become suddenly censorious and rather ugly. But freedom to think is important (it should not even need to be said) and without freedom to think people are not really people at all. But the price for this is that some will hold ugly views. The antidote for that is debate not silencing. Of this I am convinced. It is easy for everyone to look at a Nazi (I mean a real Nazi - not what everyone calls a Nazi today which is anyone who disagrees with the person making the judgment) and agree that their views are disgusting. But the above is just the problem where do we stop banning people and are we just banning them because we disagree with something about them? Do we start banning them because they hold the "wrong" views on religion. Or the "wrong" views on sexuality. And ultimately does this not run the risk of ending up in the same place as the actual Nazis - punishing people because they come from the "wrong" race? We are already seeing this kind of stuff happen in society right now - today.
Click to expand...
 
Free speech should be paramount anywhere. If you are offended, don't read it. Banning people seems pretty childish to me.
 
Free speech doesn't apply here. This website is private, the owner doesn't have to give a platform to neonazis or trolls, and irrespective of the politics of it all that would be a bad idea as his business is associated with this forum.
 
ktmrider said:
Free speech should be paramount anywhere. If you are offended, don't read it. Banning people seems pretty childish to me.
Click to expand...

There are edges around all sorts of communication where abuse starts. Keep in mind this is a .COM site. The rules set out are what the owner (publisher) decides them to be. Different people will always have different opinions with respect to the harshness or childishness of them. What is perfect for one person is not perfect for another. It is critical that we look at the rules and understand that the internet might best be viewed as bunch of sites that make life better for many of us. If a site is sufficiently imperfect to your thoughts you can ask for changes. Ultimately you are also free to create your own site.

IMHO, banning people who continually do not follow the rules seems reasonable. Sadly those people feel the need to strike back and hide behind different anonymity tricks and come back time and time again. To me, those people are acting childish.

B2 (;-<
 
Jamie Pillers said:
A question to responders to my comment above: Why would anyone have a problem being recognized on the web if all their posts were thoughtful and unhurtful?? The internet is pushing many of us toward abusive behavior. Somehow this trend needs to be reined in.
Click to expand...

I've used my real name on various forums at various times throughout my time on the internet. I also am old enough to be comfortable with the idea of "before" and "after" the internet. There are places where having ones identity tied to their posts is beneficial, and there are times when it is harmful.

You point out the ideal scenario where people don't object to real identity because they are being thoughtful and reasonable, but what I have seen in most (maybe all?) forums that have implemented real-identity requirements is that it opens up a lot of situations where online threats become real-life threats. There is a reason reddit bans people for even doxxing themselves. It's intrinsically very dangerous for all involved.
 
ktmrider said:
Free speech should be paramount anywhere. If you are offended, don't read it. Banning people seems pretty childish to me.
Click to expand...

Should we allow racist philosophies on a photography site? Political fights? Hate speech disguised as free speech is not paramount.
 
Helen Hill finally says Ciao ... it's been Fun

ktmrider said:
Free speech should be paramount anywhere. If you are offended, don't read it. Banning people seems pretty childish to me.
Click to expand...

I have not been very active on RFF lately, more reading than posting, but feel impelled to say a few things.

RFF being a privately owned site, and considering the risk to its owner if free speech crosses the line into hate speech, I do not see an issue with Stephen imposing his own clearly stated rules here. If someone does not like it there are many other places and ways they can communicate their views.

I will miss Helen.

I also communicate more with non-native English speakers than with native English speakers every day, and think people should cut Ko.Fe. some slack (be a little easier on him, in case this idiom is not familiar to you). His English may be rough and direct, but given where he comes from and how far he has come, we should be congratulating him for it and encouraging him, not criticizing him. He posts great photos. His reflections on and images of Hamilton, Ontario Canada mean a lot to me as someone who grew up in that region but left it over 20 years ago. I look forward to his return.
 
