If you see the picture of a family loving an adopted baby and you immediately think it's some kind of cuckoldry propaganda it's a you problem, not a Ranger problem.
Serious question: how do you know that's a picture of a family with an adopted baby? Was there some fine print in the original picture that got cropped out? A footnote on an adjacent page?
Does the flyer intend to exclude the potential interpretation that maybe it's a blended family with a child from a previous marriage?
Does the flyer intend to exclude the potential interpretation that maybe it's a family that had a child due to infidelity of one or the other of the spouses, but they reconciled and are now a happy family?
If there is a line drawn somewhere between the possible / acceptable / intended interpretation of the picture, where is it and why?
Or is it that "it's just a picture, man, it doesn't matter" - which is why advertising isn't a multi-billion dollar industry - because images don't have any known ability to influence people's thinking / mindset / behavior.
Also, i seriously doubt cuckoldry was the intended message, that would be a bridge too far in the context. I suspect it was just trying to imply adoption, in an effort to bring diversity and inclusion to what would have otherwise been a "white-supremacist" photo - which the woke PR team that created it would be loath to do.
If you find that photo only intended to convey adoption, you probably aren't cut out for recognizing propoganda in the first place.
If you see the picture of a family loving an adopted baby and you immediately think it's some kind of cuckoldry propaganda it's a you problem, not a Ranger problem.
Serious question: how do you know that's a picture of a family with an adopted baby? Was there some fine print in the original picture that got cropped out? A footnote on an adjacent page?
Does the flyer intend to exclude the potential interpretation that maybe it's a blended family with a child from a previous marriage?
Does the flyer intend to exclude the potential interpretation that maybe it's a family that had a child due to infidelity of one or the other of the spouses, but they reconciled and are now a happy family?
If there is a line drawn somewhere between the possible / acceptable / intended interpretation of the picture, where is it and why?
Or is it that "it's just a picture, man, it doesn't matter" - which is why advertising isn't a multi-billion dollar industry - because images don't have any known ability to influence people's thinking / mindset / behavior.
which one of those scenarios is demoralizing?
Each one represents a reduction of European reproductive capacity and in a world on track to be 50% African in 30 years that’s a tragedy.
Tell you what, you take a shot at answering the questions i asked you first and then I'll answer the question you asked as a deflection.
Also, i seriously doubt cuckoldry was the intended message, that would be a bridge too far in the context. I suspect it was just trying to imply adoption, in an effort to bring diversity and inclusion to what would have otherwise been a "white-supremacist" photo - which the woke PR team that created it would be loath to do.