priceless ...

[Leew]

Duff, did you get the subtle attempt I made to get people to read upside down? It's part of a movement that feels it is unfair to only stand on your feet while your head is used only for rational thought.

 

[tsst]

That's a good excuse. Is it hyperbole to call a man a convicted felon with time served in prison when he was arrested and released without being charged? Is it hyperbole to say a man cannot hold an office because he isn't a Natural Citizen when he was born in Hawaii?

No...that's not hyperbole...it's lying. There is a difference.

Nice strawman. Your continued attempt to paint this as political propaganda is purely your assumption and opinion. Aside from the fact that MO is in the pic she is basically irrelevant IMO. It again to me is pointing out in hyperbolic fashion the abuse of social programs which I imagine is not limited to any one particular politico affiliation. And in case your still confused ... (the underline is mine)

hy·per·bo·le/haɪˈpɜr

bə

li/ Show Spelled[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric .
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

This is ridiculous. The snopes link spedculates. The photograph states, as if fact, assumptions. The snopes link is not saying what IS going on the photo, it is merely pointing out the millions of possibilities OTHER than the photograph's assumptions.

In the end, the person that created this, specifically made up "facts" to support a preconcieved idea, and used that idea to stir up an emotional response in citizen's that are not interested in seeing anything more than the surface. That's the definition of propoganda...

Please see previous post for the definition of hyperbole! The only thing ridiculous is assuming the the pic in the OP was some sort of fact based PBS documentary! Please re-read the definition of a hyperbole.

"Government funded" means they recieve funds to operate from the government. Being tax exempt and being government funded are two completely and wholly different things. Otherwise, every Christian church in this country is "government funded", and that, my friend, is unConstitutional.

Saying something is known to be government funded when it is NOT, in fact, government funded, is lying. It's not hyperbole, it's not simile, it's not metaphor...it's lying.

Would you prefer gov subsidized by omission? The first pic actually says gov provided saying funded was my error. Since some missed the hyperbolic point of the first pic I attempted ease the pain with corrections in the second pic. Should I re-edit it again to say "privately funded using dollars saved from not paying federal taxes" would that meet with approval? Please re-read the definition of a hyperbole.

Really? Then why is it so wrong for the guy in front to have a camera, but it's perfectly OK for the guy behind him taking a picture to have a camera? The way I see it, there are at least 2 different cameras being used to take photographs in the exact same place. Why are you only mad about the guy in front?:shrugs:

How many other people do you think showed up in this cafe at some point during the day with a camera, cell phone, or other photographic device? Why is it the photo of the black guy in black clothes makes you so angry when there was most likely at least 10 other cameras there that daytaking pictures?:shrugs:

Once again it's not about the guy it's about the situation portrayed in the HYPERBOLE. For the record once again I am NOT mad at the guy I am mad at the situation portrayed in the HYPERBOLE. Please re-read the definition of a hyperbole.

I don't deny the abuse of social programs in this country. But that isn't Michelle Obama's fault, and this photograph isn't addressing the REAL abuses of aocial programs. It is taking a perfectly innocuous situation and creating an assumed abuse, and using it as media propoganda.

You want to discuss the real reforms needed in social welfare, I'm all for it. I'm sure we would agree on easily as many issues as we would disagree on.

I must have missed the part in the HYPERBOLE that stated it was MO's fault. No, it is taking a situation and creating a HYPERBOLE to spotlight the abuse of social programs in this country. :shrugs: Please re-read the definition of a hyperbole.

But this photograph isn't remotely accurate. Let's call a spade a spade. This is propoganda. And for people like the fatman to be insulting towards those of us able to look past the shiny surface is...well...insulting.

Not sure about spades but I think when not taking the extravagant obvious and intentional exaggerated statement literally it is easier to see the point in the HYPERBOLE about the abuse of social programs. :shrugs: JMO

 

[tyflier]

Nice strawman. Your continued attempt to paint this as political propaganda is purely your assumption and opinion. Aside from the fact that MO is in the pic she is basically irrelevant IMO. It again to me is pointing out in hyperbolic fashion the abuse of social programs which I imagine is not limited to any one particular politico affiliation.

No strawman...a comparison. One which points out the difference between lying and hyperbole.

