|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2006 12:33:47 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by jsas:
[quote=dpaull] [quote=HBunch]
oh...I can assure you that site didn't 'single out a particular race' -- that site is all about equal opportunity discrimination.
--
This sounds like an Oxi-Moron not you but the quote. equal opportunity discrimination, didn't know there was such a thing. |
was being silly about it.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:40:21 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Canadian_eh:
We are a community, and i think it's up to ourselves to censor what we view on our own. |
Yeah, and from now on if someone posts a link, they know to add a flag that says some may not find it appropriate.
Originally posted by Canadian_eh:
I'm not really thrilled about the raising children comments, and honestly, we're on here for photography.... not to talk about subjects that could offend someone. ... Why would you want to post anythign that could offend someone |
Personally, and maybe it's just because I'm not easily offended, but I do not see how posting a link to someone else's thoughts could classify as 'me offending someone'...if I offend YOU by posting a link to someone else's site then you must live your life offended.
Furthermore, I wouldn't want to post anything to offend anyone, personally. Will I post stuff that offends people? Certainly...will you? More than likely. Will 99% of the people who post regularly post something that, at one time or another will offend someone? More than likely...being offended is subjective...I cannot determine what is and is not going to offend someone. Like was stated above -- religion, abortion, adoption, the death penalty, wars, and other contraversial subjects are all guaranteed to offend someone in one way or another...so while it is not always one's intent to offend someone, someone will find one way or another to be offended by it...and as proof, I offer my general statement of the person who makes the flag "DO NOT CLICK THIS IF YOU ARE UNDER 18" before their link, then stating 'not that we (meaning the person who writes the flag) have any right in telling anyone what they can or can't click' -- offended TOOCOOL, to the point that he not only called me out (bad enough to merit being edited by site council), but said that I WOULD have to deal with him...so clearly he was offended...as was NOT my intent.
See what I mean?
Message edited by author 2006-01-22 00:42:33.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 01:07:18 AM · #28 |
all I'm saying is that you should think more about what could possably offend someone. lol, and i wasn't offended about the parenthood comment... I'm 14, but someone was. And having read the whole forum before i posted my repsonse, i honestly didn't see the need for some of the stuff you said. And it's not only you, don't get me wrong. I don't think It's an age thing though. Personally, i'm not easily offended, but i know alot of people are. I take that into account before i say anything
Ben |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 01:12:00 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Canadian_eh:
i honestly didn't see the need for some of the stuff you said. |
If I went through the front page of 5 different forum sites and read all the posts...I would honestly not see the need for well over 90% of the stuff anyone says...but I don't personally point out that I didn't see the need for it...that's just rude...
Anyway, no biggie...care to quote what you didn't see the need for...and I'll explain my intentions in posting it when I wake up -- it's bed time now.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 01:18:48 AM · #30 |
| ya, i'm, about to head off now to. But you know thats not what I'm trying to do. And i think you know what I'm saying to! I ahev nothing against you, you have some good work, and we don't have to agree with everything... so... goodnight. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:38:11 AM · #31 |
Sorry for the extended rant. This is sensitive with me.
One of the problems with American education right now is that the institutions are trying to block ANYTHING that may be considered offensive to any students. Abortion, alcohol, religion, death penalty, you name it and so on. The problem is, when we're dealing with "Art", it's pretty hard to get away from political argumentation (and I don't mean "left vs. right"). Granted, a photograph of a flower is fairly neutral. But most literature, for example novels and short stories, tend to deal with some sort of political issue (top rankers being racism, sexism, classism; the ism's of discrimination). Art has a long and rich history of helping a culture define itself, of coming to terms with who and what it is. It is the cultural battlefield where any given society challenges and celebrates itself.
To censor and to deny political contexts from art is to effectively render art meaningless. When you remove "anything that may be offensive" from education you're left with very little to teach. You end up denying critical thinking, creative processes, and the ability to formulate one's own opinion. You end up with a culture loaded with automatons strutting about the mall, nodding and buying, nodding and buying...
In my country, the U.S., we supposedly have this long and rich history of valuing freedom of speech. In short, as long as one's expression of speech does not violate the ethical grounds of law, of another's rights as a citizen, it should be okay. Regardless of how insane, offensive or zany it may be.
Child porn, for example, is easy to pick apart from other forms of porn, as children were friggin' raped in the manufacturing of that 'art' product. Therefore, "rights" have been deprived and that form of 'art' is unethical. But to deal with the issues that surround child porn and how/why it is illegal should be, obviously, okay. We should understand exactly how and why it is NOT okay ~ rather than simply nodding our heads with the herd and going along with it because somebody somewhere said so.
So, in a perfect world, in a free world that valued the freedom of speech and thought, of public discourse and critical interrogation, I would say all links are fair and valid ~ and the the discourse continue. A political discussion regarding a work of art should and will need to have context. Art doesn't exist in a vaccum. And the internet is loaded with context (some good, most IMHO bad).
However, dpchallenge isn't the free world. It's a business for some and a community to others. The business side gets to make the rules. We, as the citizens of this community, have to play by their rules.
Personally, I disagree with "let's pretend it doesn't exist and not acknoweldge it here". Photography, for me, can be extremely political ~ and just because I disagree with somebody's view doesn't mean I don't think it has a right to exist (as long as it doesn't ethically deprive another of their rights). But, I'm not admin. I don't run the show. And I have a lot of respect for those that do. So, I'll play by the rules and keep posting photographs of snakes (which are, Old Testament and the Garden aside, relatively politically neutral).
David, I get what you say about parenting ~ the parents do need to be monitoring and "parenting" their children. There's far too little of that (IMO). Especially with the media.
It is a shame we want to "will away" the bad things and pretend they don't exist, rather than teach our children how and why these things are "bad". Ignorance isn't education. It's just ignorance. Exposure's going to happen at some point, so why not simply acknowledge "the dirt" and build a constructive lesson out of it? Rather than pretend it doesn't exist...
Anyhow, sorry for the extra-burdoned rant. Flowers and f-stops and DOF are all wonderful things. So too are snakes and rainbows and cowboys... But as we've recently seen, even cowboys can be made to serve a political argument (and not just another 'typical' love story in the mainstream). I don't understand the full context of this thread's spark, the original post. I do understand that not everybody wants to engage in political or cultural discussions and dialogues. Diff'rent strokes, folks. But I do wish the rules didn't echo current educational policies that want to keep the world a clean, sparkling utopia that's never confrontational or disturbing. To me, that denies a fundamental element in art itself. And it's fundamentally not true to life itself (which, to me, is the goal of art: to reflect some fundamental 'truth' of life itself).
Just my two cents. And I will continue to play by the rules (to the best of my ability) as judged by the admin of dpchallenge. In the end, this site is more about technical profiency of photography with neutral subjects than it is in the artistic argumentation and political dialogues of photography.
There are currently 11,830 photos in "Animals" and only 655 in "Political". That says a lot!
(And please note, almost all of my own photos are snakes, lizards and birds ~ I'm not judging! I like the animal shots...!)
~ bacchus, with his two little pennies . . . and with apologies.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 04:46:25 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 04:46:25 AM EDT.
|
