Comment on Huxley on Propaganda by Skargill
"... two entire national groups as threatening hordes..."
Where does this occur in the poster?
"The message of the poster"
No, your interpretation of the poster is "fear the foreigners." Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
Where does this occur in the poster?
"The message of the poster"
No, your interpretation of the poster is "fear the foreigners." Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
"Where does this occur in the poster?" Right at the top there, your writing to me in English so I know you can read English, I can only assume your pretending not to understand to try and prove your point.
"No, your interpretation of the poster is "fear the foreigners."" Bollocks, a poster made about an alleged mass migration of foreign groups in a explicitly negative context and its my interpretation? Yeah right. If it is my interpretation then all I've done is interpret it in the manner in which it was intended. Whereas you on the other hand seem to have interpreted it as a warning against tourists.
"Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining." Here's a thought hows about you practice what you preach? Turning piss into rain is literally what you're doing here. Or at least what your trying to do it's clear your not very good at it.
"No, your interpretation of the poster is "fear the foreigners."" Bollocks, a poster made about an alleged mass migration of foreign groups in a explicitly negative context and its my interpretation? Yeah right. If it is my interpretation then all I've done is interpret it in the manner in which it was intended. Whereas you on the other hand seem to have interpreted it as a warning against tourists.
"Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining." Here's a thought hows about you practice what you preach? Turning piss into rain is literally what you're doing here. Or at least what your trying to do it's clear your not very good at it.
"Right at the top there"
Where? Do you mean the large text or the tiny corner piece?
"...an alleged mass migration of foreign groups in a explicitly negative context..."
I'm not sure what you mean by this, though. Your interpretation of the intended meaning =/= intended meaning.
Where? Do you mean the large text or the tiny corner piece?
"...an alleged mass migration of foreign groups in a explicitly negative context..."
I'm not sure what you mean by this, though. Your interpretation of the intended meaning =/= intended meaning.
"Where? Do you mean the large text or the tiny corner piece?" It's very obvious what I mean.
"I'm not sure what you mean by this, though. Your interpretation of the intended meaning =/= intended meaning."
I really doubt that, because if that is true that means that you don't know that images have intended messages. I think your just playing the fool intentionally now.
You see your very first comment shows you also know that "an alleged mass migration of foreign groups in a explicitly negative context" is correct because you said this
"Couldn't I make the same argument if you objected to having 29 American tourists camp out in your room?"
Why would you object if you viewed the situation positively? You have also interpreted the poster to have a negative attitude. Its only after I disputed it that you started playing the "That's just your interpretation" card. Which is very odd since it would be an interpretation that we both share. And you still haven't bothered to show why this shared interpretation is incorrect.
"I'm not sure what you mean by this, though. Your interpretation of the intended meaning =/= intended meaning."
I really doubt that, because if that is true that means that you don't know that images have intended messages. I think your just playing the fool intentionally now.
You see your very first comment shows you also know that "an alleged mass migration of foreign groups in a explicitly negative context" is correct because you said this
"Couldn't I make the same argument if you objected to having 29 American tourists camp out in your room?"
Why would you object if you viewed the situation positively? You have also interpreted the poster to have a negative attitude. Its only after I disputed it that you started playing the "That's just your interpretation" card. Which is very odd since it would be an interpretation that we both share. And you still haven't bothered to show why this shared interpretation is incorrect.
I'm not asking you to agree with my interpretation. I'm asking for you to justify yours.
I have done several times, why don't you justify yours?
Woah there, images, as you know, can have different interpretations. You're holding it as having an absolute meaning here.
The poster is expressing concern over a sudden, massive influx of people coming into the country! It's not saying 'When they come in, treat them like dirt' It's saying 'Your government is not listening to you'.
You wanna see REAL propaganda with REAL clear meaning?
Why, I'll even provide translation for you since you seem to lack a basic grasp of visual interpretation...
www.utdallas.edu/~bxc044000/im… 'Say "No!" to American merchandise!'
www.ccis.edu/courses/HIST102mt… 'America is an amalgamated monster of many faces, they're lying when they say they're here to liberate you!'
nickholdstock.files.wordpress.… 'The chairman is looking out for you. Yay China!'
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia… 'The Japanese are waiting for you to take the day off to stab you in the back. Keep working and work hard!'
See? That right there is propaganda.
This poster you've got up there warning people of the massive influx of non-citizens that will impress upon an already tax-heavy country is just that. An alert for people that their government cannot do the will of people.
