Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 12 Sep 2013 (Thursday) 10:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9/11 The falling man

 
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Sep 17, 2013 03:55 |  #31

ChunkyDA wrote in post #16302113 (external link)
A journalist captures what is in front of them, they continue to work. if they turn away, they stop being journalists and become gawkers.
Can you imagine if no one photographed the horrors of WWII? We would not believe it today.

You think so? I disagree. We don't have photos for the overwhelming majority of human history, but that doesn't make us doubt it, does it? In fact, it's a kinda strange point to make in a discussion about this very subject, as indeed the men who piloted those aeroplanes believed rather fervently in an invisible guy in the sky, for which there exists zero editorial (or otherwise) evidence.

I'm also not really understanding the repeated use of the term political correctness in this thread; debating the use of violent imagery in the media isn't a matter of political correctness (which is about perceived discrimination and the avoidance of language enabling it), but a simple one of taste. I know that if that falling man were a member of my own family, I'd be disgusted and traumatised by its use in the media. Someone earlier made a comment about the glorification of violence in the media, and I personally see the falling man as yet another example of this.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Sep 17, 2013 06:16 |  #32

onona wrote in post #16303021 (external link)
...I'm also not really understanding the repeated use of the term political correctness in this thread; debating the use of violent imagery in the media isn't a matter of political correctness (which is about perceived discrimination and the avoidance of language enabling it), but a simple one of taste...

Your understanding of the term "politically correct" is too narrow. The broader meaning is using or avoiding things (language, actions, images, expression of ideas, etc.) that anyone might perceive as offensive. It also includes the use of language or descriptions intended to minimize opposition or "soft soap" the issue or for other political purposes (e.g. "climate change" rather than "global warming").


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Sep 17, 2013 07:03 |  #33

RTPVid wrote in post #16303156 (external link)
Your understanding of the term "politically correct" is too narrow.

Errr, no. This isn't about my understanding of the term, it's about the actual meaning of the term, as opposed to its common colloquial usage as an umbrella term encompassing anything that could be deemed offensive.

Labelling an argument against the use of violent or sensitive imagery in the media as politically correct is lazy, and suggests the individual using this angle can't really think of a better riposte.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Sep 17, 2013 08:10 |  #34

onona wrote in post #16303217 (external link)
Errr, no. This isn't about my understanding of the term, it's about the actual meaning of the term, as opposed to its common colloquial usage as an umbrella term encompassing anything that could be deemed offensive.

Labelling an argument against the use of violent or sensitive imagery in the media as politically correct is lazy, and suggests the individual using this angle can't really think of a better riposte.

Errr, no. It is a colloquial term, hence the "definition" is evolving. If you are going to restrict the meaning of the term to its original definition and restrict evolution in meaning in common use, then it means the official Communist Party line. :rolleyes:

If you do not believe that "the media" makes editorial decisions based on politics or trying to avoid offense, you are, indeed, naive. I completely reject your weak attempt at an insult.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ksbal
Goldmember
Avatar
2,745 posts
Gallery: 374 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 2379
Joined Sep 2010
Location: N.E. Kansas
     
Sep 17, 2013 08:28 |  #35

Are pictures of the holocaust survivors something that never should have happened?

I think someone already said it should documented. What happens and how it is shown after that is the issue that will never be resolved.

There will always be those that deny what happened in any horrific event, so I say those that document are necessary and welcome.. even if the subject(s) of the photos and videos are not.


Godox/Flashpoint r2 system, plus some canon stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Sep 17, 2013 08:29 |  #36

RTPVid wrote in post #16303331 (external link)
Errr, no. It is a colloquial term, hence the "definition" is evolving. If you are going to restrict the meaning of the term to its original definition and restrict evolution in meaning in common use, then it means the official Communist Party line. :rolleyes:

If you do not believe that "the media" makes editorial decisions based on politics or trying to avoid offense, you are, indeed, naive. I completely reject your weak attempt at an insult.

Where did I insult you? And where did I say that "the media doesn't make editorial decisions based on politics"? I'd love for you to point these out in my posts, thanks.