And in case your still confused ... (the underline is mine)

hy·per·bo·le/haɪˈpɜr

bə

li/ Show Spelled[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric .
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

I never was confused, however, I think you might be. In order for something to be "an exaggeration", it would have to start with a truth. None of the statements in the caption of that photograph are exaggerations of the truth. They are assumptions made based on racial stereotypes. This firmly and definitively takes the photo OUT of the realm of "hyperbole" and places squarely IN the realm of "propoganda".

What you seem to be forgetting is that an hyperbole is based on fact. Propoganda is not. Hyperbole exaggerates a real situation. Propoganda stimulates emotional fear using deceit. Hyperbole exaggerates the truth. Propoganda tells lies.

Perhaps you should reconsider whom is "confused"...

Please see previous post for the definition of hyperbole! The only thing ridiculous is assuming the the pic in the OP was some sort of fact based PBS documentary! Please re-read the definition of a hyperbole.

I think YOU should take time to read the definition of "hyperbole". When you're done, read the definition of "propoganda".

In case you're still confused, hyperbole exaggerates fact. Propoganda tells lies. See the difference?

Would you prefer gov subsidized by omission? The first pic actually says gov provided saying funded was my error. Since some missed the hyperbolic point of the first pic I attempted ease the pain with corrections in the second pic. Should I re-edit it again to say "privately funded using dollars saved from not paying federal taxes" would that meet with approval? Please re-read the definition of a hyperbole.

I would prefer "Privately owned and funded, tax-exempt institution that happens to serve food to a wide variety of individuals with a wide variety of needs". You seem to think that every tax-exempt institution is government funded. I think you're wrong. Guess who the Constitution agrees with...

The "soup kitchen" in the photo provides a variety of services to a variety of individuals with a variety of needs. That's not hyperbole, it's lying.

Once again it's not about the guy it's about the situation portrayed in the HYPERBOLE.

Actually, it's about a fictitious situation based on stereotypes and assumptions. And it's not hyperbole...

For the record once again I am NOT mad at the guy I am mad at the situation portrayed in the HYPERBOLE. Please re-read the definition of a hyperbole.

You're actually mad about what some individual told you to MAKE you mad. Congratulations. You're the perfect candidate for successful propoganda.

I seriously doubt you would be angrey at that particular photograph without the caption. Afterall...there is nothing IN the photograph to be angry about.

I've never been to a "soup kitchen" with a menu. I have, however, been to soup kitchens...

I must have missed the part in the HYPERBOLE that stated it was MO's fault. No, it is taking a situation and creating a HYPERBOLE to spotlight the abuse of social programs in this country. :shrugs: Please re-read the definition of a hyperbole.

No...it's a bunch of lies and assumptions placed as a caption to a photograph of an unknown individual taking a picture of a famous individual in a photographic situation.

The photograph has nothing to do with any social welfare abuses. Without the caption it's just a picture of MO working in a kitchen. It's the caption that makes you angry, and the caption is a bunch of made up, stereotypical lies designed specifically to cause you to be angry at some perceived injustice.

Please read the definition of "propoganda"...

Not sure about spades but I think when not taking the extravagant obvious and intentional exaggerated statement literally it is easier to see the point in the HYPERBOLE about the abuse of social programs. :shrugs: JMO

When you show me hyperbole, I will take it as hyperbole. When you show me propoganda, I take it as propoganda. It's easier that way... :shrugs:

 

[tyflier]

P.S.--
You still haven't addressed the fact there are at least 2 cameras in this picture. How many others were there that day taking photos of MO working in a kitchen? Why was this particular photo chosen to use with this particular caption?

If it wasn't motivated by racial stereotypes...why? Why choose this person, with this camera instead of one of the others there that day doing the same thing?

I'll tell you why...because the lies can't be percieved as real otherwise. If it was a white guy in a business suit, you would not believe it was a government sponsored/funded/provided soup kitchen for the homeless.

Perhaps it would work for most of us if it was a dissheveled white person. Certainly most of us here in this forum. But it's not for us here in this forum, it's for the widest possible base of viewers. How do you piss off the most people with one photograph and clever caption? Use the most stereotypical photograph you can find because it will be believable by the widest variety of viewers.