I hope Huss come back with many photos from his work with slow film like the Babylon 13 maybe developed in the Cinestill Df 96 Monobath.
And I hope as well in his banned month Kostya manages to get many good Canadian pictures taken with his Canadian lens to share with us.
One month is short...
 
I remember when Helen joined. Over the years I have seen her grow. We have never spoken, but if she is going in this way, with no effort to reconcile with such a contributor on the part of management, then it would taint the site for me. Call me sentimental.
 
retinax said:
Free speech doesn't apply here. This website is private, the owner doesn't have to give a platform to neonazis or trolls, and irrespective of the politics of it all that would be a bad idea as his business is associated with this forum.
Click to expand...

“ Free speech doesn't apply here.” From a purely legal standpoint, this is entirely true.

“ This website is private, the owner doesn't have to give a platform to neonazis or trolls...” Again, completely true. He doesn’t “have to.”

But, let’s look at it from an overall societal standpoint. Let’s assume that you wanted to “make the world a better place” in today’s parlance. And let’s look at a hypothetical as a thought experiment.
Let’s say there is a photo forum, and the members of said forum, as luck would have it, are all Neo-Nazis. Sometimes they talk about digital sensors, or filmstocks, but occasionally, being people of the Neo-Nazi persuasion, the discussion veers towards Neo-Nazi beliefs. It happens.

Now, let’s say you are a photographer who likes participating in photo forums, and, additionally, you are a “good” person, meaning, for the sake of this hypothetical, someone who is not only not a Neo-Nazi, but someone who has arrived at that set of beliefs through a lifetime of study and logical reasoning. One day, one of the Neo-Nazis makes a broad statement affirming several aspects of the Neo-Nazi belief system, and other Neo-Nazis on the forum chime in with a variety of illogical and historically inaccurate statements. You then take the opportunity to lay out a well reasoned and unemotional rebuttal of everything just posted, item by item. Most of the points you make are things that many of these Neo-Nazis have never heard before, and the logic and factual accuracy of your post is hard or impossible to counter.
Now, let’s say that as a result of your post you are banned, and this post and all your other posts are deleted, never to be seen again, by anyone.

People who might have benefited from your wisdom, now never will, because the discussion is prevented. So, they, all of them, will go on being Neo-Nazis. Opportunities, on both sides, for growth, are lost. This is the ultimate nature of deplatforming. No matter who does it.

If the meaning is not yet clear enough, let’s flip it using the latest example here. Using “Bart Bart“ as an example in this hypothetical, let’s agree that most or all of us find his beliefs to be either morally wrong or historically inaccurate, things which usually seem to go together. Because of that, moderators ban him, deplatform him here. Had that not been done there would have always existed the possibility (yes, always existed) that a logical, well reasoned, unemotional, historically factual post, or series of posts, from “good” people here might have changed his mind about things he showed up here believing to be true. That’s what “arguments” (as posited in rules of logic) really are, a back and forth which can lead people to the truth if carried on long enough.
You ban him, out of a sense of, there’s no other word for it, self-righteousness, and you throw away that opportunity to make him a better person/bring him closer to the truth/cause him to agree with you.
Life’s a long journey, you should never give up on people. He may be a complete jerk today, but you just failed him, so what does that make you?

I don’t know Frank Petronio, (and I am assuming from other posts that is who Bart Bart was) from Adam, and I would not agree with the things that it is said here that he said, but I took a look at his website subsequent to this dustup. He’s an excellent photographer, and he’s obviously quite intelligent. Intelligent people can, and often do, believe stupid things. People can change, people can be changed, but never by people who ostracize them. Those people have thrown away the opportunity to “make the world a better place.” There is no way to justify that.
It’s not impossible that his non-photographic views could have been “improved” over time, more time, and we’d still have a good photographer here to perhaps teach the rest of us some things about photography, which he obviously understands well. In the meantime, adults are able to skip over the parts they find offensive, and learn from the good parts, if the good parts are encouraged.

