goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 11:02:05 AM

Title: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 11:02:05 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fimages%2FEntertainment%2FHT_rolling_stone_cover_Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev_large_thg_130717_5x7_608.jpg&hash=7a5a7dc2ff054477968f59294d6b63687f61c1f6)

why are people so upset about this?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 18, 2013, 11:03:51 AM
I think they think he's being glorified.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: yoga-like_abana on July 18, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
idk, good for rolling stone though.. first time I've thought about there magazine since listening to dr. hook and the medicine show
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 11:05:35 AM
I think they think he's being glorified.

They call him a rough ridin' monster on the cover. Good grief.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 18, 2013, 11:06:14 AM
Just answering your question, that's all.  People are dumb ya know.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Fedor on July 18, 2013, 11:08:24 AM
I think they think he's being glorified.

They call him a rough ridin' monster on the cover. Good grief.
Maybe it is the Jim Morrison sexy pose? 
Title: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2013, 11:14:09 AM
Article is very good
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 18, 2013, 11:14:47 AM
I don't read Rolling Stone because it's awkwardly sized.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Cire on July 18, 2013, 11:43:45 AM
the reporting is generally very good but the commentary gets a little cray cray
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2013, 12:00:05 PM
Has Rolling Stone ever put anyone else accused of terrorism on the front cover? Did they do an OBL cover? I don't read it.

The comparison is a little striking:

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.bdbphotos.com%2Fimages%2Forig%2Fe%2Fi%2Feisc6190x5j3j59.jpg&hash=5907c8ea5ef533b4dca38b0b444cb2ebe46fba82)(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F07%2Frolling_stone_jahar_tsarnaev_boston_bomber_cover.jpg&hash=8902713b1f053eee34832c1f36ec2b99daa0ec5f)(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.bdbphotos.com%2Fimages%2Forig%2Fe%2Fi%2Feio3e501g8tpt80.jpg&hash=bb9c68d36035e8ace6ac9187f3eb492d77b916b5)

Both are famous, both have awesome hair, and one is a terrorist. Two things in common, one small difference!
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Stupid Fitz on July 18, 2013, 12:06:19 PM
Pretty hilarious that a)people even still read the actual magazine and b) the media is so outraged by the cover that they can't stop showing everyone the cover.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: wetwillie on July 18, 2013, 12:08:53 PM
Probably jealous they didn't think of it first
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on July 18, 2013, 12:31:29 PM
I read it for the Matt Taibbi (stud) articles
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 18, 2013, 12:39:47 PM
I think he just looks too sexy. they should have used a picture of him now with his jacked up jaw and scars.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 12:42:30 PM
I think he just looks too sexy. they should have used a picture of him now with his jacked up jaw and scars.

me too. he will get better treatment than he deserves because he is a cutie pie.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 12:44:00 PM
it's like if espn put hernandez on the cover shirtless and wearing a nice smile.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Institutional Control on July 18, 2013, 12:45:58 PM
I think he just looks too sexy. they should have used a picture of him now with his jacked up jaw and scars.

True but not nearly as sexy as this guy...

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fmusic%2F2004%2Fgalleries%2F1970-rolling-stone-covers%2Frs61-charles-manson-97%2F500x595%2F22516_lg.jpg&hash=b0b281b396101c38065feff138c076b32de38e14)
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 12:48:21 PM
I think he just looks too sexy. they should have used a picture of him now with his jacked up jaw and scars.

me too. he will get better treatment than he deserves because he is a cutie pie.

You honestly think so?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2013, 12:53:33 PM
I think people are probably just butthurt about the ice melt stuff
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Institutional Control on July 18, 2013, 12:53:43 PM
it's like if espn put hernandez on the cover shirtless and wearing a nice smile.

I'll bet Hernandez is ripped.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 12:56:54 PM
I think he just looks too sexy. they should have used a picture of him now with his jacked up jaw and scars.

me too. he will get better treatment than he deserves because he is a cutie pie.

You honestly think so?

i do. he's going to come off as a tender kid who was brainwashed and being hot might spare him some punishment. i don't want that to happen.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: star seed 7 on July 18, 2013, 01:01:54 PM
The neocons somehow think that the cover text paints him as a victim.