And where did I say I am restricting the definition of the term to its original meaning? Just because many people incorrectly (and usually lazily) use the term politically correct as a catch-all doesn't mean the definition of the word has, as you say, evolved to mean this. You also don't seem to understand the meaning of the word colloquial - I rather suspect you're using Wikipedia or another online resource here to piece together an argument against what I am saying, without really understanding the subject at hand.

The term political correctness is constantly misused by those who either fail to understand the term's meaning, or fail to construct a valid argument against whatever they've chosen to conveniently fob off as PC, thus avoiding the need to formulate a cogent rebuttal.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Sep 17, 2013 08:43 |  #37

onona wrote in post #16303388 (external link)
Where did I insult you? ...

Wow! You are the master an feigned ignorance!

No, I am not using wiki, but I suspect you are. It is obvious the term has continued to evolve over time and presently is used to mean choosing words to avoid offending the overly sensitive as well as choosing words to either minimize or enhance a political view.
The term was not frozen in meaning in the 90's. If you can't see that, then you are merely being dogmatic.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,474 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 594
Joined Dec 2010
     
Sep 17, 2013 09:01 |  #38

onona wrote in post #16303021 (external link)
isn't a matter of political correctness (which is about perceived discrimination and the avoidance of language enabling it), but a simple one of taste. I know that if that falling man were a member of my own family, I'd be disgusted and traumatised by its use in the media.

"Taste" is wholly subjective, and varies from person to person.

Additionally, you* don't have any innate, guaranteed right to not have your feelings hurt.

* the general you, not you specifically, of course.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Sep 17, 2013 09:18 |  #39

RTPVid wrote in post #16303443 (external link)
Wow! You are the master an feigned ignorance!

No, seriously - where did I insult you? Go on, point it out, because I really can't find this apparent "weak attempt at an insult" to you in any of my posts.

And please, like I asked in my previous post, also point out the other things that you said I've said. Go on, I'm waiting.

No, I am not using wiki, but I suspect you are.

Nice try. I went and checked Wikipedia's entry on political correctness and it's abundantly clear you've been referring to it. But hey, if you want to deny it, go ahead. I can't be bothered arguing that, when it's so clear who reads your posts and the Wikipedia entry. Your posts bear all the hallmarks of someone repeating information without understanding it.

It is obvious the term has continued to evolve over time and presently is used to mean choosing words to avoid offending the overly sensitive as well as choosing words to either minimize or enhance a political view.

Well, no. Just because people commonly use a term incorrectly doesn't mean the actual definition of the word necessarily evolves to include or be replaced by the incorrect usage. Most people use the word moot incorrectly, but that doesn't mean the dictionary definition of the term has changed to reflect that.

The fact is that people frequently misuse the term politically correct to conveniently shut down debate or challenges to their views, regardless of whether the term actually applies or not.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Sep 17, 2013 09:23 |  #40

nathancarter wrote in post #16303495 (external link)
"Taste" is wholly subjective, and varies from person to person.

Additionally, you* don't have any innate, guaranteed right to not have your feelings hurt.

Oh absolutely, I don't disagree with this at all. In fact, in most cases, offence is something taken, not given. But just because something is subjective doesn't mean that the issue is one that shouldn't therefore be discussed or debated. In fact, unlike something which is objective and therefore fixed, the very nature of subjectivity is intrinsically one of flexibility, and therefore debatable.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Sep 17, 2013 09:57 |  #41

onona wrote in post #16303532 (external link)
No, seriously - where did I insult you? Go on, point it out, because I really can't find this apparent "weak attempt at an insult" to you in any of my posts.

Pffft... beyond feigned.

onona wrote in post #16303532 (external link)
Nice try. I went and checked Wikipedia's entry on political correctness and it's abundantly clear you've been referring to it. But hey, if you want to deny it, go ahead. I can't be bothered arguing that, when it's so clear who reads your posts and the Wikipedia entry. Your posts bear all the hallmarks of someone repeating information without understanding it.

Pffft.... because I know something of the history of politics and the history of the term (in fact, language is a bit of a hobby of mine), it is at least somewhat gratifying if wiki agrees with me. You seem to think everyone is an ignoramus. Maybe you have too many mirrors in your house.


onona wrote in post #16303532 (external link)
Well, no. Just because people commonly use a term incorrectly doesn't mean the actual definition of the word necessarily evolves to include or be replaced by the incorrect usage. Most people use the word moot incorrectly, but that doesn't mean the dictionary definition of the term has changed to reflect that.