Stereotypes only exist for one reason...people still believe them. Regardless of whether you, personally, see it as racially motivated, there is little doubt, as far as I can see, that this particular photo was selected for this particular caption because of the obvious, and easily believable, racial stereotypes visible. More people are willing to believe that this individual is abusing social welfare programs. Plain and simple.

 

[SHAKSNAKE]

my pop always told me, there's two things you don't talk about with friends.. that's religion and politics. i'm starting to think race is one of them...

as a black hispanic, i am offended at that picture. not at anyone's comments, none of you made that picture so i can't be mad at you, but understand that this is offensive. end of story.

 

[wstphal]

Perhaps it would work for most of us if it was a dissheveled white person. Certainly most of us here in this forum.

Thanks for believing me, Chris! I know a fair number of welfare cheats, deadbeat dads (who could pay child support and won't) and so on. They are all European Americans. So in my mind's eye, that's what I tend to see.

 

[wstphal]

Oh, yeah, and LOTS of SSDI (disability) abusers. ALL of whom are European Americans not of Hispanic origin. Who are not disabled but prefer to watch daytime TV rather than work, and made that decision before the economy crumbled, during the go-go times when they could have had jobs.

 

[SHAKSNAKE]

Oh, yeah, and LOTS of SSDI (disability) abusers. ALL of whom are European Americans not of Hispanic origin. Who are not disabled but prefer to watch daytime TV rather than work, and made that decision before the economy crumbled, during the go-go times when they could have had jobs.

i have to agree with you on that! but you know there's abusers abusing things everywhere! but one things fur sure.. we are giving these scumbags too much attention! LOL

no but seriously, i think as a whole those type of people account for less than 10% of those who actually use welfare and whatnot. but there are leeches!

 

[wstphal]

i have to agree with you on that! but you know there's abusers abusing things everywhere! but one things fur sure.. we are giving these scumbags too much attention! LOL

no but seriously, i think as a whole those type of people account for less than 10% of those who actually use welfare and whatnot. but there are leeches!

I dunno what the percentages are. I don't think it's high, I think I am encountering scumbags because they aren't really sick or disabled, they are out doing things, while the people who are disabled are home because it's hard for them to go out and do things.

Edit: the thing that's bad about the abusers, whether it's welfare or SSDI or food stamps, is that they make it much more difficult for down-on-their-luck people to GET these benefits. More forms, more phone calls, more denials, more hassles are put in between a person who is genuinely deserving, because of scum. I get angry because I know people who are genuinely in need of benefits but are having jump through all kinds of hoops and wait and wait for answers because of the investigations & rules that have had to be put in place to try to screen out cheaters. Even if it's less than 10%, that hurts the 90% and more who deserve the help!

 

[Duff]

No strawman...a comparison. One which points out the difference between lying and hyperbole.


I never was confused, however, I think you might be. In order for something to be "an exaggeration", it would have to start with a truth. None of the statements in the caption of that photograph are exaggerations of the truth. They are assumptions made based on racial stereotypes. This firmly and definitively takes the photo OUT of the realm of "hyperbole" and places squarely IN the realm of "propoganda".

What you seem to be forgetting is that an hyperbole is based on fact. Propoganda is not. Hyperbole exaggerates a real situation. Propoganda stimulates emotional fear using deceit. Hyperbole exaggerates the truth. Propoganda tells lies.

Perhaps you should reconsider whom is "confused"...


I think YOU should take time to read the definition of "hyperbole". When you're done, read the definition of "propoganda".

In case you're still confused, hyperbole exaggerates fact. Propoganda tells lies. See the difference?


I would prefer "Privately owned and funded, tax-exempt institution that happens to serve food to a wide variety of individuals with a wide variety of needs". You seem to think that every tax-exempt institution is government funded. I think you're wrong. Guess who the Constitution agrees with...

The "soup kitchen" in the photo provides a variety of services to a variety of individuals with a variety of needs. That's not hyperbole, it's lying.


Actually, it's about a fictitious situation based on stereotypes and assumptions. And it's not hyperbole...


You're actually mad about what some individual told you to MAKE you mad. Congratulations. You're the perfect candidate for successful propoganda.

I seriously doubt you would be angrey at that particular photograph without the caption. Afterall...there is nothing IN the photograph to be angry about.

