OK, I'm awake and sober now. Here we go.
When two people discuss their opinions and neither is entrenched in their position, learning and sharing can result. Minds are open - people are receptive. RFF is such a place - most of us, regardless of our level of knowledge, have nothing emotionally invested in
'being right.' Sure, we have opinions, some of them are strongly held and strongly defended. But most of us are not consumed with rage by the thought of someone buying a Leica instead of a Voigtlander (or whatever). We're all kinda on the fringes of photography and we know that. Plus, I just happen to think that RFF members are genuinely nice people who go the extra mile to avoid taking offense in most cases.
New folks come onto RFF all the time and ask "What kind of rangefinder should I buy?" and they get all kinds of suggestions. Minolta fans recommend minoltas, Olympus fans talk about Olys, and so on. But few hurl insults or say "Anyone who would buy a [brand name] camera is a fool!" I believe that's because most of us are not overly brand-loyal or even brand concious. We appreciate rangefinder cameras - the more, the merrier! Some have stronger points in their favor than others for particular jobs - but that seems more dependent on what features they have instead of what brand is on the nameplate.
That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that it doesn't happen much.
😛
However, the world is not made up of people just like us. And we're not even necessarily all sunshine and light when we get to talking about things in which we have a strong emotional investment. Some of us cannot talk about these things from a 'sharing' or 'learning' point of view.
We already have our opinions - and our goal is merely to convert others to our point of view, not seek information that might threaten our preconceived notions.
This is not intended as an insult to all RFF'ers - it is just human.
Areas where this is apparent include religion and politics - the biggies. In both cases, people are often firmly attached to their opinions and beliefs. They have a lot of 'who they are' invested in that. If you *could* shake their opinions or challenge their beliefs, you'd destroy them. Most people have a strong self-preservation instinct - so they'll reject all logic, all argument, all points, and cling stubbornly to their beliefs. If they have the tools, they'll defend their points with their version of logic and intellect. If they don't have the tools or the temperament, they'll attack personally or even - in 'real life' with bombs and guns and knives and fists.
An aside:
You want to know why people were raised to 'not talk about politics or religion' in public? Because at one time, we all stayed pretty much where we lived, at least in the USA. Our neighbors would probably be our neighbors for a long time. And if you call the neighbor's religious leader a 'whore' or 'the anti-Christ' for being Catholic (a common statement out of Ian Paisley's mouth, sadly), you probably won't be having those tender caring neighbor moments too much for the next thirty years or so. We were taught to keep our opinions to ourselves in front of coworkers for the same reasons.
Now, we move and change jobs with wild abandon. Who cares if we tick of the neighbors, they'll be gone in six months! The old wisdom is probably no longer all that important.
Lesser areas where this is apparent include discussion forums about certain brands of cameras - Leicas and Nikons come to mind. Ford versus Chevy trucks. Football teams (American or Soccer, take yer pick). Music. Geographical area. And so on.
Has anyone here *ever* seen a discussion of politics that actually persuaded anyone (someone else in this thread also made this point, sorry to steal it)? Even when moderators make token attempts to keep the peace, all they can do is force a degree of decorum and politeness - there still is no opening of minds, no learning, no receptiveness.
Public debates? Don't make me laugh. A series of talking points hammered home in *spite* of the questions asked, not as answers in and of themselves. Personal attacks and innuendo disguised as learned discourse. Calumny to greater and lesser degrees.
The people who actually learn from debates and political discussions and talking heads on TV and flame wars on the 'net are those who realize that entrenched opinions are for people with a lot to lose if they are wrong. They listen to try to glean what few facts are actually presented, they dig into public information sources to try to track down reality wherever possible, they ponder the ramifications of different political theories if they were actually put into action, and then they make up their own minds about how they feel. But since they have nothing to defend, they usually don't get involved in the flame wars themselves.
They might change their opinions - and NO ONE wants that, so they keep their own counsel. You'll never hear from them - hopefully they will vote their consciences, but who knows?
And by the way - as a side note - people who make up their own minds about political and religious issues are hated by those who are entrenched on both sides. Even if they agree with you on one issue, they don't agree with you on all issues - and therefore, you can't be trusted and are ignored at best, attacked at worst. People with entrenched opinions don't want agreement per se - they want sycophants and acolytes, to a lesser or greater degree depending on their own narcissism. So have an open mind at your own peril - you'll have no friends on either side of the discussion!
I speak as one guilty of the offenses of having entrenched positions that I am emotionally bound to. I know that this is counter-productive and wrong-headed, and I work on myself to try to get better and be more open-minded. In some areas I have succeeded - in others, I have work to do yet.
But my biggest fault is this - when someone else tosses out a bomb in the form of "well, of course, your president was appointed and not elected," ending with a gallic shrug, as if it were a simple statement of fact that was beyond contestation, I tend to take it personally and I tend to get angry. That's
my fault - I should not take the bait.
So my conclusion and response to Roger's question is this - no, I don't think we can talk about politics here on Rangefinderforum.com. And I don't want to. I hope to restrain myself from doing so in the future, no matter how badly I am baited.
As to photographs - I don't care what people put in the gallery. Political statement or just a documentary shot - no problem for me. Photographs don't challenge my entrenched beliefs, for the most part, so I can remain somewhat detached and not get drawn into a maelstrom of whirling emotions and accusations about the point of the photo and what it 'means'.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