I personally don't see what the big rough ridin' deal is.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2013, 01:02:23 PM
yeah eff it, seems like a good kid. time served. :gavel:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Tobias on July 18, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
probably was just standing his ground
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 18, 2013, 01:06:11 PM
probably was just standing his ground

What else was he supposed to do? There were hundred of people running right at him.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 01:06:27 PM
yeah eff it, seems like a good kid. time served. :gavel:

SEE THAT, MICHCAT!? THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 01:09:34 PM
http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2013/07/boston-bomber-cover-rolling-stone-false-flag-operation.html
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 01:11:02 PM
it bothers me to think that eventually part of the conversation about this eff will include something like, "too bad he turned into an bad person, cause he was sexy." that really, really bothers me. i think the cover plays a role in that conversation.

i'm a huge neocon when it comes to terrorist acts by ultraconservatives and muslims. i can't help it, i have visceral reaction to this stuff.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2013, 01:20:40 PM
I think he just looks too sexy. they should have used a picture of him now with his jacked up jaw and scars.

True but not nearly as sexy as this guy...

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fmusic%2F2004%2Fgalleries%2F1970-rolling-stone-covers%2Frs61-charles-manson-97%2F500x595%2F22516_lg.jpg&hash=b0b281b396101c38065feff138c076b32de38e14)

Damn, look at that hair.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 01:23:44 PM
it bothers me to think that eventually part of the conversation about this eff will include something like, "too bad he turned into an bad person, cause he was sexy." that really, really bothers me. i think the cover plays a role in that conversation.

Have you heard or seen anyone say that?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 18, 2013, 01:23:55 PM
It would be pretty great if this cover gets the kid life in prison instead of the death penalty.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 01:25:13 PM
it bothers me to think that eventually part of the conversation about this eff will include something like, "too bad he turned into an bad person, cause he was sexy." that really, really bothers me. i think the cover plays a role in that conversation.

Have you heard or seen anyone say that?

i saw a gawker article with links to some tumblr pages that were pro-jahar and his cute face.

Edit: http://gawker.com/freejahar-when-conspiracy-theorists-and-one-direction-478152664 (http://gawker.com/freejahar-when-conspiracy-theorists-and-one-direction-478152664)
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2013, 01:28:47 PM
bet he's got a rockin' bod
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Institutional Control on July 18, 2013, 01:37:14 PM
it bothers me to think that eventually part of the conversation about this eff will include something like, "too bad he turned into an bad person, cause he was sexy." that really, really bothers me. i think the cover plays a role in that conversation.

Have you heard or seen anyone say that?

Does this count?

http://youtu.be/Gxeg4TZZ2c8
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 01:39:11 PM
it bothers me to think that eventually part of the conversation about this eff will include something like, "too bad he turned into an bad person, cause he was sexy." that really, really bothers me. i think the cover plays a role in that conversation.

Have you heard or seen anyone say that?

Does this count?

http://youtu.be/Gxeg4TZZ2c8

bubbles: 1 pt
krusty: 0 pts
women: -1 pt
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 18, 2013, 01:40:53 PM
This bomber guy needs to hurry up and use his Rolling Stone cover to find an impressionable wife so he can take advantage of conjugal visits in the future.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 18, 2013, 01:42:42 PM
The RS editor tweeting "sheesh. maybe we should've drawn a dick on his face?" was pretty funny IMO.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 01:44:44 PM
This bomber guy needs to hurry up and use his Rolling Stone cover to find an impressionable wife so he can take advantage of conjugal visits in the future.
:jerk: <--- him and also to your dumb post
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Tobias on July 18, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
i think bubbles might be mad
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 01:47:28 PM
The RS editor tweeting "sheesh. maybe we should've drawn a dick on his face?" was pretty funny IMO.

he has a good point. Should they just not talk about him?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Headinjun on July 18, 2013, 01:53:24 PM
 :thumbsup:
I read it for the Matt Taibbi (stud) articles

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 18, 2013, 01:56:23 PM
Welp, in seeing the Manson RS cover I am reminded that over-the-top hyperbole has been around for a long time.

