I’d agree with all of that, and what everyone else has said after I posted what I did. Mostly.
My point wasn’t about photography forums, this one in particular, but was more general, just asking people to think about, for themselves, whether shoving people out, pushing them into the company of only those people who agree with them, by “banning” them is a good idea, and advances the goal we might be trying to advance, which seems to be a more civil society, or, even, just a more civil photo forum.
There is this “ it is very rare that closed belief systems are changed by arguments.”
And a bit earlier there was this, “ It is also unlikely that anyone really changes their beliefs.”
Although agreeing with the qualifiers “very rare” and “unlikely”, I would just ask, or wonder, if there isn’t anyone here with a somewhat checkered past, who is now a better person simply because someone else, against all odds, chose not to give up on him? People are capable of learning, we shouldn’t write them off. Not that I haven’t done that myself. It’s easier.
Anyway, I hope someone gets the larger point I was trying to make.
I am pretty much off topic now, so will leave it alone going forward.
Still hoping that Helen comes back, even though she obviously would not agree with me on any of this. That’s okay.
Larry I certainly get the larger point you were trying to make. But then again I was there already in agreeing with you.
Part of the problem is that increasingly in this day while there is theoretically freedom of speech, the attitude of many is that if they disagree with what you say (for which read, "think") then in their mind, you should only be free to exercise your free speech provided you go to Death Valley somewhere in the middle of the remotest and most inhospitable part of the desert found there, at midnight where you are free to shout at the moon. But only if you shout quietly. Oh and do not offend anyone while doing it (for which read - Do not offend them). And even if you do this, a lot of people will still be offended on the principle of "When a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear, does it make a sound?" Their answer is "Yes it does make a sound and I am bloody offended even when I did not hear it - and I am especially offended if someone tweets about it".)
🙂
Some have pointed out that RFF is private and can make its own rules of engagement. I do think a reckoning is coming with the internet (though this is more a point about the big end of that particular town) where those big players want protection from lawsuits on the grounds that "we are only a vehicle for people to express their opinions or voice their concerns and we have no editorial role." They then nevertheless proceed to exercise an editorial role by banning or shadow banning anything with which they disagree personally. With so much of the public space dependent upon these vehicles for people to be able to exercise their right of free speech in today's climate it is untenable for the internet to continue to have it both ways. Legislation is needed to fix it.
On the other hand, on mature reflection, I suppose it is open to a vehicle like RF, a small bit player in the "great game" to rewrite its rules of engagement along the lines of being more explicit - for example banning
any political speech and requiring people to discuss photographic topics only (and politely) with no such divergences. Given the aims of RFF I think that may be OK. And it removes the potential need to make somewhat arbitrary decisions about banning people because someone says something that others object to. That way people can choose to participate in RFF or choose not to in an informed way.
But even then, it does highlight a problem I was alluding to in an earlier post. That of what constitutes political speech? To take a silly example suppose someone says "I belong to a political party that believes the color black is white."
I might say - that's political speech. They might more or less legitimately respond "No it is not, I am only stating a fact. I
am a member of that party and its policy
is that black is white". No politics there!
I might then say: "But that's nuts - As a matter of fact, science and common usage, black is black and white is white." Ah, says the first person "That's only your opinion which makes it political speech - you're BANNED!"
You can see where this ends up. Where do you draw the line once you start banning people for having an opinion? Especially if they respect other's rights when expressing it. Even if its a patently egregious, ugly, silly or plain dumb opinion.