I've never been to a "soup kitchen" with a menu. I have, however, been to soup kitchens...


No...it's a bunch of lies and assumptions placed as a caption to a photograph of an unknown individual taking a picture of a famous individual in a photographic situation.

The photograph has nothing to do with any social welfare abuses. Without the caption it's just a picture of MO working in a kitchen. It's the caption that makes you angry, and the caption is a bunch of made up, stereotypical lies designed specifically to cause you to be angry at some perceived injustice.

Please read the definition of "propoganda"...


When you show me hyperbole, I will take it as hyperbole. When you show me propoganda, I take it as propoganda. It's easier that way... :shrugs:

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to tyflier again...

:cheers:

 

[tsst]

No strawman...a comparison. One which points out the difference between lying and hyperbole.


I never was confused, however, I think you might be. In order for something to be "an exaggeration", it would have to start with a truth. None of the statements in the caption of that photograph are exaggerations of the truth. They are assumptions made based on racial stereotypes. This firmly and definitively takes the photo OUT of the realm of "hyperbole" and places squarely IN the realm of "propoganda".

Abuse of social programs in this country is a true fact. That is my interpretation of the OP pic. It depicts an example of a true situation (social program abuse) and uses a popular commercial line to exaggerate it to make the point standout. Since you want to interpret this so literally please quote the racist part or the political partisan part in the caption. Let me save you the time there isn't one. The situation depicted (social welfare abuse) is the truth. The caption and photo combine to form the exaggeration. A hyperbole.

What you seem to be forgetting is that an hyperbole is based on fact. Propoganda is not. Hyperbole exaggerates a real situation. Propoganda stimulates emotional fear using deceit. Hyperbole exaggerates the truth. Propoganda tells lies.

A hyperbole is NOT intended to be literal reading. You continue to insist on a literal reading of the caption rather than seeing the situation portrayed. Knowing you are not going to change from that stance any more than I am willing to take it literally we will have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps you should reconsider whom is "confused"...

Not confused at all I just didn't interpret it literally but rather the situation portrayed.

I think YOU should take time to read the definition of "hyperbole". When you're done, read the definition of "propoganda".

In case you're still confused, hyperbole exaggerates fact. Propoganda tells lies. See the difference?

You are incorrect. Neither is solely based in truth or lies. Propaganda is not necessarily lies. It is simple the spreading of information with the intent to help or harm.

prop·a·gan·da/ˌprɒp

əˈgæn

də/ Show Spelled[prop-uh-gan-duh]
–noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc

I would prefer "Privately owned and funded, tax-exempt institution that happens to serve food to a wide variety of individuals with a wide variety of needs". You seem to think that every tax-exempt institution is government funded. I think you're wrong. Guess who the Constitution agrees with...

I stated previously that my choice of the word funded was an error. But if you think not paying any taxes and receiving funds that are also not taxable is not "financially beneficial"(better choice) to the soup kitchen that is simply too daft to even debate.

The "soup kitchen" in the photo provides a variety of services to a variety of individuals with a variety of needs. That's not hyperbole, it's lying.


Actually, it's about a fictitious situation based on stereotypes and assumptions. And it's not hyperbole...


You're actually mad about what some individual told you to MAKE you mad. Congratulations. You're the perfect candidate for successful propoganda.

UUgghhhh :headbang: Again it's not a fictitious situation. Social system abuse is an absolute fact.

I seriously doubt you would be angrey at that particular photograph without the caption. Afterall...there is nothing IN the photograph to be angry about.

I've never been to a "soup kitchen" with a menu. I have, however, been to soup kitchens...

That I can agree with. The pic had little input for me. But it's because I didn't instantly assume racial slur. I saw an exaggerated portrayal of social welfare abuse which is a serious factual issue in this country.

No...it's a bunch of lies and assumptions placed as a caption to a photograph of an unknown individual taking a picture of a famous individual in a photographic situation.

The photograph has nothing to do with any social welfare abuses. Without the caption it's just a picture of MO working in a kitchen. It's the caption that makes you angry, and the caption is a bunch of made up, stereotypical lies designed specifically to cause you to be angry at some perceived injustice.

Please read the definition of "propoganda"...

