Roger Hicks
Veteran
That's what puzzles me, though. I have right-wing friends and relatives as well as left-wing. Disagreeing (sometimes very strongly) with their politics doesn't mean I cease to respect them, nor does it mean I cannot learn from them. I just hope that better arguments prevail and their candidates don't get in. They, of course, hope the same about me.
There is an old saying that if something is true, it doesn't matter whether it is said by the wisest man in the world, or the biggest fool -- and people's politics have to be pretty weird before they lose touch so completely with reality that they never say ANYTHING true.
Listening to others' viewpoints, and seeing how they live, can change our minds. For example, I used to be quite right-wing before I went to live in the United States. I now regard myself as very moderately left wing, though given the shift in the political spectrum between the USA and Europe, a centre-left position in most of Europe puts me on the far left of American politics.
There are quite a few reasons to refuse to listen to another's views: boredom with repetition, for example*. But I can't help feeling that a lot of people are frightened by others' views and therefore ignore them (and want to force others to ignore them) in the hope they'll go away.
*For me, on this forum, this very much includes 'Look at my new________ which arrived today.' It's just another damn' camera; it's what you do with it, rather than just buying it, that matters -- unless it's really rare and you're sharing information/trying to find out about it, like Stephen's 80/2.3 Voigtländer.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Even the screams can teach you a lot. Are they reflecting a widespread belief? If so, what is the basis of that belief? Is it regional? I often detect widespread differences in broad consensus between the US and Europe, and some difference between the US and Canada. Or are they lone voices with weird hangups? Do they think they're screaming, or is that someone else's interpretation? Is it a correct interpretation?
If things get too bad, there's the ignore option. At anyone one time I have one, two or at most three people on ignore. That strikes me as a very acceptable price to pay.
And as I say, I'd far rather read about people's political views than about their views on sports. Likewise, I prefer politics to seeing yet another picture of a common, readily available camera.
What I'm here for mostly is to teach and learn about photography, but limiting ALL discourse ONLY to photography would probably make it so boring for me that I'd give up, and I don't think I'd be alone.
As you say, it's as well to tie it in to photography, but that's what I try to do in my weekly columns in Amateur Photographer (print and web alternating), which seem quite popular.
Cheers,
R.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I got sucked into the local political scene when I first got appointed to a city advisory board about 1970, and state and national politics when I started about a twenty-five year run of covering events for the local congressman. Both contacts came about from when I worked for the newspaper. I'm still serving on a couple of advisory boards, ran a couple of succesful local campaigns and I really enjoy it.
Here on a photography forum we should probably only be dicussing photography issues that impact photographers like copyright, judicial decisions, access to public places, and the like, not whether McCain is better than Palin, unless they've taken firm stands on those issues. Leave that to political forums.
Here on a photography forum we should probably only be dicussing photography issues that impact photographers like copyright, judicial decisions, access to public places, and the like, not whether McCain is better than Palin, unless they've taken firm stands on those issues. Leave that to political forums.
Last edited:
R
ruben
Guest
Over the pages of RFF we have had discussions about the most weird issues "unrelated" to photography (unrelated to photography - what a tautology and sensible idea !) like the ungoing poll about smoking, the devaluation of the dollar, sex, education towards our sons, personal stories, and whatever you like. We have done it because it concerns the one who opened the thread and happened to be a legitimate RFF member. And for that reason issues have taken the form of threads, some of them were closed a very few times, and RFF managed to compensate its lack of imaging facilities with a good doze of interesting issues, variety, and freedom of speech.
Among the folks that use to spice RFF with "unrelated to photography" issues, I may count myself. Sometimes such threads provoked great interest and a lot of posts, other times very few or no people felt the will to type a reation. Some times threads have been closed and I do not remember myself protesting it to the moderators, publicly or privately.
Very obviously RFF cannot be a political forum, but there is a world apart between not being a poitical forum and not tolerating a single political discussion. Don't you think?
Because the moment we will not tolerate a political discussion we will betray the very essence of the camera as a mirror of the world, and the very history of photography, which left over the battlefields dozens of heroic photographers. Photographers from the right, like that nice women of the US marines, and photographers from the left, like Robert Capa, so much outspokenly admired by Stephen Gandy.
Now, I would like to show understanding for our US members, who are the most among us, who are very much aware their Government and Nation is hated around the globe, and feel some fear that political threads may expose them to that blind hate. To a great extent they are right in that most of the times that hate does not distinguish between an agressive policy taken by their government and the spirit of opposition the US people showed to the Viet Nam war.
The US was born out of two great revolutionary wars, the Independence one against the Brittish Imperialism, and the Abolitionist war against the slave owners of the South.