Calling Charles Manson, "The Most Dangerous Man Alive" certainly must reside at or near the top of Hyperbole Mountain.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 01:59:44 PM
i think bubbles might be mad

i'm frustrated that i don't have the words to explain why i feel that the cover stinks, which is probably a sign that i'm wrong. and i'm disappointed in those women setting women back by saying they'd date jahar and also in Nuts Kicked for saying something about conjugal visits.

that's about the same thing as being mad.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 18, 2013, 02:01:44 PM
i am not a fan of hypersensitive people. 

it's interesting to read what caused a seemingly "good" kid into doing something so awful.  it's important as a civilization to investigate things like that so that maybe next time someone will pick up some warning signs beforehand.   :dunno:

i only read rolling stone when i fly somewhere.  great airplane reading material, imo.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: star seed 7 on July 18, 2013, 02:07:15 PM
i think bubbles might be mad

i'm frustrated that i don't have the words to explain why i feel that the cover stinks, which is probably a sign that i'm wrong. and i'm disappointed in those women setting women back by saying they'd date jahar and also in Nuts Kicked for saying something about conjugal visits.

that's about the same thing as being mad.

The cover is less offensive than you tying all women to the actions of a few.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 02:11:04 PM
i am not a fan of hypersensitive people.

he killed some people and then he got a flattering cover photo. you don't have to be hypersensitive to not like that.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 18, 2013, 02:12:13 PM
i am not a fan of hypersensitive people.

he killed some people and then he got a flattering cover photo. you don't have to be hypersensitive to not like that.

don't be a bitch.  they used the picture because by all accounts he was a "normal" kid.  did you read the article, or just whine about him being on the cover?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 18, 2013, 02:16:14 PM
i am not a fan of hypersensitive people.

he killed some people and then he got a flattering cover photo. you don't have to be hypersensitive to not like that.

don't be a bitch.  they used the picture because by all accounts he was a "normal" kid

eff that. No. Normal kids don't detonate bombs at sporting events.  Normal kids don't place a weapon that "shreds flesh, shatters bone and rips muscle" on the ground next to an 8 year old boy.

I don't have a problem with him being on the cover, but put up a mugshot, or at least something a little less jonas brothers-y.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 02:16:41 PM
i think bubbles might be mad

i'm frustrated that i don't have the words to explain why i feel that the cover stinks, which is probably a sign that i'm wrong. and i'm disappointed in those women setting women back by saying they'd date jahar and also in Nuts Kicked for saying something about conjugal visits.

that's about the same thing as being mad.

The cover is less offensive than you tying all women to the actions of a few.

that's not what i said, at all.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 18, 2013, 02:20:17 PM
Guys, the kid is going to spend the rest of his life in prison before getting murdered by the state. I don't see how it's that big of a deal if he gets his photo on the front page of a magazine. It's not like they are glorifying the action. They call him a monster right on the cover.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 18, 2013, 02:21:06 PM
i am not a fan of hypersensitive people.

he killed some people and then he got a flattering cover photo. you don't have to be hypersensitive to not like that.

don't be a bitch.  they used the picture because by all accounts he was a "normal" kid

eff that. No. Normal kids don't detonate bombs at sporting events.  Normal kids don't place a weapon that "shreds flesh, shatters bone and rips muscle" on the ground next to an 8 year old boy.

I don't have a problem with him being on the cover, but put up a mugshot, or at least something a little less jonas brothers-y.

don't be a dumbass.  he had the appearance of a normal kid until the bombing.  that's the point.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: kso_FAN on July 18, 2013, 03:14:38 PM
It was a good article. No problem with finding out the backstory behind stuff like this, and the cover only "glorifies" the act if you choose to think it does. I mean, does anyone really believe some other kid is going to say "hey, this guy maimed and killed a bunch of people, but got a really cool picture on the cover of Rolling Stone, I think I'll do it too."
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Stupid Fitz on July 18, 2013, 03:39:01 PM
It was a good article. No problem with finding out the backstory behind stuff like this, and the cover only "glorifies" the act if you choose to think it does. I mean, does anyone really believe some other kid is going to say "hey, this guy maimed and killed a bunch of people, but got a really cool picture on the cover of Rolling Stone, I think I'll do it too."

