Now that the Boston bomber, who "is a person after all" has done made it on the cover of da rolllllliiiing stooooooones, just gots da ask, Where's Martin??? Must be racism, is all I can think :confused: :confused: Okay, boys and girls, let us hear it..1 2 3, "we got golden fingers...we take all kind of pills to give us all kinda thrills....our smiling face...with a lotta sex....got a ole lady named cocaine katy...."..Dr Hook Cover Of The Rolling Stone - YouTube
They've crossed the line this time. Should have known better.
What's the big deal? It's just a picture. :confused:
I would imagine the article somehow excuses his actions and goes into some political drama about what the motivations are. It seems that Rolling Stone can take anything and make it political, with quite a slant in one direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Of course, that's their usual stance. The answer is not to say they shouldn't publish it. It's a free press and they can publish what ever they want. The answer is to not buy any issues and encourage others to do the same. You can also contact any advertisers. Their wallet is the place to show your displeasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Stop it. Stop using Logic and freedom of choice. The Europeans might get upset.
And yet, this makes me ask one, simple question: did anyone actually read the article, in it's entirety, and then comment about it? With 'on the street' interviews, what one gleans from the participants is 'no, they didn't', making all this hubbub about the cover of said magazine nothing more than an exercise in faux-intellectualism.
Couldn't resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q
I predict massive sales for Rolling Stones. Controversy sells.
Is it really that bad if someone offers an alternative view to the mainstream thinking?!Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Should we ban all those who provide diversity to our world?
What about Rolling Stones' freedom of choice regarding their articles? Oh wait... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Yes we need more diversity. Let's encourage more people to bomb public places since the attention is what many of them crave.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Short attention span today? Reread post four, which is what Tony was replying to - not to mention what he also said.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Sorry but since I am one of those ''upset Europeans'' who can't follow american logic, please make me understand. How can a photo encourage bombing places? I'm sure readers of that magazine have enough discernment to see what's good and what it's wrong. As for a suggestion that the guy was looking for publicity, what's the point since he's dead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
You're a lost case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Learn to read before writing such crazy comments.
I think you should re-read both that post and Vop's post, then think about it, then we can discuss it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Discussion with you is pretty much a lost cause. So I'll pass. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Who is calling for the removal of the freedom of Rolling Stone putting anything on their cover?
I know I'm not.
My wife came home from work today and had some info that pertains to this magazine issue. She works a couple days a week for a company that merchandises both their magazines and those from other companies in local stores.
It seems that the majority of local stores have decided not to sell this issue of Rolling Stone, and have elected to return all magazines sent for distribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
They can always just buy Time magazine and get the same brand of slop.
I did not read the article, but I find it reprehensible for a magazine to use a scandalous cover image to entice people to read its articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by veeten
It's not an ordinary picture. It's a glamorization of a vicious terrorist with innocent blood on his hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
Why is a cover of a. magazine a glamorization? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
I don't think it's the cover itself, but the picture they chose. Also, i think the only known major criminal the Rolling stone had put on their cover before was Charles Manson. They didn't even use a picture for that, but had some kind of drawing.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
Come on........Last night I discussed this issue with some friends and one of them said that Tsarnaev has a very interesting and romantic face and this impressed him from the first moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
But of course it doesn't mean he wasn't horrified of what T did or that he's tempted to follow his example.
I mean can't we see the facts through the filter of our intelligence? ( now I'm talking about the rest oof you 'cos definitely I lack this one :p ).
It seems quite a few are offended for different reasons. I've heard that many are upset as they are trying to portray him as a "normal" guy. There was a story on the Yahoo home page about how many would have preferred to see him as seen during his arrest... tired, hiding, and with red laser dots on his forehead.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
To me it really doesn't matter much what picture they used. I would have preferred what we never learned his name, his life story, motivations, etc. I think a lot of these wackos these days want the "fame" more than they want to do something for a real cause they are behind. As such, robbing them of being recognized might actually lower the rate that these things happen at. But if not... I still don't really care about the story behind that motivates them to do such things. Let me know that they were caught, and when they are executed as far as I'm concerned.
