| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2006 06:16:50 AM · #1 |
I was disappointed to see the way in which ergo was treated in the thread about Steve Irwin (here and here). The point was not insensitively made, and the same point has been made in plenty of other places in the mainstream press (for example, Germaine Greer makes it here). Several other people made or alluded to the same point in the original thread, though without being hounded because they surrounded their expression with a sufficient quantity of platitudes.
There is a strong vein of intolerant and repressive moral righteousness that seems to be pervading some of the threads at the moment. This is coupled with an aversion for discussion or debate, and a preference for emotional over rational response. None of these are (IMO) very progressive.
The result here appears to have been the driving of ergo from the site (I cannot see any other reason - I would be pleased to know otherwise). This is a shame for several reasons, not least that he was a fellow photographer with 50 or so challenges under his belt and a throng of 6+ images, an intelligent commenter with 1400 or so comments made, he came from an interesting part of the world upon which his images gave an insight, and was a community participant.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 06:51:55 AM · #2 |
I'm disappointed to see ergo leave. As you mentioned, "he was a fellow photographer with 50 or so challenges under his belt and a throng of 6+ images, an intelligent commenter with 1400 or so comments made, he came from an interesting part of the world upon which his images gave an insight, and was a community participant." I would also hope that he wasn't personally attacked via PM.
If anyone knows how to reach him, I wonder if he could be persuaded to come back.
In light of discussion and debate, one could argue that the press is in general insensitive, regardless of topic, and tends toward the sensational and emotional over rational because rational "doesn't sell." But that's also just my opinion - your mileage may vary. :-) |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 08:45:07 AM · #3 |
Matt,
I understand where you are coming from, and yes the forums have gotten very nasty lately with a lot of bickering, self-righteousness, censoring, etc. I myself did not agree with ergo's comments, but did not choose to debate the issue.
I think the major uproar was that the comments were said before Steve Irwin had been dead for even a day. Had he voiced his thoughts once the shock had settled for those of us who respected the man I think the ratn would not have been as strong.
I also feel that ergo's choice of wqords....telling people to flame away at him and to rant at him set the mood a bit more than if he had just voiced his opinion in a tactful way.
I feel strongly that people be allowed to disagree, but I also feel it should be done tactfully and with rspect to what others may be going through.
As for someone contacting a person who chose by their own free will to leave DPC and beg them to come back, I personally think it's silly. He's a grown man who can make his own choices. jmho
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 11:28:31 AM · #4 |
ummm... has anyone heard the phrase if you can't stand the heat stay out of he kitchen?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 11:45:07 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Matt,
I understand where you are coming from, and yes the forums have gotten very nasty lately with a lot of bickering, self-righteousness, censoring, etc. I myself did not agree with ergo's comments, but did not choose to debate the issue. |
I agree........
Shaking my head now.....just wow, another member gone
about the Steve Irwin thread I am a big fan and I did not post in their cause it was turning into another war
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 12:20:11 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I was disappointed to see the way in which ergo was treated in the thread about Steve Irwin... |
Didn't he ask for it in his original post?
Originally posted by ergo:
Flame away... |
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 12:20:44. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 12:34:21 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I was disappointed to see the way in which ergo was treated in the thread about Steve Irwin... |
Didn't he ask for it in his original post?
Originally posted by ergo:
Flame away... |
|
Uh, IMO no -- that means to vociferously disagree with opinions, not a waiver of the site TOS to allow personal attacks and name-calling. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 12:47:58 PM · #8 |
| I must've missed the personal attacks and name calling. All I saw were vociferous disagreements. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 12:48:53 PM · #9 |
| I too feel regret & disappointment loosing ergo - he is a highly competent photographer, excellent chronicler, superb portraitist - equal to the best on this site. I always perceived him as an extrovert, especially in threads, particularly his own, where, not unlike others on this site, he often attempted to assume the role of expert, ring-master & devil's advocate, always representing his own opinion if not always fluently or eloquently, (I believe English was a second language) at the least forcefully. I think he was always quite tolorant of others opinions and made good effort to encourage others. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 01:05:32 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
I too feel regret & disappointment loosing ergo - |
Anybody else getting a strong sense of irony here? Like...all through viewing his forum posts, I've always asked why he doesn't just LEAVE the poor moral, political, dead horse, etc topics alone? Yes they're fun to discuss, but isn't it strange that he drags them out of the holes they're HIDING in, and forces his attention on them, against their will?
I wasn't really following the discussion, and hate losing contributing DPC members, but the parallels seemed eerie to me. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 01:25:45 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I must've missed the personal attacks and name calling. All I saw were vociferous disagreements. |
Part of it was the personal attacks:
"Are you insensitive or something? Grow up man and get off the guy's back.", stated once, supported by many (inc SC);
"This thread screams out to me, "Hey look at me, I didn't get enough attention with my inappropriate rant.";
"To rip on anyone because of the way they are effected by a tragedy just because it didn't effect you in any way is pretty lame, selfish actually,..." ;
"Your inappropiate rant so soon after Steve's death shows your total lack of respect for human life";
"Maybe it should be moved to the "Look at Me Rant" forum? ".