I agree to an extent. It is kind of the same thing with the media putting every school shooters pic and the count all over the screen. Doubt it makes kids want to up the anty but who knows?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
people who complain about the media are idiots. the media gives you what you want. they aren't providing some public service ('cept stud PBS). if you want them to not do stuff then want it less.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Stupid Fitz on July 18, 2013, 03:49:59 PM
people who complain about the media are idiots. the media gives you what you want. they aren't providing some public service ('cept stud PBS). if you want them to not do stuff then want it less.

Agree for reelz. Unless you were being mean to me. :cry:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 18, 2013, 03:56:34 PM
i want the media to be very mean to religious extremists and RS was not mean enough for me in this case.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: CNS on July 18, 2013, 03:58:23 PM
I want the media to replay The WildWildCats vs Xavier BB game in the Sweet 16 over and over after 7pm every evening. 
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on July 18, 2013, 04:17:51 PM
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/ (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/)

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bostonmagazine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F113_4510A_21.jpg&hash=8dea5d1696c4486a79423d870b6efc33c5dda2c5)
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 05:41:34 PM
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/ (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/)

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bostonmagazine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F113_4510A_21.jpg&hash=8dea5d1696c4486a79423d870b6efc33c5dda2c5)

just goes to show you just can't make everyone look not sexy. this bomber is one of those people.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2013, 06:03:13 PM
people who complain about the media are idiots. the media gives you what you want. they aren't providing some public service ('cept stud PBS). if you want them to not do stuff then want it less.

Agree for reelz. Unless you were being mean to me. :cry:

I wasn't
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: DQ12 on July 18, 2013, 06:21:55 PM
i like how bubbles is acting in this thread.  very honest.

i haven't made up my mind about the cover yet, but i probably lean towards bubs.  this guy is a total piece of crap scumbag loser who tried to kill tons of innocent people.  i don't want to see how handsome he is or read about how normal he was or what a bright future he and his loser brother had.

and it seems like a shameless shock value publicity stunt that's exploiting a terrorist attack just a few months after it happened.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 18, 2013, 06:24:14 PM
It was a good article. No problem with finding out the backstory behind stuff like this, and the cover only "glorifies" the act if you choose to think it does. I mean, does anyone really believe some other kid is going to say "hey, this guy maimed and killed a bunch of people, but got a really cool picture on the cover of Rolling Stone, I think I'll do it too."

I'm a loner piece of crap scumbag already, and thought that my choices were a.) hang myself in my one bedroom apartment b.) go down in flames and become a legend, I'm going with option B.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 06:27:24 PM
this guy is a total piece of crap scumbag loser who tried to kill tons of innocent people.  i don't want to see how handsome he is or read about how normal he was or what a bright future he and his loser brother had.

What is the harm in trying to learn how a handsome, seemingly normal kid turns into a piece of crap scumbag terrorist? Why does it make you angry that this may interest others?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Tobias on July 18, 2013, 06:31:20 PM
i like how bubbles is acting in this thread.  very honest.

yup - he's prefaced his thoughts, let us know where he's coming from, etc.  i'm cool with that.  it's discussion.

i haven't read the article (or really anything on the bombings since shortly after the capture), but i think a certain element of the whole thing that troubles some people is that the guy just doesn't look scary enough (be it not dark enough, not mean enough, etc).  it's a lot easier to reconcile for whatever reason when it's what we've propped up as the boogeyman, but here's this unassuming looking kid.  could be anyone, ya know?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2013, 06:31:34 PM
and it seems like a shameless shock value publicity stunt

 :jerk:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2013, 06:32:56 PM
i like how bubbles is acting in this thread.  very honest.

yup - he's prefaced his thoughts, let us know where he's coming from, etc.  i'm cool with that.  it's discussion.

yes, bubs is one of the most unsung great posters on this board
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 18, 2013, 06:34:50 PM
Bubz is one of the most interesting people I know.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 18, 2013, 06:40:41 PM
idk, good for rolling stone though.. first time I've thought about there magazine since listening to dr. hook and the medicine show


pyromaniacs strikin' matches
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: DQ12 on July 18, 2013, 08:48:28 PM
and it seems like a shameless shock value publicity stunt

 :jerk:
i don't know.  to me, this just screams trying too hard to be edgy.

