DPReview Going Downhill Fast

Hmmm. I think you just called TravisButler a Snowflake, and as for non-negotiable absolutes, 2+5=10 in base 7. :-)

I think it's better, rather than not saying something you deem offensive, to work to avoid saying things that might offend, particularly as you don't know the person who's reading your post. Err on the side of caution, which I would consider basic good manners rather than 'political correctness'.

Snowflake and PC already started to appear in this thread. I wonder what's next. Wokeness? Cancel culture?

The problem is, as with many things, when it's taken to extremes. Just as "real talk" or "calling it like I see it" can turn into extreme bluntness that is flat ugly, being "non offensive" or "inclusive" can turn into walking on eggshells and never being able to say anything at all because of the 0.0007% chance it MIGHT offend someone whom, frankly, is going to be offended at almost anything anyway.

In like manner, in terms of what I was talking about, I can understand someone who is "gatekeeping" too much might say that you're not a "real" photographer unless you use top of the line gear like a Nikon Z9, the problem is who's to say that shouldn't be a Hasselblad or Fuji 100mp medium format camera? Am I a "real" photographer if I use a Canon Rebel or Nikon D3200 etc?

For me I say yes you are even at the entry level of things (D3200 etc) but I'm not willing to go to the point of embracing smartphones and having no standards at all. To me that's the other extreme of "anything goes."

And there is the issue. Snowflake and PC and Wokeness, all buzzwords these days. Completely overused. One man's woke is another man's being considerate and compassionate. Who gets to set that definition, because of course everybody thinks that have it dialed in. I just try treat others as I would like to be treated and leave the catchy buzzwords to somebody else.

Somewhat related to this, I hope this site can avoid getting plaqued by frequent quarreling about woke, political correctness, liberal / conservative stances etc.

In a crowd of a few thousand people it's very much natural that people have very different opinions about them and that's fine, but especially during the last few years constant arguments about that kind of topics has become frequent enough to genuinely poison a few (non-photography) sites I visit.

<shrug> My first online experience with the word was in the mid-late 80's, when GUI's were just achieving mass adoption and it was used by CLI enthusiasts as an attack. "Toy computers" was definitely an insult, and led to lots of ugly flamewars, so you'll excuse me if my view of the word is less positive.

More to the point, it's an ad hominem attack that doesn't say anything useful about what you find wrong with smartphone cameras, so there's nothing worthwhile to discuss. If you're actually after practical discussion and want a shot at convincing anyone, maybe take that into consideration?

In other words, if you're not willing to change your mind, you're not going to take any opposing arguments seriously. If you're not willing to listen with an open mind, why would anyone bother honestly discussing anything with you?

Not willing to discuss with actual specifics and not listening with an open mind drops your credibility to zero with me, and I suspect I'm not the only one. If you want people to listen to you, maybe consider a change?

As I said, there are certain things where I'm just "final" in my views on them and absolutely positively nothing is going to change my mind. I'm not trying to enter into an "open" discussion, the other person is giving their opinion I'm giving mine and that's all. It's not meant to be ugly or a mud slinging contest, by me and probably by them either, but I'm not required to be willing to change my mind about EVERYTHING. Some things for me are just non negotiable.

If you draw a hard boundary and build a wall along it, then don't expect there to be any sort of friendly exchange. I hate smartphones and I will never own a smartphone, but I am also not going compare people who use them to children. It's not about having an "open mind" and being "politically correct" and "embracing diversity", I am simply just trying not to be an asshole.

This is something I have to agree with. All of this fake inclusive code of conduct stuff and lipsticky political correctness is just downright fascism and discrimination. When you play a mind game by adding more rules to code of conducts and being “politically correct” (whatever that means) you’ll end up with a society where only one opinion is allowed and where you have absolute discrimination on all vectors. Didn’t certain regimes we had to deal in the past build up similar societies? To me at least it rings some bells.

I’m absolutely against personal insults, discrimination, and condescension. At the same time I think all opinions should be allowed even if it is sometimes a hard chunk to swallow for the whole community, and it results in more work in the end.

