Yes it’s a joke.
But it’s a joke about seeing an image and weaving a spurious meaning around that image. It exagerates the idea that the logo was chosen because it represents something (cross hairs) and caracatures that to a love of hot cross buns for comic effect.
In my example white supremecists and hot cross buns were separate alternative interpretations but Nazis loving hot cross buns is a much better joke therefore I salute you.
KLAZON
I’m not on Roger Stone’s side. He’s going to prison and one day Donald Trump will join him there.
But you see how this is now framed? You now accept, what I see as a flimsy narrative as the truth and my ‘doubt’ of that as some benevolant missing of the point to help my good friend Roger Stone.
This isn’t about him, all of those guys can lose their souls but we have to keep rooted in reality.
That’s not an “interpretation”. He literally took the image from Pizzagaters and 9/11 denialists. You are being weirdly generous with dangerous people.
Maybe when you see a swastika, you can remind people that it could just be a pile of sticks that fell that way; or when you see a Klan robe, you should help people understand that it’s hard for people to know how much bleach to use in modern washing machines.
but the logo was clearly chosen because it represents crosshairs…
About the only legitimate argument you make is that Stone might not have deliberately chosen that image because it has crosshairs. It might just have been the first one he happened to come across. Given that a quick google search brings up any number of images of the judge in question - not taken from dodgy websites and not featuring crosshairs, that seems extraordinarily unlikely.
Either way, he did deliberately use that image which does have crosshairs.
You can argue they are metaphorical crosshairs (as you say “We have corruption in our sights”) but equally people are entitled to take the view that, given America’s predeliction for firearms and political violence, deciding to post an image of the judge hearing your case is the kind of thing that could be taken to be an exhortation to actual violence.
Also:
?
Yep, he’s screwed.
Possibly against the thread.
Oh you nailed it again.
Like a bolt from the blue!
The posted image is of Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who’s face has been digitally cut out and pasted over a background watermark-style logo with a symbol and Corruption Central printed on it, what apears to be the beginning of the alphabet and what also appears to be the word Attorney with a skull and crossbones.
Does this seem as factual as we can ascertain?
Is the symbol a cross hair?
Is the symbol a white supremecist logo?
Is Corruption Central a website?
Is Corruption Central an organisation?
Does Corruption Central format pictures of all of it’s enemies like this?
Is the Attorney a cattagory used by Corruption Central in the way a childrens’ card game might create catagories?
The interpretation specifially here puts forward:
Is the symbol a cross hair - Definitely
Did Roger Stone pick the image because it has a cross hair on it and he wanted to behave threateningly to the judge - Definitely
I would say that this is not implicit in the image and is therefore an interpretation. I would argue that it holds very little water.
A pedant would point to the historical reinterpretation of the swastika as a symbol but I think that for our time it’s meaning is very clear and the nature of the Klan robe is also being debated in the US at the moment due to innapropriate interpretation in the 80s.
I’m not going to rehash what I’ve already said about the judge-image but this does beg a rather large question:
Can you expand? Spelling aside, “innapropriate interpretation in the 80s” means what?
It used to be cool as a Hallowe’en costume but seems to have negative connatations now, meaning people can only go as “Sexy Racist”, but none of them have the body to pull it off, gah, life is so unfair?
Ralph Northam interpreted either Blackface or a Klan outfit as acceptable fancy dress.
It was not.
How do you know that’s really a skull and crossbones?
Don’t you think it could be a randomly occurring ink smudge?
What do you mean by words? Maybe they are only accidental sounds?
/s
Ah that incident. Thank you.
So the inappropriate interpretation was thinking it’s acceptable fancy dress?
And the debate is?
Yep
As I understand it, the debate is around whether he should resign or not.
I agree this is just plain stupidity.
The image was originally created by Mike McKibben, who claims that he invented Facebook. Not kidding.
The color-coded letters are part of his enemies list, which now totals some 300+ people. It’s all laid out in his crazy blog at americans4innovation.blogspot.com. It’s quite a read, and he does a bunch of crazy YouTube videos as well.
He also believes the wall is almost finished being built.
And they have a YT? Oh my…
Not watching that… no. I got my limit of crazy today already thanks.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