Not that I would pay money for Rolling Stone... hell we rejected them when they were free! :laugh:
Signs of a sick society.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Though I'm sure its a few notches removed from the insanity of killing cartoonists when people don't like the pictures they draw.
I have, and it is an attempt, a poor sloppy attempt, to try to make him out as not-such-a-bad person, after-all-he-is-human-too kinda of thing. I stole the read by skimming through it at a local magazine/news/bookstore and left it on the shelf. The next day, I went back and all the copies previously on the shelf were gone. When I commented that it must have been a hot item to be going so fast, the guy who runs the store, said no, did not sell, and he got tired at looking at "the stupid photo", so he sent them back to the distributor, who took them back without fussing. He said, 50 copies delivered and four days later, 50 copies returned.Quote:
Originally Posted by veeten
You missed the point. Anything which seems to glamorize or promote fame has an appeal to some very sick individuals who then wish to have their "moment of glory" by performing a copycat act. Granted that those individuals are in the small minority, but it only took one recently radicalized Islamist and a hero worshiping younger brother to change forever or end the lives of a large number of people in Boston. Giving those kinds of people free publicity is not in anyone's best interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
You did not read the article. All you did was "skim" through it and post what you wanted to here as though you are informed as to the contents.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Now, I have read the article and the picture is absolutely pertinent to what the article portrays. Remember, this is Rolling Stone.
The idea was that looking at that photograph makes him look like a normal everyday college kid in America. No different than any other. Sort of like Trayvon Martin, except this guy is Caucasian and got away with throwing a satchel containing a bomb and not one person took any notice.
Now, if they did the same for Zimmerman and posted his picture would you all be as upset? No. Like many here I bet you would be cheering that Zorro of Florida deserves to be on the cover. You know, he killed a black guy who was unarmed and only sixteen. Jeez, we should have him on the cover of Rolling Stone. They have "great articles there".
You've just described how glamorization works.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
Well, horror only adds to affection. Ever heard about how victims start feeling sympathy for their kidnappers?Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
I believe that the same photo was used in a number of different media outlets before the Rolling Stone cover, why not boycott all of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Maybe because a cover picture is an attempt to market and sell the magazine and not an integral part of the story? In other words, trying to profit from the event.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJan
Sadly, not far enough. Conservatives everywhere creep me out with their desire to wallow in anger and hatred disguised as righteous indignation.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Your posts are so irritating. You did not read the article so you have no idea as to why they have the 'photo on the cover. You have now mentioned this magazine as "the Rolling stone" two or three times.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
If you want to or enjoy making inflammatory comments about a publication or person as in other threads, why not get the names of what or whom you dislike correct instead of having to be informed so many times.
For the most part I agree with this. But it could easily be said that a photo of him as a "normal" person is just as sick. Both use extreme bias just in differing directions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
And in your own words....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I'm glad my posts irritate you, if it's any consolation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Did I ever say I knew why? I don't really give a rat's ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I know that, with your limited ability to count, one is awfully close to "two or three", so i won't belabor that point. However, it's common in american vernacular to refer to proper nouns with the article "the", such as the new york times or the rolling stone magazine. Count how many times you hear "rolling stone" versus "the rolling stone" in this song:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1QQuote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Wow. That time of the month?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
I don't think it's conservatives who have been drumming up a racist lynching for about a year now, while frothing at the mouth with every bit of righteous indignation.
INow I suppose most of people look ''normal'' in photos..... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
What could Tsarnaev's pic present as abnormal? That he has two heads, three eyes, a tail or something like this?
Following your reasoning there also shouldn't be made documentaries about guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
However people are interested in their lives, there are books and movies about them, their early years, their families, their hobbies,etc.