The poster is expressing concern over a sudden, massive influx of people coming into the country! It's not saying 'When they come in, treat them like dirt' It's saying 'Your government is not listening to you'.
You wanna see REAL propaganda with REAL clear meaning?
Why, I'll even provide translation for you since you seem to lack a basic grasp of visual interpretation...
www.utdallas.edu/~bxc044000/im… 'Say "No!" to American merchandise!'
www.ccis.edu/courses/HIST102mt… 'America is an amalgamated monster of many faces, they're lying when they say they're here to liberate you!'
nickholdstock.files.wordpress.… 'The chairman is looking out for you. Yay China!'
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia… 'The Japanese are waiting for you to take the day off to stab you in the back. Keep working and work hard!'
See? That right there is propaganda.
This poster you've got up there warning people of the massive influx of non-citizens that will impress upon an already tax-heavy country is just that. An alert for people that their government cannot do the will of people.
"Woah there, images, as you know, can have different interpretations. You're holding it as having an absolute meaning here."
Yes they can, but they still have an Intended interpretation, otherwise they wouldn't have been made. That is the point I'm making here. An advert could have a thousand and one interpretation but I doubt anyone would seriously dispute the statement "buy me now!" is the intended message.
"The poster is expressing concern over a sudden, massive influx of people coming into the country!"
? So on the one hand your saying this poster has many different interpretations and yet you feel confidant enough to tell me what its really about, all while disputing my interpretation of the poster? Do you see the contradiction here?
If you believe that every image has many different interpretations all of whom are equally valid that's fine. But you can't say that and then start elaborating on your own interpretation as if that is the correct one, that's just hypocrisy.
"Why, I'll even provide translation for you since you seem to lack a basic grasp of visual interpretation..."
I lack a grasp of visual interpretation, but you apparently not only know that each image has thousands of interpretations and have the unique skill of being able to sift through them to the one true meaning... You appear to lack a basic grasp of logical consistency.
Oh and you know what you've just said is an admission absolute meaning right?
"This poster you've got up there warning people of the massive influx of non-citizens " Yeah non citizens, what's a non citizen? Someone who doesn't have equal rights and status of citizens, and since they are human high lighting there lack of citizenship would be dehumanizing trait. Which is what the quote is about so you have in effect proven the appropriateness of the posters use. You have my thanks.
"An alert for people that their government cannot do the will of people."
Now this is just funny, not only are you apparently able to correctly interpret images (is that like diving spirits?) but you can also interpret the will of an entire nation based on that image. I'm sure its only a coincidence that the posters meaning and the will of the British people happening to be in line with your own personal views.
Yes they can, but they still have an Intended interpretation, otherwise they wouldn't have been made. That is the point I'm making here. An advert could have a thousand and one interpretation but I doubt anyone would seriously dispute the statement "buy me now!" is the intended message.
"The poster is expressing concern over a sudden, massive influx of people coming into the country!"
? So on the one hand your saying this poster has many different interpretations and yet you feel confidant enough to tell me what its really about, all while disputing my interpretation of the poster? Do you see the contradiction here?
If you believe that every image has many different interpretations all of whom are equally valid that's fine. But you can't say that and then start elaborating on your own interpretation as if that is the correct one, that's just hypocrisy.
"Why, I'll even provide translation for you since you seem to lack a basic grasp of visual interpretation..."
I lack a grasp of visual interpretation, but you apparently not only know that each image has thousands of interpretations and have the unique skill of being able to sift through them to the one true meaning... You appear to lack a basic grasp of logical consistency.
Oh and you know what you've just said is an admission absolute meaning right?
"This poster you've got up there warning people of the massive influx of non-citizens " Yeah non citizens, what's a non citizen? Someone who doesn't have equal rights and status of citizens, and since they are human high lighting there lack of citizenship would be dehumanizing trait. Which is what the quote is about so you have in effect proven the appropriateness of the posters use. You have my thanks.
"An alert for people that their government cannot do the will of people."
Now this is just funny, not only are you apparently able to correctly interpret images (is that like diving spirits?) but you can also interpret the will of an entire nation based on that image. I'm sure its only a coincidence that the posters meaning and the will of the British people happening to be in line with your own personal views.
"Yes they can, but they still have an Intended interpretation, otherwise they wouldn't have been made. That is the point I'm making here. An advert could have a thousand and one interpretation but I doubt anyone would seriously dispute the statement "buy me now!" is the intended message."
