Post a pic

[Larry Kart]

16 minutes ago, jlhoots said:

I didn't say why was that post allowed. Someone else did FWIW.

Sorry.

[Matthew]

I try to make life easy on myself, my internet law is: If I don't like it, I move on. I mean, one click, and I can see something else.

[GA Russell]

14 hours ago, BillF said:

The censors have rendered your emoji meaningless. 

"The song is ended, but the memory lingers on."

I still remember one Sunday ca. 1960 when Al Capp began Lil Abner with "Lasagna's ended, but the malady lingers on."

Edited October 9, 2018 by GA Russell

[BillF]

31 minutes ago, GA Russell said:

I still remember one Sunday ca. 1960 when Al Capp began Lil Abner with "Lasagna's ended, but the malady lingers on."

[Dan Gould]

8 hours ago, ghost of miles said:

The Time cover is a great one, but it is political by a hundred miles--not a hard call at all to make IMO.  And I say this as a flaming left-winger very sympathetic to the point it's making, but in terms of objectivity, rules, and fairness, it shoulda been bounced, ump.  

So the  bottom line to me (right now) is whether Jim gets a pass because of "composition".  Multiple people have objected to this posting. Do you really have two separate rules, for mods and for everybody else?  I think Jim needs to ask himself, before posting a well-composed graphic image, whether this graphic image contains a political message and then decide if it should be posted.

[JSngry]

Again - I do not see that as a "political" image. Seriously.

[JSngry]

What is the "message" of that Time cover? That some kids are being "welcomed" to America in a less than friendly way? How is that political? That's a fact. The image is a constructed one, but so is the reality it depicts. What's the problem?

The politics come in with, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is this a necessary evil, a necessary good, or totally unnecessary altogether? That's a political debate, and it is going on. But that's a debate about policy, not about a magazine cover.

That image takes no sides in that regard, nor do I post any along with the image. Anybody who thinks that that cover is running for office, or proposing a specific policy, or engaging in any other type of human activity obviously sees magazine covers as having more initiative - and ability! - than I do.

I'll say it again - if we're at a place where all "current events" are by definition "political", if we are unable to separate a constructed image from actual human action, then we are at a seriously fucked up place in our collective thought process.

I'm calling bullshit.

[Dan Gould]

3 minutes ago, JSngry said:

What is the "message" of that Time cover? That some kids are being "welcomed" to America in a less than friendly way? How is that political? That's a fact. The image is a constructed one, but so is the reality it depicts. What's the problem?

The politics come in with, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is this a necessary evil, a necessary good, or totally unnecessary altogether? That's a political debate, and it is going on. But that's a debate about policy, not about a magazine cover.

That image takes no sides in that regard, nor do I post any along with the image. Anybody who thinks that that cover is running for office, or proposing a specific policy, or engaging in any other type of human activity obviously sees magazine covers as having more initiative - and ability! - than I do.

I'll say it again - if we're at a place where all "current events" are by definition "political", if we are unable to separate a constructed image from actual human action, then we are at a seriously fucked up place in our collective thought process.

I'm calling bullshit.

Give me a fucking break. Nobody thinks its not political except you.  Nobody thinks its not explicitly anti-Trump immigration policy but you.

But you're a mod and don't think you crossed a line, and are lashing out when challenged by multiple people.

So why don't we just ask Jim Alfredson as the owner to make the call?

 

 

[JSngry]

I hope I'm not the only one who sees it as political, and/or by definition anti-Trump immigration policy. Why can it not be seen as Trump as hero, making a tough call to execute a painful but necessary policy? Kids cry all over the world and it's never their fault. It's sad, but hell, it's not a perfect world. Kids are going to cry no matter what. It's up to the adults to do what has to be done to protect the future.

That's a perfectly legitimate reaction to that image. As is oh my, what are we doing?

Either way, it's a strong, well-constructed image representing a real-world current event. Your reaction may be political. The image is not.

Why is the assumption that there's only one way to take a look at that image, because it's on the cover of Time? Are people so sheep-herded into their own paranoid tribes that they're incapable of processing information and reaching an independent interpretation? If source=conclusion, then, what, objective data no longer exists? Free thought no longer exists? Ability to interpret no longer exists? To take one thing and see it another way is not within our purveyance (and if that's the case, say goodbye to jazz, it was all just one big misunderstanding)  Is the reality now that there's no need to think for ourself, just to take what is given us and either swallow it whole or spit it out lest it befoul our preset intellectual palate?

