I do see you telling me that Time can lie to me and it's no big deal....that it's not "fake news", but a symbol...well, the way I was brought up they flat out lied to me...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....you know how it goes...
RMAN4443 wrote:
I find this kind of funny.
The truth is they didn't "flat out lie" to you.
It's a magazine cover with two figures photoshopped to be facing each other on a clearly non-real background.
Where is the lie?
The people running around claiming it's a lie are using the fact that this crying child in particular was not separated from it's parents. That doesn't make the cover a lie. you identify it as a lie, because that particular crying child is emblematic.
If they had drawn a child, you would not have called it a lie. Because there are crying children, and by not specifying a specific child, people's association with a particular incident disappears. The issue as a generality still exists.
If they had used an actor of some sort, you would have not had any reason to call it a lie... (I'm assuming you wouldn't)... as they would be purposefully dramatizing an existing issue for the cover.
They could have used any of the well known memes of crying children, completely unassociated with the current issue, and you would have understood their cover without having any reason to call it a lie....
So... I find it funny you would call this a lie....
I'd call it dumb. They could have done this a number of different ways without creating this issue... but they didn't. But to call it a lie is to show you don't really understand the point behind the cover. (I'll give you a hint... the cover was about a larger issue, which impacts many children... it isn't about one crying kid).