I think that describing smartphones as toys can be interpreted in different ways, certainly I didn’t understand it like @larrytusaz before the explanation. From my perspective seeing smartphones as toys is ignorant. Did I insult @larrytusaz? Certainly not, I don’t know him, I don’t know his character traits. Sometimes you have to generalize and this is OK in order to move forward with a discussion. Smartphones did evolve in recent years, and they are just another tool in my tool belt. The fake RAW files are getting better, so are the computational aids like fake DoF. Plus they have their own pros (and obviously cons) compared to traditional camera bodies. I say this as a mostly camera body shooter (2x FF, 5x APS-C, 1x MFT, and whatever else with smaller sensors). Completely dismissing this fact is short sighted and ignorant, but I don’t judge this, it’s @larrytusaz’s opinion which I welcome. This gives me a new perspective I didn’t consider before.

Despite the disagreement I think we could be good friends because of the open mind, and straight no frills approach.

A friend is not somebody who agrees with you all the time, it’s somebody who tells you the truth and opinion even if the friendship is at risk.

And you know what? I hope my inner child will live until I die, and children love to play with toys. Does this sound idiotic? I was called an idiot twice in the recent days on DPReview, so I have to be some kind of cubic idiot.

There should be more trust put on the individual and that there will be a positive outcome in the end, instead of silencing and over-regulation.

My post is a little bit muddled because I’m too tired, but I hope it’s a good example where I would like to see the line drawn between moderation and free speech.

A thread doesn’t need to change your mind. It’s interesting to gain new perspectives. After dozens and dozens of discussions you’ll gain so many perspectives that you’ve essentially changed your mind.

Then I never met a person over ~70 who changed their mind, and yes, most elderly people prefer to die with the status quo. So what?

Thank you, that's exactly how I feel about it (especially the bolded part).

Exactly. Some of us don't want our minds changed about a given subject, we simply want to say how we feel about it the same as everyone else--so long as we do so somewhat tastefully. Why do younger people (sometimes) act like we older people are problems to be fixed? Maybe we're fine just as we are and don't need nor want to be changed. (And yes, sometimes older people discredit younger people's opinions not just because they're different, but simply because they're "wet behind the ears" etc, and that's most times just as wrong.)

First off, calling a smartphone a "toy" is not saying those who use it are children. I'm a literal person, unless I flat-out call you a child, I've not called you a child. If your response to me calling something a "toy" is to say that I called you a child, the problem isn't that I implied that, the problem is that you're jumping to conclusions.

Unless it's a very heavily censored forum, in which case I'm not likely to be in there anyway, I don't speak in code language. I have no interest in it, and I don't care if that's what other people do and thus you think that's what I'm doing. If I say "I didn't call you a child," I didn't. That's it. The onus isn't on me to explain ad nausea that I didn't mean it some "coded" way, the onus is on you to realize I'm a literal person and to take me at my word.

Yes, wrong opinions should be allowed, otherwise we couldn´t grow, reach consensus, compare, learn. This is absolutely vital.
Calling a piece of hardware "a toy" usually has no primary goal to degrade ones choice, but to express personal issues with the qualities or usability of such piece. It is fast shortcut compared to detailed analysis on what´s not liked. This expression as much as wrong and distasteful to some can be, is superior to someones feeling about his hardware that is called out as unsuitable and unliked, in short as "a toy". Discussion "why that is wrong name" for the objet might also emerge, but that is rather OT.

Such aspects of human interaction as hate has to be tolerated in fair amounts and expressions too. "I hate tomatoes", "I hate too much image noise" is perfectly valid and welcome expression if it has something to do with the interaction, learning or solving a problem. That´s why we´re here.
That´s why forum rules of an open community should be close to common law - as long as there is no swearing at people, no threatening, no physical damage, no theft, no personal reputation damage, it is noones business to choke the range of expressions available in the language. Calling these attempts "snowflaky, PC" and such makes my hair stand, but it is rather factual, and should be out.

I greatly hope we manage to find fair, free and open discussion field on this forum, where negative expressions are allowed as long as they are not unlawful or harming particular people.