I have not used "originally posted by" quotes because it is not useful to call people out individually.
Part of my problem is the nature of the attacks: ergo's point was a rational, well made point, whether you agreed with it or not (personally, I am fairly ambivalent). The responses were emotional (which is odd, given that most people did not know Steve Irwin other than as a tv presenter) and reactive.
The views being expressed by ergo's critics are repressive. As bucket said,
Originally posted by bucket:
I am worried that people on this site want to silence the voices of anyone who doesn't agree with them. It scares me quite frankly...'run them out of town' if you don't like the way they talk. |
The difference between ergo suggesting that unqualified praise for Steve Irwin may not be warranted and ergo's critics saying that he should not criticise the dead, is that ergo was questioning the validity of a statement, whereas his critics were suggesting that his criticism should not have been made. This might be appropriate around the family members at a time of grief, but this is an internet forum, and a part of the forum that grieving DPC family members can switch off if they wish to avoid being offended. There is in any case much worse out there already if you care to look for it!
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:06:03 PM · #12 |
| Hey legal now we have been debating other subject matters rationally for a few months true? And we are still able to carry on a rational debate correct? Then tell me why you feel like everyone basically attacked ergo? I went back and read the post and comments made. I saw an attack on character of Steve Irwin made and saw where his fans called it inapropriete. At that point it seemed to go back to what the thread was ment for showing grief and memory of a person. Then there is a post by ergo where he did ask to be trashed in a rant forum. Am I incorrect? Also no one kicked him off the site. He left of his own free will. So where is the problem? It was some time ago right after I got on this board I posted a comment about someone selling something and got ripped apart for the most part about it. It upset me but then I reasoned it out and let it go due to the fact that maybe just maybe I am wrong sometimes(I don't admit that all the time) I'm still here and enjoy a good debate. I do agree no reason for name calling unless the name is based on a comment made by the user. If someone calls themself a antisemite then would it be fare to call them a jew hater? seems fair to me call it like you see it or does that only apply when it is not you that is being flamed? You not in the litteral sense..thanks |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:15:31 PM · #13 |
| ergo basically poured gas on a pile of dry wood and lit the first match himself. If he got so upset that he felt the need to take his ball and go home, too bad for him. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:20:30 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
ergo basically poured gas on a pile of dry wood and lit the first match himself. If he got so upset that he felt the need to take his ball and go home, too bad for him. |
Yes, but others added fuel to the fire rather than get out their extinguishers or calling the Fire Department. Had no one responded -- with what are arguably inappropriate responses which violate the forum rules (unlike the original post) -- ergo is less likely to have quit. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:22:27 PM · #15 |
without commenting on the things actually said and if anyone deserved them, I am struck by this thought:
Its always easy to say "good riddance" or "don't dish if you can't take it" or any number of cliches, but if it is YOUR opinion and person being trodden on and you feel forced to leave without any recourse by way of rational discussion, that is a pretty foul taste to have left in your mouth.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:28:40 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
ergo basically poured gas on a pile of dry wood and lit the first match himself. If he got so upset that he felt the need to take his ball and go home, too bad for him. |
Yes, but others added fuel to the fire rather than get out their extinguishers or calling the Fire Department. Had no one responded -- with what are arguably inappropriate responses which violate the forum rules (unlike the original post) -- ergo is less likely to have quit. |
So basically, they did exactly what he asked them to do...
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 15:30:47. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:29:04 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Part of it was the personal attacks:
"Are you insensitive or something? Grow up man and get off the guy's back.", stated once, supported by many (inc SC);
"This thread screams out to me, "Hey look at me, I didn't get enough attention with my inappropriate rant.";
"To rip on anyone because of the way they are effected by a tragedy just because it didn't effect you in any way is pretty lame, selfish actually,..." ;
"Your inappropiate rant so soon after Steve's death shows your total lack of respect for human life";
"Maybe it should be moved to the "Look at Me Rant" forum? ".
I have not used "originally posted by" quotes because it is not useful to call people out individually. |
Since you quoted one of mine (the last one) I'm going to respond. First off that's NOT a personal attack. "It" was the rant thread I referred to in my comment. I made a comment in a joking manner (apparently you didn't get it) about the thread in general. I guess you and I have totally different definitions on what a personal attack is and that's fine but I'm saying it now it wasn't a personal attack. The fact is ergo ASKED for people to rant on him in that thread which is where my comment that you quoted was from, btw. Also, is the thread deleted? If not then you ARE calling people out by quoting their comments. Not rocket science to figure out who said what especially with this new handy dandy search feature! Anyway, that's all I have to say.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 15:30:04.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:30:05 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
I too feel regret & disappointment loosing ergo - |
Anybody else getting a strong sense of irony here? Like...all through viewing his forum posts, I've always asked why he doesn't just LEAVE the poor moral, political, dead horse, etc topics alone? Yes they're fun to discuss, but isn't it strange that he drags them out of the holes they're HIDING in, and forces his attention on them, against their will?