It is mostly the caption that makes me angry. Maybe because I didn't instantly assume racial slur as the intent but rather an exaggerated spotlight on the state of social welfare in this country. Social system abuse is absolute fact.

Thinking back I can't remember any example of the priceless line that I would consider literally factual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNXwor69-U

Should we sue MasterCard for implying an elephant can understand the human condition, or make charges on a credit card, or feeling empathy. Maybe someone should arrest the pharmacy worker for assisting in financial fraud for selling items to a pachyderm. They should also lose their pharmaceutical license for dispensing to someone not on the prescription. Hope the restaurant is closed for health violations for allowing an unclean wild animal in. OH no wait my mistake those things were not intended to be taken literally, they were intended as a hyperbolic example of the convenience and ease of using MasterCard. :shrugs:

 

[tsst]

P.S.--
You still haven't addressed the fact there are at least 2 cameras in this picture. How many others were there that day taking photos of MO working in a kitchen? Why was this particular photo chosen to use with this particular caption?

Have no idea. Don't care it has nothing to do with my interpretation (social welfare abuse).

If it wasn't motivated by racial stereotypes...why? Why choose this person, with this camera instead of one of the others there that day doing the same thing?

Again no idea.

I'll tell you why...because the lies can't be percieved as real otherwise. If it was a white guy in a business suit, you would not believe it was a government sponsored/funded/provided soup kitchen for the homeless.

Perhaps it would work for most of us if it was a dissheveled white person. Certainly most of us here in this forum. But it's not for us here in this forum, it's for the widest possible base of viewers. How do you piss off the most people with one photograph and clever caption? Use the most stereotypical photograph you can find because it will be believable by the widest variety of viewers.

Stereotypes only exist for one reason...people still believe them. Regardless of whether you, personally, see it as racially motivated, there is little doubt, as far as I can see, that this particular photo was selected for this particular caption because of the obvious, and easily believable, racial stereotypes visible. More people are willing to believe that this individual is abusing social welfare programs. Plain and simple.

If it was a black guy in a business suit I wouldn't believe it was either. If it were Micheal Jordan I wouldn't believe it was either. If it were this guy with a Blackberry I would think the same as the OP.

If you are attempting to imply my being racist don't even go there.

 

[Leew]

tsst, once again you have brought us another obvious racial slur with that Master Card video posted above. Am I the only one who noticed that all of the people in the video were white professionals except for the black haired brown eyed woman serving soup. Is it your contention that people of ethnic backgrounds are only capable of non professional jobs?

I think this is all just political propaganda right from the get go. It is a well know and excepted fact that only Republicans can qualify for credit cards. More than that, only Republicans are asked to pay for their own medical care with their credit cards. Everyone else is on some type of social assistance.

After all the discussion we have had on this topic I think it is rather cold and unthinking of your to post that video. I hope you will be a little more thoughtful in the future.

 

[Outcast]

I can't believe you guys have taken an obvious joke, that was in no way intended to be racial, and turned it into yet another race/political debate. It is sad to see that everything everyone posts suddenly becomes political crap, or racist. Honestly I am etremely offended that I have to watch what I say and do every second of the day to make sure nothing I say can be construed as a racial slur, just because I am a white guy. If I see a guy walking down the street with his pants down to his ankles, I am going to call him a thug, no matter if he is white or black, but, if I call said fictitious guy, a thug, and he just happens to be "black", then I am automatically racist.
I look at this picture and see a guy in line taking a picture of Mrs. Obama. The fact that the First Lady is there, means camera's are going to be there. The guy taking the photo of the "homeless" man, may very well be a media person, or just someone who went to get a picture of the First Lady.
I do not see how this is at all racial, and from what I can see, the only reason those of you are calling it a racist thing is because it happens to be an African American as the focal point in the picture. I could care less if it was an Anglo, Hispanic, Asian, or African-American, I believe that Tsst has a point that the abuse of the system is out there and this brings that into light. It just does it as a joke.

With that said, go back to prior programming, I may or may not keep replying. It all depends on what mood I am in.