Interesting that its on me to figure out that you are a "literal" person. Honestly, why would that be worth my effort? Its not hard to be civil. Calling someone's camera a toy can obviously be considered derogatory, just as if I called your favorite landscape a snapshot. So you cant be bothered to speak in code that we have to be bothered to figure out how literal you are. Pass.

So much for freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, diversity of ideas and so on. "Literal" take on things is the base one, not the other way round.

Anything can be considered anything, and that's why we rather allow free speech. It is not calling SOMEONES camera a toy. It is calling a piece of hardware a toy, and some people just "happen to own/use", and getting sensitive about it.
There absolutely has to be space for discussing stuff other ways than positive.

Attempting to use moderation to regulate the opinions members have and express, would likely be doomed to failure and is arguably not relevant to the mission of the site. Conduct, on the other hand, is something that can and should be managed through the Terms of Service, User Guidelines, member communication and - when necessary - moderation.

If somebody calls me and idiot in a post, it's not their opinion of me - that of being an idiot - that's a violation of the ToS or guidelines. In fact, it may be true that I am an idiot. Regardless of the intent of the person making the post or even of the accuracy of the statement, "Bill's an idiot," it's an insult. Nobody likes being called an idiot...and for good reason. It's demeaning and justifiably considered inappropriate conduct by a member of a community, especially one built around the goal of fostering open, productive discussions amongst people who share a common interest.

The same standard can be applied to political, spiritual and cultural beliefs. This is an international community. The diversity of thought, in my opinion, is something to celebrate. At the very least, it is something to foster. Everyone, regardless of their opinions and beliefs in these deeply meaningful areas, should be able to feel comfortable as an active member of this forum. That standard can also be applied to our opinions about photographic equipment, techniques and even the photos shared in the forums. It's not our opinions on these topics that cross a threshold separating appropriate and inappropriate activity. It's our conduct that can cross the line.

If my posts are insulting, intimidating, bullying or otherwise aggressive towards other members - regardless of the opinions or facts stated - other members would be justified in publicly calling that conduct out and asking that I temper my voice. It's a reasonable expectation that, whatever the purpose of my posts, I'll make my point in a manner that is respectful of others. The best way to do that, is to avoid getting personal when a discussion leads to a point of fundamental disagreement. Keep the discussion focused on the topic. Don't stray into trading personal barbs.

In summary, my hope is that this still new forum will focus on conduct as opposed to opinions as having the potential to be inappropriate and deserving of moderation. Embracing the banner message on the landing page, "the community-run digital photography resource," I would also hope that members will feel comfortable about taking the first step to notify another member when they've crossed that line. If we can self-regulate, that will help facilitate an atmosphere where formal moderation is only needed and only occurs in the rare instance of a person who repeatedly treats others in a disrespectful manner.

That's a goal - moderation only on the rare occasion it is needed - I would hope we all can embrace.

I think I found your problems.

I notice you never said anything about my alternate suggestion for "toy". Why is that? What's wrong with saying "I don't think smartphones are real cameras because they don't have creative control"?

I don't have a problem with that. Or saying "because they don't have a zoom lens". Or "because they do too much image processing". Or "because they let ordinary people take pictures without photography skills". I may agree. I may disagree. But they're all claims with meaning that can be discussed, not empty name-calling. Disagreement is not the issue; lack of substance is.

My apologies if I'm wrong. But what it looks like to me - especially combined with statements like

and

is that you want to badmouth something without giving people anything of substance to respond to. Or being willing to listen to responses. That's just another way of shutting down discussion, and it makes me as angry as censorship does. It's dishonest, it provokes mudslinging, and it poisons a forum's atmosphere.

That's what really bugs me. Not how mild or strong "toy" is as an insult. But the dishonesty in jumping into a discussion just to name-call, without real claims that people can respond to. Saying that you're only there to push your opinion and not to discuss is the cherry on top.

As I said, that kind of cheap debating tactic drops your credibility to zero as far as I'm concerned. If you want respect and people to actually listen to you, that's not how to do it. I want a forum where people can discuss things freely, not one where people derail conversations by dive-bombing them with empty put-downs that they're not willing to discuss.