Who knows, in politics things change as suddenly as in the stock market. I will never stop to believe the American people has the potential for the most critical surprises in the future, perhaps in the very very close one.
You can say whatever you want about Olsen, who somehow reminds me those brave Vikings that according to the tales and some evidence were the first to arrive to North America, but one thing is very obvious to me, he feels very much the world in his veins.
RFF has and will continue to be a photography forum. No constitution needs to be changed. However I don't think Olsen deserves public spitting for raising basic issues while in other threads we have raised quite silly issues, "unrelated to photography" too.
Cheers,
Ruben
Among the folks that use to spice RFF with "unrelated to photography" issues, I may count myself. Sometimes such threads provoked great interest and a lot of posts, other times very few or no people felt the will to type a reation. Some times threads have been closed and I do not remember myself protesting it to the moderators, publicly or privately.
Very obviously RFF cannot be a political forum, but there is a world apart between not being a poitical forum and not tolerating a single political discussion. Don't you think?
Because the moment we will not tolerate a political discussion we will betray the very essence of the camera as a mirror of the world, and the very history of photography, which left over the battlefields dozens of heroic photographers. Photographers from the right, like that nice women of the US marines, and photographers from the left, like Robert Capa, so much outspokenly admired by Stephen Gandy.
Now, I would like to show understanding for our US members, who are the most among us, who are very much aware their Government and Nation is hated around the globe, and feel some fear that political threads may expose them to that blind hate. To a great extent they are right in that most of the times that hate does not distinguish between an agressive policy taken by their government and the spirit of opposition the US people showed to the Viet Nam war.
The US was born out of two great revolutionary wars, the Independence one against the Brittish Imperialism, and the Abolitionist war against the slave owners of the South.
Who knows, in politics things change as suddenly as in the stock market. I will never stop to believe the American people has the potential for the most critical surprises in the future, perhaps in the very very close one.
You can say whatever you want about Olsen, who somehow reminds me those brave Vikings that according to the tales and some evidence were the first to arrive to North America, but one thing is very obvious to me, he feels very much the world in his veins.
RFF has and will continue to be a photography forum. No constitution needs to be changed. However I don't think Olsen deserves public spitting for raising basic issues while in other threads we have raised quite silly issues, "unrelated to photography" too.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
kevin m
Veteran
Well said, Ruben. The occasional disagreeable word shouldn't frighten either the participants or management of a forum. Too much ruins a forum, but so does the attempt to eliminate it. It's like Tommy Lasorda's (L.A. Dodgers Baseball manager) old quote, which I'll paraphrase: Moderating is like holding a dove: Too tight and you kill it; too loose and it flies away.
Well it is a public, international forum, isn't it? One can't reasonably demand not to hear anything negative, or the forum would no longer be public or international.
Nh3
Well-known
Its almost impossible to discuss politics on the internet. Internet is the worst kind of mob rule and everyone can have an opinion which usually results in the dumbing down of the issue as well as people getting personal.
Right now memphis has cut-and-pasted a news article without even saying what he thinks about it. If that's how RFF is going to be then a lot of us will leave.
Moderators, please enforce the apolitical nature of this forum.
Right now memphis has cut-and-pasted a news article without even saying what he thinks about it. If that's how RFF is going to be then a lot of us will leave.
Moderators, please enforce the apolitical nature of this forum.
Nh3
Well-known
I have bookmarks of the new york times, bbcworld, the economist and cbc. for news and commentary i visit those sources. so, why on earth would i want to read the same news on RFF?
Olsen
Well-known
Æhum. Blair is a socialist... (Labour Party = Social democrats). Fine to have you among us, Memphis!
Sparrow
Veteran
Olsen
Well-known
yanidel
Well-known
As I mentionned earlier, the reason why politics talk get heated in this forum is that the US is a bi-party country. You are democrat or republican, pro spending or not, liberal or not, interventionnist or not. There is no in between, no variations. So any discussion can only lead to disagreement and base statements like 'if you are not with us, you are against us'. Meanwhile most of other countries have usually 2 or 3 main parties surrounded by smaller ones. For example in France (from far left to extreme right) Revolutionnary league, Communist Party, Socialit Party, Modem (center), UMP (right), National Front (Extreme right). So really, there is an openess about talking about politics without being labeled bad or good by the others (the extremes being minority). Also, we got many different models within the EU from the all social welfare Northern countries (such as Olsen) to the consensual governements (Germany, Switzerland) down to 80 presidents in 80 years like Italy.
I sincerely think that the whole US relationship to politics (look at the level of the presidential debates) is just pitiful and is closer to a movie like Gangs of New York than a 21st century democracy. And I do not say that as an anti-American, as I have lived 2 years there and love the country, I say it as an external observer that would like the US to come back to what it was before : a respected and admired leader.