 

[tyflier]

Abuse of social programs in this country is a true fact. That is my interpretation of the OP pic. It depicts an example of a true situation (social program abuse) and uses a popular commercial line to exaggerate it to make the point standout. Since you want to interpret this so literally please quote the racist part or the political partisan part in the caption. Let me save you the time there isn't one. The situation depicted (social welfare abuse) is the truth. The caption and photo combine to form the exaggeration. A hyperbole.

Here's the problem...There is NOTHING in the PHOTO that even remotely depicts the location as a homeless soup kitchen or the individual with the camera as a homeless man or welfare system abuser.

The individual with the camera is an unknown person of unknown social standing. There is nothing in the picture that even remotely places him as a homeless individual OR an abuser of the welfare system.

The location of the photograph is unknown. There is nothing in the picture that depicts it as a homeless shelter, soup kitchen or other needs-facility. It is a kitchen with MO working. This is ALL that is known about the location.

The ONLY depiction of social welfare abuse is in the caption, and the caption is made up. Without the caption, there is NO depiction of any social welfare abuse, anywhere within the photo. Period.

A hyperbole is NOT intended to be literal reading. You continue to insist on a literal reading of the caption rather than seeing the situation portrayed. Knowing you are not going to change from that stance any more than I am willing to take it literally we will have to agree to disagree.

Again...the situation portrayed is NOT what you say it is, without the caption. Put a sign on the wall that says Homeless Shelter or Soup Kitchen, and it becomes hyperbole. Put a few different individuals in obviously tattered clothing, such as the individual in your last photo, and it becomes hyperbole. Show me a man wrapped in cardboard, sleeping on the floor in front of the counter, and I accept hyperbole.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the photo that depicts the location as a needs-facility, and there is nothing of the people to indicate homelessness or welfare abuse.

Not confused at all I just didn't interpret it literally but rather the situation portrayed.

Look at the photo without the caption and tell me what makes that place a homeless shelter and that man a welfare abuser. As I said before, "soup kitchens" don't provide menus. The people are not dressed in such a way as to be obviously destitute. The place could be a street corner cafe in middle-America, and the situation could be a media-setup just as easily as a soup kitchen with a homeless man. There is nothing identifiable in the photo accept MO.

That's not an interpretation, that's a fact...

You are incorrect. Neither is solely based in truth or lies. Propaganda is not necessarily lies. It is simple the spreading of information with the intent to help or harm.

prop·a·gan·da/ˌprɒp

əˈgæn

də/ Show Spelled[prop-uh-gan-duh]
–noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc

Hyperbole is based on known information. A person known to be a certain way, have a certain position, or say and do certain things. A place known to have certain rules, activities, or facilities. These factual bits of information are then exaggerated to bring focus to a specific point of view.

Propoganda uses fear of stereotypes to create a percieved threat. Unknown people, doing unknown things portrayed as evil due to a manipulation of the scenario. That's what this photograph and caption is.

I stated previously that my choice of the word funded was an error. But if you think not paying any taxes and receiving funds that are also not taxable is not "financially beneficial"(better choice) to the soup kitchen that is simply too daft to even debate.

"Beneficial" and "sponsored" are too different things. The government does not provide this facility with money in any way shape or form. This facility is not government funded OR sponsored.

Unless, of course, you want to claim that every non-profit organization in the United States of America is government funded and/or sponsored. If that's the case, close down all churches. It's unConstitutional to have those institutions be government sanctioned, funded, or sponsored...

UUgghhhh :headbang: Again it's not a fictitious situation. Social system abuse is an absolute fact.

Yes, I agree 100%. Social abuse runs rampant in this country. However, this is not a photograph of an individual committing welfare abuse. This is a man standing in line at a cafeteria, taking a picture of MO. There's nothing abusive about that situation...not even remotely.

That I can agree with. The pic had little input for me. But it's because I didn't instantly assume racial slur. I saw an exaggerated portrayal of social welfare abuse which is a serious factual issue in this country.

That's because the picture itself is an innocuous photo portraying nothing at all. How many different ways can we each come up with to say the same things?

It is mostly the caption that makes me angry. Maybe because I didn't instantly assume racial slur as the intent but rather an exaggerated spotlight on the state of social welfare in this country. Social system abuse is absolute fact.

It's entirely the caption that makes you angry because the photograph does not portray anything illegal or abusive of the system. The caption pretends it does, and does a good job of convincing YOU that it does, but the photograph does not depict what you are saying it depicts.