Perhaps, but at the same time, you are arguing that this has a clear representation. I'll touch on this again. But what I meant with that original line was playing devil's advocate and stating that there are cases where interpretation is broad and open. I'm saying you were misinterpreting it.
"If you believe that every image has many different interpretations all of whom are equally valid that's fine. But you can't say that and then start elaborating on your own interpretation as if that is the correct one, that's just hypocrisy"
Ah, but you're arguing artist intent. I'm arguing interpretation. An image can be interpreted many different ways, but it's up to the artist or designer to clarify the message to get their intended message through. I believe in this case you either misinterpreted it or are, and I find this more likely, twisting interpretation to mean something that it does not. Now that we're past what line is drawn where, let us debate the designer's intent. I contend what I said, that the intent is drawing attention.
"I lack a grasp of visual interpretation, but you apparently not only know that each image has thousands of interpretations and have the unique skill of being able to sift through them to the one true meaning... You appear to lack a basic grasp of logical consistency"
Again, dude, artist's intent vs. possibility of incorrect interpretation. >_>
"Now this is just funny, not only are you apparently able to correctly interpret images (is that like diving spirits?) but you can also interpret the will of an entire nation based on that image. I'm sure its only a coincidence that the posters meaning and the will of the British people happening to be in line with your own personal views."
ONCE AGAIN... intent vs. interpretation.
You really seem to be taking this personally...
At any rate, now that we've clarified the difference of intent and interpretation, let's argue what intent the designer had here. Go back over what I said without the intent to twist my meaning and we'll start again on the appropriate foot.
Perhaps, but at the same time, you are arguing that this has a clear representation. I'll touch on this again. But what I meant with that original line was playing devil's advocate and stating that there are cases where interpretation is broad and open. I'm saying you were misinterpreting it.
"If you believe that every image has many different interpretations all of whom are equally valid that's fine. But you can't say that and then start elaborating on your own interpretation as if that is the correct one, that's just hypocrisy"
Ah, but you're arguing artist intent. I'm arguing interpretation. An image can be interpreted many different ways, but it's up to the artist or designer to clarify the message to get their intended message through. I believe in this case you either misinterpreted it or are, and I find this more likely, twisting interpretation to mean something that it does not. Now that we're past what line is drawn where, let us debate the designer's intent. I contend what I said, that the intent is drawing attention.
"I lack a grasp of visual interpretation, but you apparently not only know that each image has thousands of interpretations and have the unique skill of being able to sift through them to the one true meaning... You appear to lack a basic grasp of logical consistency"
Again, dude, artist's intent vs. possibility of incorrect interpretation. >_>
"Now this is just funny, not only are you apparently able to correctly interpret images (is that like diving spirits?) but you can also interpret the will of an entire nation based on that image. I'm sure its only a coincidence that the posters meaning and the will of the British people happening to be in line with your own personal views."
ONCE AGAIN... intent vs. interpretation.
You really seem to be taking this personally...
At any rate, now that we've clarified the difference of intent and interpretation, let's argue what intent the designer had here. Go back over what I said without the intent to twist my meaning and we'll start again on the appropriate foot.
"Perhaps, but at the same time, you are arguing that this has a clear representation. I'll touch on this again. But what I meant with that original line was playing devil's advocate and stating that there are cases where interpretation is broad and open. I'm saying you were misinterpreting it."
I know you were saying I misinterpreted it, I directly addressed that several times, and no you were not playing devil's advocate that's taking an opposing view, you still have to be consistent, which you are not. This is what you said originally
"Woah there, images, as you know, can have different interpretations. You're holding it as having an absolute meaning here.
The poster is expressing concern over a sudden, massive influx of people coming into the country! It's not saying 'When they come in, treat them like dirt' It's saying 'Your government is not listening to you'."
Again I will repeat myself since your ignoring it, you can not argue that an image doesn't have an absolute (which again I never said) meaning and then tell me what actually absolutely means. That is what you are doing, my interpretation is just an interpretation, but your interpretation is correct, and you are the one who attacked the idea of absolute interpretations.
"Ah, but you're arguing artist intent. I'm arguing interpretation" No you aren't your moving the goal posts, and once again being hypocritical for example
"An image can be interpreted many different ways, but it's up to the artist or designer to clarify the message to get their intended message through. but it's up to the artist or designer to clarify the message to get their intended message through. I believe in this case you either misinterpreted it or are, and I find this more likely, twisting interpretation to mean something that it does not. Now that we're past what line is drawn where, let us debate the designer's intent. I contend what I said, that the intent is drawing attention."
