This is the sort of conversation that would be called a critique of the image in any one of several university classes. This is the sort of conversation that would occur in a Media Studies Class, a photographic theory class, a cultural studies class....etc...
It is not paranoia - it is dismantling the meaning of visual language in an attempt to understand it. You know, like exjws do with the doctrine and Bibble - they dismantle it, they take it apart, they scrutinize it.
They throw ideas around to try to understand the text - not all of those ideas are correct, or logical...some ideas about doctrine are pretty paranoid and some are completely off the wall.
And guess what? They aren't ridiculed for it. Exjws aren't called paranoid when they take apart say....the 1914 doctrine, or maybe the blood doctrine, for example, as it is written in alphabetic text. But those same posters will deride somebody because they make visual associations with a Wt image.
Yes, now that I am thinking about it...exjws ARE paranoid - I wonder why that is??? Would it have anything to do with the power of the image to make associations at an individual level? The meaning of any image cannot be controlled as much as the meaning of text can be - an image is fluid - it can mean something different to each viewer. Each person can see the image in their own way.
If someone sees a cross in the image, or whatever else they see, they should state what it is they see, what it means to them and why. That is exactly how a viewer takes control of the image rather than letting the image control them.
There is no one meaning to an image - it doesn't mean the same thing to each and every person who sees it - and not everybody sees the same things in it.
Ridiculing someone for trying to read the image is the same as the illiterate man who ridicules a child for learning their abc's.