Thinking back I can't remember any example of the priceless line that I would consider literally factual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNXwor69-U

Should we sue MasterCard for implying an elephant can understand the human condition, or make charges on a credit card, or feeling empathy. Maybe someone should arrest the pharmacy worker for assisting in financial fraud for selling items to a pachyderm. They should also lose their pharmaceutical license for dispensing to someone not on the prescription. Hope the restaurant is closed for health violations for allowing an unclean wild animal in. OH no wait my mistake those things were not intended to be taken literally, they were intended as a hyperbolic example of the convenience and ease of using MasterCard. :shrugs:

See, now THAT would be a strawman...an argument whose sole intent is to take away from the original argument and detract from the real issues. Nice one, too.

...If you are attempting to imply my being racist don't even go there.

Absolutely not. YOU don't have to be racist for race to be the motivation behind creating this caption. Unless, of course, you created the caption. We disagree on many issues, but I have a great deal of respect for you, and would never imply that you, personally, were a racist individual. I think I have come to "know you" better than that over these few years...

 

[Leew]

Here's the problem...There is NOTHING in the PHOTO that even remotely depicts the location as a homeless soup kitchen or the individual with the camera as a homeless man or welfare system abuser.

The individual with the camera is an unknown person of unknown social standing. There is nothing in the picture that even remotely places him as a homeless individual OR an abuser of the welfare system.

The location of the photograph is unknown. There is nothing in the picture that depicts it as a homeless shelter, soup kitchen or other needs-facility. It is a kitchen with MO working. This is ALL that is known about the location.

The ONLY depiction of social welfare abuse is in the caption, and the caption is made up. Without the caption, there is NO depiction of any social welfare abuse, anywhere within the photo. Period.

..

Tyflyer I would be laughing my ass off if it weren't for the fact that you are serious. Is this simple joke really that important? Does it really deserve such scrutiny? Will the country collapse if you can not correct the wrong caused by this joke? Do you know how foolish you look?

 

[SnakeAround]

The people making this a racial slur are actually the ones thinking in black versus white. I did not consciously notice the guy is black because I looked at the situation pictured. Someone saw this, thought that it lookes like someone was abusing the system (perhaps by sheer coincidence) and decided to point that out with captions.

Anyone thinking the OP is using this as propaganda, obviously can't look at the world without thinking in races. Not saying that person is a racist, maybe he doesn't treat different races in a different way but that person sees a black man and not just a man. So who is closer to being a racist: a person not even consciously noticing the guy in the picture is black or the one who does?

 

[Duff]

Anyone thinking the OP is using this as propaganda, obviously can't look at the world without thinking in races.

Propaganda has nothing to do with racism. Yes, racism can be used in propaganda, but to say anyone seeing propaganda must be the racist is totally false. I think you need to actually read the posts and understand the terms you're claiming are the same. I never said one word about racism. The original creator may or may not have had racist intentions in choosing this particular photo to spread his/her words. That's unknown. What is 100% clear, however, is this is definitely republican/conservative propaganda. Don't put thoughts or ideals in my words.

 

[Leew]

Propaganda has nothing to do with racism. Yes, racism can be used in propaganda, but to say anyone seeing propaganda must be the racist is totally false. I think you need to actually read the posts and understand the terms you're claiming are the same. I never said one word about racism. The original creator may or may not have had racist intentions in choosing this particular photo to spread his/her words. That's unknown. What is 100% clear, however, is this is definitely republican/conservative propaganda. Don't put thoughts or ideals in my words.

He didn't say that using propaganda makes you a racist, you did. Maybe your should reread his posts.

At what point did we all decide that anything was 100% clear? I see a joke about people abusing the system. I don't see anything political here, despite the fact that the first lady is in the picture.

 

[SnakeAround]

Duff, sorry but you are not reading what I said, you are seeing the words I typed and give them your own twist. I will clearify it a bit by adding something: Anyone thinking the OP is using this as propaganda to make people think black, homeless people are abusing the system, obviously can't look at the world without thinking in races.

In this case, to see it as propaganda, one has to notice/believe/conclude that the man is Afro-american and used a s a stereotype. That did not ever come to my mind seeing the picture.