You haven't changed your argument you've just said you have and changed the words. Your still saying your interpretation is correct whilst paying lip service to different points of view. You are interpreting the artists intent as well as the work itself, you're still interpreting them so unless you have been in correspondence with the artist in question you can't say interpretations are valid but yours is absolutely correct that's contradictory. It's the same argument only more verbose.
You can't have it both ways, either all interpretation are equally valid in which case we'll have to agree to disagree, or drop that and continue to lecture me on why you are right and I am wrong.
"Now that we're past what line is drawn where, let us debate the designer's intent. I contend what I said, that the intent is drawing attention. "
Ok so lets leave the physical poster out of this, do you have any evidence of the artists original intent? Because if you don't we're right back to interpretation and the whole validity question.
"Again, dude, artist's intent vs. possibility of incorrect interpretation. >_>"
Err again dude, that was my original argument, which you disputed.
"ONCE AGAIN... intent vs. interpretation.
You really seem to be taking this personally..."
That's interesting I was thinking the same about you, re-reading your comments you seem to be moving the goal posts, that's suggest your not really interested in an objective answer and are motivated personally.
"At any rate, now that we've clarified the difference of intent and interpretation, let's argue what intent the designer had here. Go back over what I said without the intent to twist my meaning and we'll start again on the appropriate foot."
I have gone back over what you've said, that's why I'm saying what I'm saying, your arguments are contradictory. If your upset about your lack of ability to convince me then too bad. Get better at arguing your point if you want that to happen.
I know you were saying I misinterpreted it, I directly addressed that several times, and no you were not playing devil's advocate that's taking an opposing view, you still have to be consistent, which you are not. This is what you said originally
"Woah there, images, as you know, can have different interpretations. You're holding it as having an absolute meaning here.
The poster is expressing concern over a sudden, massive influx of people coming into the country! It's not saying 'When they come in, treat them like dirt' It's saying 'Your government is not listening to you'."
Again I will repeat myself since your ignoring it, you can not argue that an image doesn't have an absolute (which again I never said) meaning and then tell me what actually absolutely means. That is what you are doing, my interpretation is just an interpretation, but your interpretation is correct, and you are the one who attacked the idea of absolute interpretations.
"Ah, but you're arguing artist intent. I'm arguing interpretation" No you aren't your moving the goal posts, and once again being hypocritical for example
"An image can be interpreted many different ways, but it's up to the artist or designer to clarify the message to get their intended message through. but it's up to the artist or designer to clarify the message to get their intended message through. I believe in this case you either misinterpreted it or are, and I find this more likely, twisting interpretation to mean something that it does not. Now that we're past what line is drawn where, let us debate the designer's intent. I contend what I said, that the intent is drawing attention."
You haven't changed your argument you've just said you have and changed the words. Your still saying your interpretation is correct whilst paying lip service to different points of view. You are interpreting the artists intent as well as the work itself, you're still interpreting them so unless you have been in correspondence with the artist in question you can't say interpretations are valid but yours is absolutely correct that's contradictory. It's the same argument only more verbose.
You can't have it both ways, either all interpretation are equally valid in which case we'll have to agree to disagree, or drop that and continue to lecture me on why you are right and I am wrong.
"Now that we're past what line is drawn where, let us debate the designer's intent. I contend what I said, that the intent is drawing attention. "
Ok so lets leave the physical poster out of this, do you have any evidence of the artists original intent? Because if you don't we're right back to interpretation and the whole validity question.
"Again, dude, artist's intent vs. possibility of incorrect interpretation. >_>"
Err again dude, that was my original argument, which you disputed.
"ONCE AGAIN... intent vs. interpretation.
You really seem to be taking this personally..."
That's interesting I was thinking the same about you, re-reading your comments you seem to be moving the goal posts, that's suggest your not really interested in an objective answer and are motivated personally.
"At any rate, now that we've clarified the difference of intent and interpretation, let's argue what intent the designer had here. Go back over what I said without the intent to twist my meaning and we'll start again on the appropriate foot."
I have gone back over what you've said, that's why I'm saying what I'm saying, your arguments are contradictory. If your upset about your lack of ability to convince me then too bad. Get better at arguing your point if you want that to happen.
View all replies