What is the harm in trying to learn how a handsome, seemingly normal kid turns into a piece of crap scumbag terrorist? Why does it make you angry that this may interest others?
I understand it's compelling. 

Maybe I'm in the Bubs camp.  I just think it's bad that Rolling Stone posts a glamor shot of a terrorist.  I don't think it will inspire others or anything, but I guess I think that when some one does something truly heinous, they deserve absolute retribution and shame.  Now I get that that's not Rolling Stone's responsibility, but i still don't like it.

In short, it makes me mad.  I don't know why.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: kim carnes on July 18, 2013, 09:06:20 PM
and it seems like a shameless shock value publicity stunt

 :jerk:
i don't know.  to me, this just screams trying too hard to be edgy.

What is the harm in trying to learn how a handsome, seemingly normal kid turns into a piece of crap scumbag terrorist? Why does it make you angry that this may interest others?
I understand it's compelling. 

Maybe I'm in the Bubs camp.  I just think it's bad that Rolling Stone posts a glamor shot of a terrorist.  I don't think it will inspire others or anything, but I guess I think that when some one does something truly heinous, they deserve absolute retribution and shame.  Now I get that that's not Rolling Stone's responsibility, but i still don't like it.

In short, it makes me mad.  I don't know why.

you sound like a bitch
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 09:09:39 PM
and it seems like a shameless shock value publicity stunt

 :jerk:
i don't know.  to me, this just screams trying too hard to be edgy.

What is the harm in trying to learn how a handsome, seemingly normal kid turns into a piece of crap scumbag terrorist? Why does it make you angry that this may interest others?
I understand it's compelling. 

Maybe I'm in the Bubs camp.  I just think it's bad that Rolling Stone posts a glamor shot of a terrorist.  I don't think it will inspire others or anything, but I guess I think that when some one does something truly heinous, they deserve absolute retribution and shame.  Now I get that that's not Rolling Stone's responsibility, but i still don't like it.

In short, it makes me mad.  I don't know why.

Yeah, unfortunately we don't live in a perfect little fairy-tale world where all bad people are evil brown people with long beards. It would be much simpler if it was.

It seems like you're upset with Rolling Stone for the same reason you admired bubs - they're being honest. This is what the dude looked like - he was a monster, (like they said on the cover). "sorry for being honest" - Rolling Stone
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: sys on July 18, 2013, 09:18:40 PM
"too bad he turned into an bad person, cause he was sexy."

Have you heard or seen anyone say that?

my wife used to say similar stuff about bin laden.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Pett on July 18, 2013, 09:18:52 PM
This kid is never going to see the light of day again. Who cares about his "street cred"? :dunno:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2013, 09:27:01 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.thesocietypages.org%2Fcyborgology%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F05%2FDzhokhar.jpg&hash=3234d4c4dc8c5479e41f70d1ccf3f2dd9e47be9a)

:dunno:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: DQ12 on July 18, 2013, 10:53:55 PM
yeah maybe you're right michigancat.  i could be looking at this the wrong way.  anyhow i don't really care to investigate my attitude about this any further, but you bring up a good point and talking this over with you has brought me back to neutral about the whole thing.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: 8manpick on July 18, 2013, 11:50:40 PM
eff. He is really hot. Can't blame RS on this one. Sex sells and America is buying
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Super PurpleCat on July 19, 2013, 05:18:54 AM
It's about context.  The cover of the Rolling Stone is different than the cover of the Manhattan Mercury.  Some stupid 70s band even wrote a song about it once.
Title: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: felix rex on July 19, 2013, 08:37:05 AM
It's like RS is just trying to sell more magazines rather than just provide me with important music information.
Title: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: felix rex on July 19, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
Can you imagine if someone found like a shirtless glamour shot of bin laden? I would be offended if it wasn't on the cover of every publication, including GQ. Or maybe like a pic of him lifting himself out of the pool with his hair all slicked back. That's a Men's Health "caveman diet" cover right there, no question.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 19, 2013, 08:40:48 AM
"free market"

- FFF
Title: Re: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 19, 2013, 08:54:36 AM
It's about context.  The cover of the Rolling Stone is different than the cover of the Manhattan Mercury.  Some stupid 70s band even wrote a song about it once.