Apples and pomegranates. Confusing homonyms (or near homonyms) is not the same thing as the evolution of a living language. And. well, yes. Of course the way people use a term causes its definition to evolve. Maybe as an exercise you should compare a dictionary from 100 years ago to one today.

The term "politically correct" has changed in meaning with time. It is colloquial speech, not formal speech, and it DOES currently include the idea of avoiding offense and fostering a particular political view. You can stick with your static definition if you want, but, please, quit lecturing on something where you are clearly out of your element.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flashpoint99
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
411 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2012
     
Sep 17, 2013 10:22 |  #42

This argument while obnoxular is defined by its preceding linerer objections. Defining ones opinion as a secular state is not only obtuse it can be constude as largess in opinion therefore isolating the very meaning of the forementioned argument. One could interperet this as diaphoretic attack ,depending on ones propinquity and sensativity to an argument.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 17, 2013 20:42 |  #43

flashpoint99 wrote in post #16303726 (external link)
This argument while obnoxular is defined by its preceding linerer objections. Defining ones opinion as a secular state is not only obtuse it can be constude as largess in opinion therefore isolating the very meaning of the forementioned argument. One could interperet this as diaphoretic attack ,depending on ones propinquity and sensativity to an argument.

Very obnubilating.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Sep 18, 2013 07:41 |  #44

RTPVid wrote in post #16303667 (external link)
Pffft... beyond feigned.

Your repeated refusal to point out the supposed "insult" and the fact that you've now conveniently, repeatedly failed to even acknowledge, let alone even indulge, my requests to point out the other things that you've said I said really just go to show that you're injecting nothing more than hot air into this thread.

Pffft.... because I know something of the history of politics and the history of the term (in fact, language is a bit of a hobby of mine), it is at least somewhat gratifying if wiki agrees with me.

Pull the other one, it has bells on it. Your obvious dishonesty is frankly embarrassing.

Apples and pomegranates. Confusing homonyms (or near homonyms) is not the same thing as the evolution of a living language.

The term "politically correct" has changed in meaning with time. It is colloquial speech, not formal speech, and it DOES currently include the idea of avoiding offense and fostering a particular political view. You can stick with your static definition if you want, but, please, quit lecturing on something where you are clearly out of your element.

Same as above. It's almost amusing the way you're puffing your chest out and pretending to be an expert (you evidently missed the point about the word moot if indeed your irrelevant waffling about homonyms was a response to that, again clearly out of your depth - so much for being a language buff, eh?), but it's so painfully clear that you waded into this thread yelling about something you knew absolutely nothing about that it's actually pretty mortifying to watch. Typical anonymous keyboard warrior.

I can see now why you were on my ignore list and regret the time I wasted trying to speak to you, because you're obviously incapable of any kind of reasonable discussion. I'll just go back to not clicking the View button on your posts.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 18, 2013 10:02 |  #45

onona wrote in post #16306139 (external link)
Your repeated refusal to point out the supposed "insult" and the fact that you've now conveniently, repeatedly failed to even acknowledge, let alone even indulge, my requests to point out the other things that you've said I said really just go to show that you're injecting nothing more than hot air into this thread.

Pull the other one, it has bells on it. Your obvious dishonesty is frankly embarrassing.

Same as above. It's almost amusing the way you're puffing your chest out and pretending to be an expert (you evidently missed the point about the word moot if indeed your irrelevant waffling about homonyms was a response to that, again clearly out of your depth - so much for being a language buff, eh?), but it's so painfully clear that you waded into this thread yelling about something you knew absolutely nothing about that it's actually pretty mortifying to watch. Typical anonymous keyboard warrior.

I can see now why you were on my ignore list and regret the time I wasted trying to speak to you, because you're obviously incapable of any kind of reasonable discussion. I'll just go back to not clicking the View button on your posts.

Perhaps it may be both moot and mute, which makes for a boor that's a bore.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,789 views & 0 likes for this thread
9/11 The falling man
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is shawnpan
792 guests, 219 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.