I calling bullshit again. Doubling down, in fact.

[Dan Gould]

Fine: Interpret it as Trump as hero - that's a political statement as well.

Does the constructed juxtaposition have a point of view?  Obviously. You say it can be interpreted as ripping Trump or celebrating him.

Either way its political. Support or opposition or both at the same time.  A desert topping and a floor wax!

Except that anyway you look at it, it's political.

Again let's get a call from the grand pooh-ba.

 

[uli]

[Brad]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Again - I do not see that as a "political" image. Seriously.

This is the classic problem when you have regulators regulating themselves.  It's not possible because it's a conflict of interest. If you and your fellow mods can't see it, then we have a problem that goes beyond this thread but affects the entire Forum itself. 

If you are calling bs, I suggest you take a long look in the mirror because that's where the bs is emanating from. 

Based on your post and Larry's stance to take any action, you have sacrificed your right to be a moderator and it's time for a new one. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Brad

[JSngry]

7 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Fine: Interpret it as Trump as hero - that's a political statement as well.

Does the constructed juxtaposition have a point of view?  Obviously. You say it can be interpreted as ripping Trump or celebrating him.

Either way its political. Support or opposition or both at the same time.  A desert topping and a floor wax!

Except that anyway you look at it, it's political.

Again let's get a call from the grand pooh-ba.

 

Politics is about the pursuit of a particular ideology as manifested through specific policy.

The image has no such ideology except what is brought to it by the viewer.

It is provocative, true, but again - it itself is not "political", unless you want to take the position that any representation of a current event is political, in which case, hey, political:

2 minutes ago, Brad said:

This is the classic problem when you have regulators regulating themselves.  It's not possible because it's a conflict of interest. If you and your fellow mods can't see it, then we have a problem that goes beyond this thread but affects the entire Forum itself. 

If you are calling bs, I suggest you take a long look in the mirror because that's where the bs is emanating from  

Based on your post and Larry's stance to take any action, you have sacrificed your right to be a moderator and it's time for a new one. 

If Larry wants to delete that picture, he can do so. If Jim Alfredson wants to delete that picture, he can certainly do it. I'm not going to do it.

And if you want a new moderator, feel free to volunteer to be one yourself. Have fun with it!

[Big Beat Steve]

11 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

If you want to try all these cases in Federal Court, go right ahead, while we talk about ...  jazz, maybe?

As for Jim's posting of that Time cover, I would guess that for him it fell into the striking image bag. As for Jlhoots' "Why was [that] post allowed and others were deleted?" --  you seem to be assuming that the moderators regularly cruise these threads in search of posts that violate forum rules and need to be deleted. In fact, while the moderators delete the occasional rule-breaking post that we happen to see in passing (as  in, on our way to something else) the vast majority of the posts we delete we have been made aware  of by -- and only by --  complaints from forum members.

So if you deleted this or that political post in this thread during recent days as it seems, what's keeping YOU from deleting JSangrey's Time cover post (which - like that of many others - I find EXCEEDINGLY political too)? After all its been brought to your attention by now. (Is there really any question or doubt about photos carrying and being able to carry an immensely political message?)
Or is one mod deleting another mod's post out of the question?

FWIW (and even if it only adds another repetitive layer to the debate), needless to say that on grounds of fairness I agree with what Brad and Paul Secor said here recently about one rule for everybody. Once you start enforcing rules, enforce ONE set of rules vs EVERYbody. Wouldn't that be just a matter of fair and square fairness all around?

Edited October 9, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[Dan Gould]

No, not political because its simply a picture of a family, with a flag behind them.

Time juxtaposed scowling Trump with arms crossed against crying innocent toddler to make a statement.  Period. Whatever that statement is its at heart political and I don't give a shit what your definition of politics is.

[JSngry]

One question - that picture was posted on June 26, right?

And here it is October and it's just now drawing complaints?

It's taken three and a half months for people to complain?

Why wasn't this reported to the authorities when it occurred?

