labels propaganda

[Oysters Rockefeller]

I came up with this idea during the "labels imply products" thread, and although Iptuous kinda proved me somewhat incorrect, I though these would still be fairly excellent. The idea is to get people to associate what they view the opposition as with what the opposition views them as. They read "sexual deviant" and go
"Oh, yeah. Gay people are totally sexual deviants."
then read "hate mongering fascist" and, in theory, might associate the two opinions. Potentially change some minds or whatever. I dunno. Finish looking at these and then argue with me.

EDITED! To amend my drug stuff, and also to add a cover, after Navkats suggestion. And add some more posters.



















suggestions on how I can improve any of these are more than welcome.

[navkat: navkat of...navkat!]

Nice! Do more!

[navkat: navkat of...navkat!]

FUCK, These should be compiled into one official-looking questionnaire document and passed around or left in coffee shops as a "Take one" with our URL on it. Someone should also use some polling software to create an online version that redirects here when "submit" is clicked.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

That's a pretty good idea. I'll see if I can't get some more done.

Sidenote: the text at the bottom, when compiled, forms a to-do list for how to have an LSD-like experience using household items. Funny stuff.

[navkat: navkat of...navkat!]

See, I feel that's where people might get turned off. Mindfuckery shouldn't take sides on a polarizing issue like drugs because then you lose part of your audience and part of your intention. People who already like LSD are gonna go "fuck yeah!" and the people you most want to reach will go "Oh, one of THOSE people." The entire point re: "labels" will be buried under a steaming pile of bias.

Better: a set of instructions on how to make soup. A recipe for home made clay. Or glitter bombs. Or how to construct a marshmallow gun out of PVC.

[Doktor Howl]

See, I feel that's where people might get turned off. Mindfuckery shouldn't take sides on a polarizing issue like drugs because then you lose part of your audience and part of your intention. People who already like LSD are gonna go "fuck yeah!" and the people you most want to reach will go "Oh, one of THOSE people." The entire point re: "labels" will be buried under a steaming pile of bias.

Better: a set of instructions on how to make soup. A recipe for home made clay. Or glitter bombs. Or how to construct a marshmallow gun out of PVC.

THIS.

Otherwise, you're just preaching to your base.  If your base happens to be trippers.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

hmmm...you're right.

I was hoping the directions were vague enough and spread out enough that people wouldn't notice it.

Buuuuuuut there is probably something equally as subversive without being immediately polarizing. And to take sides on an issue like drugs on these specific posters is kind of...I don't want to say hypocritical. Maybe unfortunately ironic.

[Doktor Howl]

hmmm...you're right.

I was hoping the directions were vague enough and spread out enough that people wouldn't notice it.

Buuuuuuut there is probably something equally as subversive without being immediatly polarizing. And to take sides on an issue like drugs on these specific posters is kind of...I don't want to say hypocritical. Maybe unfortunately ironic.

I'm gonna argue that drugs are in no way subversive.  In fact, they're one of the best tools The Machine™ has.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

I mean subversive in the fact that using them is contrary to mainstream principles, not that doing drugs is an anti-authoritarian type act.

Although I don't particularly buy into the idea that THEY (strike ominous piano chords) are purposely reaping the benefits of drug production, if that's what you are implying. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[Doktor Howl]

I mean subversive in the fact that using them is contrary to mainstream principles, not that doing drugs is an anti-authoritarian type act.

I'd argue the mainstream thing, too.  People are accustomed to the idea of LSD, and have been for decades.  The only drugs that scare the shit out of people these days are the ones you don't want to fuck with, like meth.

The result isn't "Oh wow!", but rather, "Oh, just another fucked up raver."  Paper wadded up, and into the trash.

Although I don't particularly buy into the idea that THEY (strike ominous piano chords) are purposely reaping the benefits of drug production, if that's what you are implying. Feel free to prove me wrong.