It's like RS is just trying to sell more magazines rather than just provide me with important music information.

How quickly we forget that Obama killed a guy for his article in RS. And it wasn't a feature on Justin Timberlake.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 19, 2013, 08:56:05 AM
Can you imagine if someone found like a shirtless glamour shot of bin laden? I would be offended if it wasn't on the cover of every publication, including GQ. Or maybe like a pic of him lifting himself out of the pool with his hair all slicked back. That's a Men's Health "caveman diet" cover right there, no question.

Actual real life thing:

Quote
Whenever al-Qaeda organised games of volleyball, Atef and Bin Laden were forced to be on separate teams since they were both tall, and good players.[14]

Bergen, Peter. "The Osama bin Laden I Know", 2006
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on July 19, 2013, 10:09:17 AM
Welp! http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 19, 2013, 10:10:52 AM
Welp! http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

nice one fanning, never seen those before.  nope.  not even on this page.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Tobias on July 19, 2013, 10:20:15 AM
Welp! http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

nice one fanning, never seen those before.  nope.  not even on this page.

have you ever seen them posted... by fanning?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: felix rex on July 19, 2013, 10:20:38 AM
Can you imagine if someone found like a shirtless glamour shot of bin laden? I would be offended if it wasn't on the cover of every publication, including GQ. Or maybe like a pic of him lifting himself out of the pool with his hair all slicked back. That's a Men's Health "caveman diet" cover right there, no question.

Actual real life thing:

Quote
Whenever al-Qaeda organised games of volleyball, Atef and Bin Laden were forced to be on separate teams since they were both tall, and good players.[14]

Bergen, Peter. "The Osama bin Laden I Know", 2006

that's amazing. I mean, can you imagine them fighting about picking teams and UBL talking trash after blocking someone else's crap at the net?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: felix rex on July 19, 2013, 10:22:27 AM
Welp! http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

nice one fanning, never seen those before.  nope.  not even on this page.

have you ever seen them posted... by fanning?

Quote from: fanning
I once dated a girl who just texted me and said I would look "hot" like Jahar if I grew my hair out :sdeek:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 19, 2013, 10:26:28 AM
Can you imagine if someone found like a shirtless glamour shot of bin laden? I would be offended if it wasn't on the cover of every publication, including GQ. Or maybe like a pic of him lifting himself out of the pool with his hair all slicked back. That's a Men's Health "caveman diet" cover right there, no question.

Actual real life thing:

Quote
Whenever al-Qaeda organised games of volleyball, Atef and Bin Laden were forced to be on separate teams since they were both tall, and good players.[14]

Bergen, Peter. "The Osama bin Laden I Know", 2006

that's amazing. I mean, can you imagine them fighting about picking teams and UBL talking trash after blocking someone else's crap at the net?

"Get out of here with that weak George Bush action, Abdul!"  (wags finger like dikembe)
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Pett on July 19, 2013, 11:21:50 AM
Can you imagine if someone found like a shirtless glamour shot of bin laden? I would be offended if it wasn't on the cover of every publication, including GQ. Or maybe like a pic of him lifting himself out of the pool with his hair all slicked back. That's a Men's Health "caveman diet" cover right there, no question.

Actual real life thing:

Quote
Whenever al-Qaeda organised games of volleyball, Atef and Bin Laden were forced to be on separate teams since they were both tall, and good players.[14]

Bergen, Peter. "The Osama bin Laden I Know", 2006

that's amazing. I mean, can you imagine them fighting about picking teams and UBL talking trash after blocking someone else's crap at the net?