[Big Beat Steve]

Does that matter for the CURRENT state of the debate (which may well have flared up - as you no doubt ar eaware - once certain posts have been deleted very recently for the very same conflict with existing rules)?

[JSngry]

Really?

[Dan Gould]

6 minutes ago, JSngry said:

One question - that picture was posted on June 26, right?

And here it is October and it's just now drawing complaints?

It's taken three and a half months for people to complain?

Why wasn't this reported to the authorities when it occurred?

I believe it was around that time I reported another post in this thread that was blatantly political, and also referenced that there were other such posts that leaped over the line.  I think whichever mod looked at it just deleted whatever was specifically flagged and didn't go looking for the rest.

Or maybe you got the flagged post and naturally skipped over your own contribution! I know I didn't bother to flag every offender and trusted the mods to do what was needed.

[JSngry]

So the issue is not the picture itself, it's that Larry cleared up some recent things and didn't go far enough back?

What are we saying here, that we'll not complain in real time, or that moderators are expected to look at everything or nothing, or that some people don't like too much Buddy Rich, or just what are we saying here?

[paul secor]

I don't post political comments or photos here - or at least I can't remember doing so. I'm mostly here for music interactions (though sports, books, film, etc. enter into the mix). I'm concerned that Jim A. may decide to close this place down because of all of the arguments about politics and censorship that are going on - some of which I've been a part of lately. I feel that we have to police ourselves when we post, and I think that it's a no-brainer that any photo/drawing/cartoon of a political figure is political and shouldn't be posted here. Just my opinion.

[Big Beat Steve]

8 minutes ago, paul secor said:

I'm concerned that Jim A. may decide to close this place down because of all of the arguments about politics and censorship that are going on - some of which I've been a part of lately. I feel that we have to police ourselves when we post, and I think that it's a no-brainer that any photo/drawing/cartoon of a political figure is political and shouldn't be posted here. Just my opinion.

[soulpope]

13 minutes ago, paul secor said:

I don't post political comments or photos here - or at least I can't remember doing so. I'm mostly here for music interactions (though sports, books, film, etc. enter into the mix). I'm concerned that Jim A. may decide to close this place down because of all of the arguments about politics and censorship that are going on - some of which I've been a part of lately. I feel that we have to police ourselves when we post, and I think that it's a no-brainer that any photo/drawing/cartoon of a political figure is political and shouldn't be posted here. Just my opinion.

Fully agreed ...

[Brad]

18 minutes ago, paul secor said:

I don't post political comments or photos here - or at least I can't remember doing so. I'm mostly here for music interactions (though sports, books, film, etc. enter into the mix). I'm concerned that Jim A. may decide to close this place down because of all of the arguments about politics and censorship that are going on - some of which I've been a part of lately. I feel that we have to police ourselves when we post, and I think that it's a no-brainer that any photo/drawing/cartoon of a political figure is political and shouldn't be posted here. Just my opinion.

Agreed, and I hope nothing said here will result in the Forum being shut down. 

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

36 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Politics is about the pursuit of a particular ideology as manifested through specific policy.

The image has no such ideology except what is brought to it by the viewer.

It is provocative, true, but again - it itself is not "political", unless you want to take the position that any representation of a current event is political, in which case, hey, political:

If Larry wants to delete that picture, he can do so. If Jim Alfredson wants to delete that picture, he can certainly do it. I'm not going to do it.

And if you want a new moderator, feel free to volunteer to be one yourself. Have fun with it!

"Politics is about the pursuit of a particular ideology as manifested through specific policy."

Sorry, that's nonsense. There are three different kinds of politics.

1 Office politics - which is about a person getting themselves into a position they want to occupy in their organisation.

2 Party politics - which is about getting the representative(s) of your party elected.

3 Government politics - which is about how an organisation can govern.

Anyone working for a large organisation can play 1 - including junior politicians trying to get themselves up a bit.

Party members play 2 - and their opponents (including media organisations)

Civil servants and their political masters play 3 - and their critics, mostly those who thing they get a hard time from them.

In my view, 1 and 2 are games; only 3 is real politics. I don't EVER see any posts dealing with 3. What's here is a game. Not sure why people think it's important.

MG