I wasn't really following the discussion, and hate losing contributing DPC members, but the parallels seemed eerie to me. |
A very, very good observation. He will however be missed. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:32:20 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So basically, they did exactly what he asked for... |
I interpret the original request as one to engage in a debate, not to descend into name-calling and abuse which verges on -- if not clearly -- violates the rules. I don't see a debate and a stoning as equivalent activities. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:38:21 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So basically, they did exactly what he asked for... |
I interpret the original request as one to engage in a debate, not to descend into name-calling and abuse which verges on -- if not clearly -- violates the rules. I don't see a debate and a stoning as equivalent activities. |
He asked to be flamed, not for a debate.
His original message, while not offensive aside from its message, was certainly inflammatory if not outright incendiary.
If debate was truly ergo's goal, a more tactful approach would have gotten him what he wanted.
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 15:43:26. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 03:43:35 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So basically, they did exactly what he asked for... |
I interpret the original request as one to engage in a debate, not to descend into name-calling and abuse which verges on -- if not clearly -- violates the rules. I don't see a debate and a stoning as equivalent activities. |
I'd say that's because you have sense of good taste, good timing and good sense... :) |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:45:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I made a comment in a joking manner (apparently you didn't get it) about the thread in general. |
Apologies: I think that the ambiguity relates to the interpretation "look at *me*, rant forum" v "look at me *ranting* forum". I hadn't picked up on the subtlety, as on my reading it reflected a couple of earlier comments suggesting that ergo was merely attention seeking.
As for calling out, I meant that I did not want to highlight individuals, or focus undue attention on specific people (that would quickly devolve into a personal attack itself, no dount). However, I don't pretend to want to anonymise them.
I would agree with others that ergo's comment deserved debate and possibly disagreement, but not personal attack. I would never interpret someone's invitation to "flame on" etc as an invitation to personally abuse that person, but to have a vigorous discussion with them, and perhaps to disagree vigorously. It seems that some others have less regard for the people around them, or perhaps do not see the distinction.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:48:37 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
He asked to be flamed, not for a debate. |
He doesn't have the authority to waive the rules/TOS for other people.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If debate was truly ergo's goal, a more tactful approach would have gotten him what he wanted. |
I completely agree. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 09:09:17 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by yanko:
I made a comment in a joking manner (apparently you didn't get it) about the thread in general. |
Apologies: I think that the ambiguity relates to the interpretation "look at *me*, rant forum" v "look at me *ranting* forum". I hadn't picked up on the subtlety, as on my reading it reflected a couple of earlier comments suggesting that ergo was merely attention seeking.
As for calling out, I meant that I did not want to highlight individuals, or focus undue attention on specific people (that would quickly devolve into a personal attack itself, no dount). However, I don't pretend to want to anonymise them.
I would agree with others that ergo's comment deserved debate and possibly disagreement, but not personal attack. I would never interpret someone's invitation to "flame on" etc as an invitation to personally abuse that person, but to have a vigorous discussion with them, and perhaps to disagree vigorously. It seems that some others have less regard for the people around them, or perhaps do not see the distinction. |
Debate? Ok I agree with you on some of your view points. For instant about calling someone out I beleive that you did that in good faith. As for the statement that some others have less regard for the people around them then really look at what he was saying and what was just said about Princess Dianna and JFK jr and anyone else. Maybe its me but I feel like its just poor taste done in a non tackful manorless fashion to speak in a tone critisizing the dead. Maybe its just my culture. Cannot speak for you or anyone else. Points to be made 1. This whole conversation started because of (for the lack of a better term) a cold hearted statement felt by many. Most of the comments in response were "man thats not cool" etc I do not feel for one moment that it would have gone beyond that if Ergo would have let it go. Could I be wrong of coarse. If you go back and look at the thread you will see the subject went back to grieving over the loss until he came back in multiple times. Then someone said take it out of here this is not the place. So (IMO) he got upset angry bent mad or whatever emotion set him to create a forum to continue his rant. One thought came to my mind a while back is why do we have a rant forum on DPC. Is this not supposed to be a photography site? Does it bother me no just a question to what purpose does it server except to seem to cause divisions based on beliefs religions regional warefare race warefare class warfare etc. My question is it necessary at all. Should general forum room not cover anything that may be related to the well being of this site? And to ask general a question about the tro Does a rant not in its nature violate The tro? A rant to me is someone mad and wanting to vent their anger on others. or something to that nature. But you know a month from now Ergo will be forgotten and its sad that he could not find a way to cope with any issue that arises from a chat forum. Most of us will have moved on to agree or disagree on another subject. I guess in short Life is short why are we worring about this. Enjoy it and go one livin. Peace Out PS remember the opossum from Ice age 2!!! Laugh and have a good time |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 09:13:52 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
ummm... has anyone heard the phrase if you can't stand the heat stay out of he kitchen? |
Ummm...has anyone heard the phrase, you don't have to agree, but you should respect?
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 21:21:56.
|
|