"Get out of here with that weak George Bush action, Abdul!"  (wags finger like dikembe)
Other terrorists on the winning side, "Durka durka durka durka."
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: AbeFroman on July 19, 2013, 11:39:47 AM
When I saw the cover my immediate reaction was

"Looks like Rolling Stone did an article about the guy who helped do the bombings"

I don't understand the thought process of people that turn everything into a partisan/cultural issue.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 19, 2013, 11:51:11 AM
When I saw the cover my immediate reaction was

"Looks like Rolling Stone did an article about the guy who helped do the bombings"

I don't understand the thought process of people that turn everything into a partisan/cultural issue.

i guess i have a stronger reaction toward the guy who did the bombings than you do. i thought to myself, "hey, there's that weak-minded piece of crap who killed some people because he felt like he didn't belong."
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 19, 2013, 11:51:47 AM
When I saw the cover my immediate reaction was

"Looks like Rolling Stone did an article about the guy who helped do the bombings"

I don't understand the thought process of people that turn everything into a partisan/cultural issue.

i guess i have a stronger reaction toward the guy who did the bombings than you do. i thought to myself, "hey, there's that weak-minded piece of crap who killed some people because he felt like he didn't belong."

the cover called him a monster, dummy. 
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: j-dub on July 19, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
Welp! http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

nice one fanning, never seen those before.  nope.  not even on this page.

have you ever seen them posted... by fanning?

Quote from: fanning
I once dated a girl who just texted me and said I would look "hot" like Jahar if I grew my hair out :sdeek:

not with that quickly advancing forehead. t's and p's bud.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 19, 2013, 11:55:01 AM
When I saw the cover my immediate reaction was

"Looks like Rolling Stone did an article about the guy who helped do the bombings"

I don't understand the thought process of people that turn everything into a partisan/cultural issue.

i guess i have a stronger reaction toward the guy who did the bombings than you do. i thought to myself, "hey, there's that weak-minded piece of crap who killed some people because he felt like he didn't belong."

the cover called him a monster, dummy.

a picture is worth a lot of words. the cover also mentioned that his home life wasn't perfect. that sucks that his parents weren't great. can't blame the handsome youth for doing what he did, if you really think about it.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 19, 2013, 11:57:59 AM
When I saw the cover my immediate reaction was

"Looks like Rolling Stone did an article about the guy who helped do the bombings"

I don't understand the thought process of people that turn everything into a partisan/cultural issue.

i guess i have a stronger reaction toward the guy who did the bombings than you do. i thought to myself, "hey, there's that weak-minded piece of crap who killed some people because he felt like he didn't belong."

the cover called him a monster, dummy.

a picture is worth a lot of words. the cover also mentioned that his home life wasn't perfect. that sucks that his parents weren't great. can't blame the handsome youth for doing what he did, if you really think about it.

i mean, some of us aren't complete dumbasses and understand that "good people" can get caught up in awful things and make really bad decisions in their life.  it's interesting to find out why.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: AbeFroman on July 19, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
When I saw the cover my immediate reaction was

"Looks like Rolling Stone did an article about the guy who helped do the bombings"

I don't understand the thought process of people that turn everything into a partisan/cultural issue.

i guess i have a stronger reaction toward the guy who did the bombings than you do. i thought to myself, "hey, there's that weak-minded piece of crap who killed some people because he felt like he didn't belong."

Of course he's a piece of crap and you can think that, I think that too. The cover didn't have a picture of him and say "Look at this kid, please don't think bad things about him". Was the cover supposed to say "This issue: An article about the Boston bomber monster" and have picture of puppy dogs and kittens cuddling together? No, you put a picture of the kid on the cover to match the headline. An actual picture, not the grainy surveillance picture that was all over the news for a week. They probably would have considered using the bloody picture released yesterday had it been available a few weeks ago when they were designing the cover. They had to work with what they had, and what they had was some facebook selfies and low quality, grainy surveillance photos
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 19, 2013, 12:08:22 PM
understanding how someone turned out the way they did (unless you believe some people are "born evil") is kind of interesting to me and even if it wasn't I'm not going to get pissed off because someone wrote about it.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: chum1 on July 19, 2013, 12:20:57 PM
Yeah, I think the point of the cover is to show that it could be someone you would never expect and the cop who wanted to release his photos to show the true face of a terrorist totally missed it.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on July 19, 2013, 12:43:21 PM
Welp! http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

nice one fanning, never seen those before.  nope.  not even on this page.

have you ever seen them posted... by fanning?