I sincerely think that the whole US relationship to politics (look at the level of the presidential debates) is just pitiful and is closer to a movie like Gangs of New York than a 21st century democracy. And I do not say that as an anti-American, as I have lived 2 years there and love the country, I say it as an external observer that would like the US to come back to what it was before : a respected and admired leader.
kevin m
Veteran
You just can't make a statement like this in a public forum and not expect to get called on it. If we're talking about the current banking crisis, it's patently nonsensical. The GOP, Phil Gramm in particular, wrote legislation that created a new financial instrument called Credit Default Swaps (it's a form of insurance that requires no capital reserves) that forbid any government regulation. It's a 60+ trillion dollar market, about four times the size of the stock market, and there's no oversight at all.
If you want to say that Democrats failed to properly oversee Fannie and Freddie, that's true. But to so thoroughly misjudge the cause and effect here, and the intent, is inexcusable. The Democrats didn't check the tire pressure, but the GOP drove the car into the ditch, with an open whisky bottle on the seat and a hooker on their lap.
Olsen
Well-known
I don't agree with this. It's the other way around. I have found that I share 'values' (as it is called in US politics) with many people here. Both with Americans and Europeans. There is quite a few here I would like to meet. And I dont feel any antagonism against people I dont share 'political values' with. That's OK with me.
I just went over some posts on a Norwegian photo site. What creates the worst flaming and rude behavior are the Nikon v Canon discussions! What a vulgar flock!
DelDavis
.
Because we are not writing news articles. We're exchanging ideas, opinions, and outlooks. And as Ruben pointed out, our words are reflected in our photography, and our photography is reflected in our words. You cannot separate what you say from what you photograph. At least, I haven't been able too.
DelDavis
.
Agreed. I've lost faith on occasion, but I'm currently a proud member of this forum.
blw
Well-known
Exactly memphis...
First, I obviously prefer a little political discourse on RFF and I don't consider myself very left or right wing. I've sat on both sides of the fence and didn't care for either perspective totally.
Back to memphis' point....this has been my biggest self-revelation over the past few years. American politics has developed into a "divide and conquer" scenario.
Both sides give us all kinds of social issues to squabble over and they all seem to excell at pointing their fingers at each other. Does anyone ever see a politician make himself culpable anymore? I'm rather surprised John Edwards didn't find some way to blame his infidelity on conservative Republicans.
The illustration I make now to describe the political climate is like 2 opposing lawyers in court. They slam each other and their respective clients in the courtroom; and then get together at the end of the day and have laughs over beers about each others' performance.
First, I obviously prefer a little political discourse on RFF and I don't consider myself very left or right wing. I've sat on both sides of the fence and didn't care for either perspective totally.
Back to memphis' point....this has been my biggest self-revelation over the past few years. American politics has developed into a "divide and conquer" scenario.
Both sides give us all kinds of social issues to squabble over and they all seem to excell at pointing their fingers at each other. Does anyone ever see a politician make himself culpable anymore? I'm rather surprised John Edwards didn't find some way to blame his infidelity on conservative Republicans.
The illustration I make now to describe the political climate is like 2 opposing lawyers in court. They slam each other and their respective clients in the courtroom; and then get together at the end of the day and have laughs over beers about each others' performance.
micromontenegro
Well-known
Yanidel, I read your post with interest, and thought you were wrong. "All democracies end up working more or less as bipartidism, etc", thought I.
And then the following post proves you are right, and I was wrong. I guess one does learn from this discussions
Al Kaplan
Veteran
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6344/1997/1600/Blog 73 e.jpg
Being a communist was not a popular position here in the United States. In addition to the Republicans and the Democrats we've often had a minor party or two, and one of those was the American Communist Party. Gus Hall was the head of the American Communist Party at the time. I shot this bunches of years ago. The assignment was B&W for a newspaper but I shot a few frames of color "just in case".
It was a fancy upscale restaurant and the Communist Party grabbed the check.
Being a communist was not a popular position here in the United States. In addition to the Republicans and the Democrats we've often had a minor party or two, and one of those was the American Communist Party. Gus Hall was the head of the American Communist Party at the time. I shot this bunches of years ago. The assignment was B&W for a newspaper but I shot a few frames of color "just in case".
It was a fancy upscale restaurant and the Communist Party grabbed the check.
Last edited:
DelDavis
.
Al,
A fine example of the intersection between politics and photography. It surprises me in fact that there is not more political discussion on this forum, what with the rangefinder having historically been used as a primary tool of photojournalists.
A fine example of the intersection between politics and photography. It surprises me in fact that there is not more political discussion on this forum, what with the rangefinder having historically been used as a primary tool of photojournalists.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I just blame everything political on the Jesuits and worry about rounding up the ingredients to make pa-rodinal.