Should i run this banner? - Page 9

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 08:00

Markos, knowingly do something is doing something on purpose. If you're contesting that we might just as well stop any discussion. Stay serious!

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 08:12

mapfi,

first of all, i could not imagine someone could ever be offended from chaplin, except perhaps fascists

second, ever heard of the word "intention"? shall we seek the use of the phrase "on purpose"?

are you saying that if Bush decides to attack Iraq and "knows" that people will be killed then the "purpose" of his action is that he wants to kill people?

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 08:16

as hard and unreasonable as it may seem but I think yes.
If you decide that you're goal justifies this or that you're also doing this or that on purpose. It might not be your goal, not your purpose and you might not want it, but the fact of knowing that's it is going to happen deprives you of the argument that you didn't do it intentionally. - you're doing it ON purpose.

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 08:21

ok, so Bush is (about to become) a murderer, a serial killer
fine

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 08:24

Any warmonger is. Just think about it. It may be that the goal justifies it but in my opinion the fact is still there. Depends if you define murderer by the law or by the fact that somebody is the cause of somebody elses death. You can't neglect that somebody deciding to wage a war is one of the causes of the soldiers' deaths.

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 09:05

But let's get back to the topic, your banner:

Quote:

It's bad because it tries to live of the movie, because I can't see any funny statement in it and because there's not even a slight connection between apolyton, buying and Hitler except maybe the fact that it is an order to do something. Anyone that has seen movies of Hitler's speeches knows that he never talked like that, so the banner just doesn't make any sense, it's simply bad.

In my opinion it's not a question of posting it or not because it will or not offend people but because there's no reason to do so. The kitten banner is black humour but it's funny when you look at it the first time. This one just isn't. As Frogger put it ixnay's has at least a punch line. Personally I don't like that one either though. There's more sophisticated humour. In the end - as NYE said it's your right to put on this site what you want as long as it's not against the law, but when you start asking others opinions I'd assume you want to base your decision on that. So don't put it on the site.

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 09:15

as i said, i have a reworked version under construction. the new banner will include the-great-dictator-ignorants filter technology

beyond that, i have also said that the banner and this poll was part of a previous discussion

Boris Godunov · September 9, 2002, 09:24

I think the amount of discomfort with the idea expressed in the too-too-many posts about this banner should say that it is probably an idea you best avoid, at this point.

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 09:27

the-great-dictator-ignorants filter technology

just hope that with that you don't wake expectations to filter anything other possibly offensiv too

but, will the reworked version also have some sense in it? I mean, where do you see the funny side of your banner? You mentioned many posts earlier something that you're trying to make fun of advertising though I can't quite see that punch.

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 09:30

that stuff was not so serious (although i think it actually makes sense

)

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 09:32

So where's the punch?

just a side note: Don't you think you violate copyright if you use the banner anyway?

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 09:35

Copyright schmopyright.

Robert Plomp · September 9, 2002, 09:35

Markos, can you blame people to be ignorant of the movie?

And can you blame people for seeing hitler and having no clue about the fact that it's Charly Chaplin?

Bush has the choise between much people being killed, and very much people being killed.

You have the choise between no people being offended and people being offended.

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 09:40

CyberShy:
With the slight difference that Markos actually can be rather sure of the outcome, whereas Bush has to play the lottery.

Quote:

Copyright schmopyright

It's an ad for something commercial so the fact can't be as easily dismissed as if eg. you'd put it on your private homepage

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 09:40

perhaps then i should stop posting in the forums cause i might offend someone.....

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 09:53

can you give yourself a PCR for posts like that?

Nobody would want that of course. I'd still like to know your view on your banner though. For those who are offended by it or for those who are too dumb to get it (including me), what is the punch or what is the meaning behind it?

Robert Plomp · September 9, 2002, 09:59

Quote:

perhaps then i should stop posting in the forums cause i might offend someone.....

You must be mature enough to understand what will offend people and what will not offend people.

But use this banner, and be sure you'll offend people.
If that's what you want to do, do it.
I don't think there's something wrong with offending people in general.

I have offended people on purpose, I will never do it on this scale though. But if it's ok with your morals, go ahead. You won't offend me.

I'll just feel sorry about a website that's running this kind of banners. Just because the owner is either not mature enough to understand he's going to offend people with it or because he has low moral standards like that.

But I won't be offended. I've seen worse.
I won't leave 'poly, neither will I boycot your store or anything. I just feel sorry for you.

that's all. Nothing to worry about, I think.