There's basically two kinds of druggie:

1.  Couch & Rave:  This sort of druggie either sits on the couch slamming Cheetohs and watching The Dukes of Hazard, or spinning a chem light at a rave for 4 straight hours.  Neither one is a threat to the system, and in fact are instead very good consumers.

2.  Maniacal/dangerous:  Very rare, and usually wind up in prison and thus as a means to scare the shit out of young people (GONNA GO TO JAIL) and old people (WE'RE PROTECTING YOU FROM PEOPLE LIKE THIS).  In the meantime, said druggie is working the private prison call center, and the prison gets paid at both ends.

In addition, it's not like the CIA didn't run heroin to America during Vietnam which A) helped pay for Laos, and B) kept lots of poor people quiet...And it's not like they didn't do the same thing with respect to crack cocaine, to pay for Nicaragua, scare the shit out of everyone in the country, and put lots of poor people out of commission, into the system, or both.

Drugs are essentially a shrink-wrapped, bar-coded commodity.

[Telarus]

I mean subversive in the fact that using them is contrary to mainstream principles, not that doing drugs is an anti-authoritarian type act.

Although I don't particularly buy into the idea that THEY (strike ominous piano chords) are purposely reaping the benefits of drug production, if that's what you are implying. Feel free to prove me wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/americas/us-remains-against-drug-legalization-in-mexico-biden-says.html?_r=1

MEXICO CITY — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. delivered a blunt message on Monday to leaders in Latin America who are contemplating opening the door to the legalization of illicit drugs: The United States will not budge in its opposition.

Mr. Biden, beginning a two-day trip to Mexico and Honduras ahead of a regional summit meeting next month, told reporters that he welcomed a debate over legalization, but then he knocked down the arguments in favor of it.

He said he sympathized with Latin American leaders who are frustrated over violence tied to the drug trade and with the consumption habits in its biggest market, the United States. But the few potential benefits from legalization, like a smaller prison population, would be offset by problems, including a costly bureaucracy to regulate the drugs and new addicts, Mr. Biden said.

“I think it warrants a discussion. It is totally legitimate,” he said. “And the reason it warrants a discussion is, on examination you realize there are more problems with legalization than with nonlegalization.”

...

Other Latin American leaders, including the presidents of Costa Rica and Colombia, have suggested that legalization should at least be seriously discussed, but none have gone as far as the new president of Guatemala, Otto Pérez Molina.

In a country where drug trafficking and violence has exploded, he has said he would call for the legalization of drugs at a meeting with other Central America leaders.

Analysts suggest that Mr. Pérez Molina, a former army general, and other leaders may be angling for more antidrug aid and, in Mr. Pérez Molina’s case, for the United States to lift the suspension of military assistance that has been in place since the civil strife of the late 1970s.

“The growing discussion about legalization comes largely from the struggles on the ground with organized crime and violence,” said Shannon K. O’Neil, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies American relations in the region. “But in particular cases — that of Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina, for instance — it also likely reflects at least in part the desire to increase U.S. aid to his country, and to lift the ban on weapons sales instituted in the 1970s.”

The United States has warned of human rights violations by the Guatemalan military and the police there, said Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. “For Pérez Molina, U.S. drug policy ends up making organized crime more powerful, and its human rights policy limits Guatemala’s ability to deal effectively with that threat, [by denying the acquisition of higher grade military hardware than the cartels have -Tel]” he said. “That contradiction perhaps best accounts for Pérez Molina’s motivation.”

[Oysters Rockefeller]

I mean subversive in the fact that using them is contrary to mainstream principles, not that doing drugs is an anti-authoritarian type act.

Although I don't particularly buy into the idea that THEY (strike ominous piano chords) are purposely reaping the benefits of drug production, if that's what you are implying. Feel free to prove me wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/americas/us-remains-against-drug-legalization-in-mexico-biden-says.html?_r=1

MEXICO CITY — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. delivered a blunt message on Monday to leaders in Latin America who are contemplating opening the door to the legalization of illicit drugs: The United States will not budge in its opposition.