Broader societal picture:
If instead of trying to educate, through unemotional, informed dialogue, we just deplatform, banish people we find to be beyond the pale, what actually happens then, in the real world?
Let’s use “Neo-Nazis” as an example, to the extent they exist. Bart Bart is still out there, but we are not talking to him; he didn’t cease to exist, but now he doesn’t have “friends” here, the very people, the only people, who might have eventually brought him around, he’s over at 4Chan or Qanon, with people who are all exactly like him, where he will not only never hear an opposing Viewpoint backed up by facts, his current views will be amplified and given emotional support day in and day out, forever. So, he’s unlikely ever to get “better”, and more likely to get even worse. That’s on us and any other “reasonable” group who ostracized him.

If so intolerant of other people’s way of thinking that we cannot bear to hear it, just use the ignore button until maturing a bit more. Once you reach a level of maturity where you can hear odious things without being “triggered” then engage the other, with facts, and unemotionally. And if you cannot out reason them, maybe the answer is to study more yourself, until you can, not shunning them just because you can’t.

Letting people we don’t like stay at the party isn’t about “giving someone a platform to use for propaganda”. It’s about leaving open the possibility for positive change for that person, which only happens through continued dialogue.

Hating “hate” isn't better than hate. It is hate. And it will eat you up, no matter how holy and enlightened you think you are. Bringing people in, or at least trying to, is always better than pushing them out.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”
Unless you let them.
 
robert blu said:
I hope Huss come back with many photos from his work with slow film like the Babylon 13 maybe developed in the Cinestill Df 96 Monobath.
And I hope as well in his banned month Kostya manages to get many good Canadian pictures taken with his Canadian lens to share with us.
One month is short...
Click to expand...

He’s posted images at Photrio. They look pretty good, but highlights have a glow because of no anti-halation.
 
Fair post Larry! Would like to add a couple things. Totally agree about dialogue, but the internet is the wrong place for it. As mentioned, the internet is not actually a public good and nowhere in it will you find a open structure that is not directed in some way by the people that own it. It is what it is. Also agree that inclusion is the way to go. But:

It is important to not drown in a sea of relativism. Can, and do, people believe pretty much anything? Yes. Nothing new there. Are they free to do that? Mostly. But some beliefs are, in fact, wrong. The moon is not made of green cheese. Certain things in history did actually happen. Now that doesn't mean you can't hold those beliefs, and think they are right, but there are consequences that come with pushing those beliefs. Freedom of speech doesn't mean, and has never meant, you can say whatever you want without consequences. It is also unlikely that anyone really changes their beliefs. We are human after all! Most beliefs are irrational; a rational argument doesn't stand a chance.
 
I read Larry's post, above. These are important words, and well worth reading. We ought to make some room for ideas we don't agree with, at least long enough to consider them and offer an alternate viewpoint. In this case, though, I don't think we know what was said, so it's hard to know if the words were an alternate but potentially valid viewpoint, or just unacceptably rude or offensive, in which case it would be right to remove them.

As to "Frank." When I first read references to "Frank" I wondered, "Frank who?" I couldn't place it, nor did I see what it had to do with the matter at hand. Then later I saw "Petronio," and began to remember. Wasn't he the one who posted quite a few pictures of women, some rather anorexic looking, confined to standing on elevated places barely large enough for their feet? And if I'm remembering right, one of them had self-inflicted cuts on her left arm. Is that who Frank Petronio is?

Edit: I did a quick search. Yes it is who I thought. I felt that he photographed emotionally troubled women, I believe with the intention of expressing photographically, their distress, which came through to me in the photos. I can see that a.) He is gifted, intuitive, and unconventional; and b.) some of his work would be upsetting to some viewers, understood by others. And so Frank's photos are an example of what Larry is talking about, hence, their relevance to this discussion. Evidently Frank was banned. I don't know for what; it may have nothing to do with his photos. In fact, I think he may have removed them himself--it's been a long time, and I don't know.

I'm all for tolerance, as long as opposing thoughts are expressed in a civil manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom