• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Why On Earth Do We Allow Political Discussions in a Photographic Forum?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Some may wonder why on earth someone who hosts a photography website would allow controversial social or political debate? folk can get offended and turned off, so why do it?

You may notice that I personally am not passive and even actively participate in a confrontational discussions. For example the thread following Jim Galli's statements in support of Israel was made electric when he then adding the notion of "Jews as God's chosen people" that he monitors and favors. Why on earth would I get myself dragged into such a debate at all? What possible value is their in going over the relationship between religious beliefs and genocide? On the face of it, it seems foolhardy and risks alienating everyone here!

The background to allowing such posts and discussion is as follows. When the wonderfully popular pro forum run by Rob Galbraith was at it's end of life, it became hostile to discussing all sorts of subjects folk were interested in from camera rumors, technical/scientific backgrounds of tools we use to political subjects that burnt people up. A lot of folk were banned at that time and the place imploded because of censorship. It was sold and became first fee based, essentially selling our contributions and next a sales platform for gadgets for optimizing color!!

OPF was started in reaction to this as a free open international photography forum nurturing olks individual photographic journeys on their own terms. To deal with controversy, we segmented off an area of risky discussion called Uptown where you might get enriched or insulted or else find a great bargain lens or else get ripped off and lose your money, all at your own risk. This works but from time to time, really prickly subjects are entered and that scares me. Still we allow! We as photographers can, from time to time allow such outlet for passion and rational thought. Hopefully, others reading the entire discourse will be able to better sort out their own views on the topics tackled.

Once someone I greatly respect, (for his photography, generous sharing and teaching), opens a salvo covering my own religion and Israel, which I value dearly, I felt compelled to respond with kindness and firm confrontation, putting this racently-found championing of my own people in its proper context. This and other political and social topics can inflame and annoy. So what's the value?

Perhaps it will inform our paths in photography and how we approach others, we cannot predict, but at least it's separate from the main forum and if folk wish, they can easily ignore the section.

Still I hope it is a positive quality of the OPF community.

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
After my previous frivolous post in this thread, let me make a serious comment.

I have belonged to many photographic forums in the past. I belong now to only a few selected ones.

None of these fora, with the exception of OPF, has or allows controversial subjects or views to be posted. Even in the context of photographic gear!! Political, religious, moral issues are taboo.

So why does Asher allow such subjects to be discussed, even though in their isolated and protected cell. Asher has provided his reasons in the OP.

I think it is more than what he has elucidated.

Can we, the members of OPF, holding diametrically divergent views maintain a discourse in a civilized manner? Can such opposing positions be expressed in a manner that, though seemingly insulting and challenging the fundamental beliefs of others, be expressed in a restricted public discourse? Can these antagonists reflect on what has been posted by them and by others?

Can we, as a race of homo sapiens..this point itself of questionable value, co-exist inspite of and despite of our hatred of each other's point of view.

We can, we must . We must find the common ground of agreements.

Else, all arguments shall be mute. There will no sides left. On either side. No one to put forward
another point of view. No one to put forward any point of view.

Silence! Even that would cease to exist. Because there would be no one to either appreciate it
or to break that silence.

No one. At least no life form as we know it.

As such, what Asher allows is to be commended.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Also on a les frivolous note, I do agree ( but not totally in the name of good discourse) with Fahim.
The idea of everyone having a valued opinion is bunkem. This diminishes those opinions supported by argumentative vigor and accuracy. Having such a state of agree ability would render us speechless with dismay as well as mute. Where would I go for a good fight? What would Jim do if he didn't have a place to voice is idiotic ideas? He' probably implode. What would be the point if we restrict ourselves to one subject and one line of thinking?
Of late I have been somewhat amused and bemused by the fecundity of news items and opinions on the current US political debate. What a state? What a circus? What a feast of entertainment. And in the end you couldn't part the contenders with a fine toothed comb.
How does a nation get so heated about two blokes who differ only in their hair style.
Bring it on I say. I need a break from photos from time to time.
 
Top