Mr. Biden, beginning a two-day trip to Mexico and Honduras ahead of a regional summit meeting next month, told reporters that he welcomed a debate over legalization, but then he knocked down the arguments in favor of it.

He said he sympathized with Latin American leaders who are frustrated over violence tied to the drug trade and with the consumption habits in its biggest market, the United States. But the few potential benefits from legalization, like a smaller prison population, would be offset by problems, including a costly bureaucracy to regulate the drugs and new addicts, Mr. Biden said.

“I think it warrants a discussion. It is totally legitimate,” he said. “And the reason it warrants a discussion is, on examination you realize there are more problems with legalization than with nonlegalization.”

...

Other Latin American leaders, including the presidents of Costa Rica and Colombia, have suggested that legalization should at least be seriously discussed, but none have gone as far as the new president of Guatemala, Otto Pérez Molina.

In a country where drug trafficking and violence has exploded, he has said he would call for the legalization of drugs at a meeting with other Central America leaders.

Analysts suggest that Mr. Pérez Molina, a former army general, and other leaders may be angling for more antidrug aid and, in Mr. Pérez Molina’s case, for the United States to lift the suspension of military assistance that has been in place since the civil strife of the late 1970s.

“The growing discussion about legalization comes largely from the struggles on the ground with organized crime and violence,” said Shannon K. O’Neil, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies American relations in the region. “But in particular cases — that of Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina, for instance — it also likely reflects at least in part the desire to increase U.S. aid to his country, and to lift the ban on weapons sales instituted in the 1970s.”

The United States has warned of human rights violations by the Guatemalan military and the police there, said Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. “For Pérez Molina, U.S. drug policy ends up making organized crime more powerful, and its human rights policy limits Guatemala’s ability to deal effectively with that threat, [by denying the acquisition of higher grade military hardware than the cartels have -Tel]” he said. “That contradiction perhaps best accounts for Pérez Molina’s motivation.”

Whelp, you win that round. Touche, touche.

[navkat: navkat of...navkat!]

The desire to be "subversive" is flawed. You are selling your point, and that point is "THINK FOR YOURSELF, SCHMUCK," right? You're not trying to lead people into anything much less subvert them (which implies dirtying up their SHINE).

Your q&a is brilliant because it's an accurate reflection of all the ugly, hateful, strong language from both sides of the argument, lays them side-by-side and forces people into the following thought process: "Well...it's more complex than that. I don't fit into either of those categor...OH WAI..."

BAM. You got 'em.

Adding something "subversive" isn't just overkill, it's providing them with a way to shake loose of your grip and go back to "Oh, this was probably written by a tree hugger or one of those #Occupy fools." Just the same way that adding a crucifix or "United Methodist Church" to the bottom would make me go "Oh, this is probably written by some pro-life jesus-freaks trying to trick me into seeing the light."

BAM Dismissed.

A nice juxtaposition to the harsh language and a way to sweeten your point is (if you add anything at all) put in something friendly and happy and warm and fuzzy that NO ONE cares to argue with: Puppies are cute. Making children smile is good. Glitter is pretty.

Unless, of course, they're an emo, contrary retard...in which case, we don't care.

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

Regardless of the excellent information above, there's the simple matter that scrambling a recipe for something illicit has been done.  In fact, if I came across something like this, I'd almost expect it to be for drugs, or a bomb, or some other pseudo-conspiracy crap.  But if it, as navkat suggested, was something unexpected, it might have even more of an impact. 

I mean, here you have something that directly attacks your biases, and then after all that, you get a great recipe for biscuits and gravy.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

Brilliant points to both of you. It's gonna have to be food, then.

I was just looking up glitter bomb stuff, but the association that has with the extreme left might have a similar impact to my drug stuff.

I reckon I'm going to try and amend most of these sometime today with recipes for good ol' southern cookin'.