Jules · September 9, 2002, 10:02

MarkG,
I for one have seen the movie and thought it was hilarious. The humor was old-fashioned, but I liked it. So if you want to use the banner, go right ahead. I think it pokes fun at the authoritarian nature of advertising (is that the message you're trying to get across btw?).

And here's something just for fun:

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 10:04

my view on my banner??

isnt it clear by now that i find it at least humourous?

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 10:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Jules
I think it pokes fun at the authoritarian nature of advertising (is that the message you're trying to get across btw?).

finally someone who understands me!!

SpencerH · September 9, 2002, 10:08

The movie makes fun of the fascists, but a single frame from the movie can easily be misunderstood. Perhaps you are subconsciously supportive of "the little corporal" ?

Robert Plomp · September 9, 2002, 10:18

Markos, we get your idea of the movie, which is hilarious, but, like SpenserH says, one single frame of it is not getting through the entire message of the movie!

And you can't blame people for being ignorant on it.
In cases like this you should expect people to be ignorant. And deal with them like they are ignorant.

That's what jokes on this kind of subjects requier!

mapfi · September 9, 2002, 10:20

Quote:

I think it pokes fun at the authoritarian nature of advertising (is that the message you're trying to get across btw?).

It doesn't speak for the joke if even the one who spots it is not even sure about it.
So Markos if that was you intention, then it's just outdated. Too many have made fun of the sometimes authoritarian nature of advertising before. There's music groups that have cd albums that are named "buy me". You already made fun of it with the kittens and and and...

Furthermore to use a picture of the Great Dictator for that makes no sense at all - there's no connection.
If you were really serious about that joke you'd have made the banner with a real picture of Hitler. I personally would have thought that to be at least a little funny and the punch line might have come through faster - but then, there would be even more offended by it. Those who'd like to forbid any humour related to the third Reich at all. I hold my opinion that nothing should be off limits for good humour.

So - I vote for a Hitler one if you got the guts to stand the criticism

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 10:24

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
And you can't blame people for being ignorant on it.

where did you see me blame anyone?

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
It doesn't speak for the joke if even the one who spots it is not even sure about it.

my main goal was to find out how many can actually be offended by charlie chaplin
i'm seriously surprised that there were so many...

Quote:

So Markos if that was you intention, then it's just outdated. Too many have made fun of the sometimes authoritarian nature of advertising before.

did you see me claim originality or doing anything amazingly funny?

SpencerH · September 9, 2002, 10:31

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
my main goal was to find out how many can actually be offended by charlie chaplin
i'm seriously surprised that there were so many...

But without the context of the movie, its not Charlie Chaplin making fun of the austrian scumbag, its someone in Nazi regalia.

MarkG · September 9, 2002, 10:35

Quote:

But without the context of the movie...

just because it's not the whole movie doesnt mean that the image is not a reference to it

are you saying that a photo of a movie in a magazine is not a reference to the movie?

Robert Plomp · September 9, 2002, 10:36

Quote:

Markos: where did you see my blame anyone?

read this:

Quote:

Markos: so the carrier of a message is responsible for the perception of it by ignorant(on the issue) people?

you more or less spread the idea that you mean that people who are offended:
1. can't see it's chaplin, not hitler
2. can't connect the banner with the movie
3. seem to be ignorant of the movie
4. are offended because of their ignorance which you can't help.

and yes, as a sender of a message, you're responsible for the perception of the receiver.
I'm responsible for your perception on this message. I don't care about that, but I am responsible.

SpencerH · September 9, 2002, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

But without the context of the movie...

just because it's not the whole movie doesnt mean that the image is not a reference to it

are you saying that a photo of a movie in a magazine is not a reference to the movie?

Yes an image may, but not necessarily, reference a movie. The reference, and more importantly the message, may be unclear to those who havent seen the movie.

If the banner included a .gif with the scene with the dictator playing with the world-balloon (for example) instead of a lone photo, the intent might be more clear.

EDIT: poor wording but I got tired of fiddling with it

Spiffor · September 9, 2002, 11:36

I've seen the movie several times and I voted no before reading the thread.

I didn't recognize Chaplin to begin with. Even the disclaimer didn't made me to recognize Chaplin. Even if I know the movie, I've basically seen hitler.

I don't want to see someone who reminds me of hitler whenever I browse the forum.

Such a picture will not help Poly's image towards newcomers ; publishing it would really be an error.