Quote from: fanning
I once dated a girl who just texted me and said I would look "hot" like Jahar if I grew my hair out :sdeek:

not with that quickly advancing forehead. t's and p's bud.
:bawl:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: felix rex on July 19, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
I think it's important that we dehumanize our enemies as much as possible, so that it's clear that they are nothing like us.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 19, 2013, 01:01:14 PM
I think it's important that we dehumanize our enemies as much as possible, so that it's clear that they are nothing like us.

exactly this.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 19, 2013, 01:02:26 PM
that's a very naive outlook.  by all accounts, this kid was just like a lot of kids his age until he got caught up in some bad stuff. 
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 19, 2013, 01:07:26 PM
I think it's important that we dehumanize our enemies as much as possible, so that it's clear that they are nothing like us.

exactly this.

I think he's joking though
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 19, 2013, 01:09:15 PM
I think it's important that we dehumanize our enemies as much as possible, so that it's clear that they are nothing like us.

exactly this.

i don't actually feel this way. or at least i really, really don't want to feel this way. i want world peace very badly, but whenever i think about solving issues in the middle east i end up with a headache. then i go hitchens-mode and start talking about bombing places to glass.

guys, i don't want to see news coverage of people with no actual connection to jahar crying outside of the courtroom. that seems disrespectful to the people he hurt. i worry about complete dumbasses being emboldened by a stupid cover photo on a magazine that i kinda like. that's it.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 19, 2013, 01:10:56 PM
I think it's important that we dehumanize our enemies as much as possible, so that it's clear that they are nothing like us.

exactly this.

I think he's joking though

yes, we both were.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Paul Moscow on July 19, 2013, 01:44:58 PM
Anyone who actually thinks that the killer becomes more sympathetic or will perhaps inspire copy cat attacks because of a dreamy cover shot is clearly an idiot.



Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 19, 2013, 02:22:53 PM
Anyone who actually thinks that the killer becomes more sympathetic or will perhaps inspire copy cat attacks because of a dreamy cover shot is clearly an idiot.

check out some of the #freejahar stuff on tumblr and twitter. a degree of that support is based on his appearance. fully aware of the #freejahar movement, Rolling Stone put the most flattering pic they could find of this guy on their cover. it validates his supporters.
Title: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: felix rex on July 19, 2013, 02:35:58 PM
If Rolling Stone was targeting #freejahar types, I take back anything nice I might have said about their marketing abilities.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Paul Moscow on July 19, 2013, 02:43:34 PM
Anyone who actually thinks that the killer becomes more sympathetic or will perhaps inspire copy cat attacks because of a dreamy cover shot is clearly an idiot.

check out some of the #freejahar stuff on tumblr and twitter. a degree of that support is based on his appearance. fully aware of the #freejahar movement, Rolling Stone put the most flattering pic they could find of this guy on their cover. it validates his supporters.

He has been a celebrity since the second his name was released. The establishment of a #freejahar "movement" (its laughable to call it a movement btw) occurred months before the article so to say that Rolling Stone is the only guilty party is giving a pass to all media coverage prior to the day it hit newsstands.

Plus, people becoming infatuated with killers, even unattractive ones (gasp), is nothing new in our society and has no demonstrated effect on the likelihood of repeat actions. Jesse James, Charlie Manson, Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy, etc. Furthermore the .00000000001% of people who are fanboys aren't enough to move the needle on magazine sales and certainly aren't a substantial amount of people to alter your coverage for.

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRS-UIHYiJgQOK0qEhXD_V9_J4NVsLwp47EdNFgepfYklhOeoxuIA)




Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 19, 2013, 02:49:22 PM
If Rolling Stone was targeting #freejahar types, I take back anything nice I might have said about their marketing abilities.

i hope i don't sound like i think RS was targeting them.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 19, 2013, 05:22:22 PM
No one is mad about the article, dumbasses.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 19, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
brown him up, slap a beard on him and print this mother rough rider
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 19, 2013, 06:20:19 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.1313369.1365670610%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_635%2Fadam-lanza.jpg&hash=9511ca0746274f34c10eb3b04be08659bc72f0f0)

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fdr%2Fhln%2Fwww%2Frelease%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ftextarticle_640%2F2012%2F11%2F08%2FPS.jpg&hash=0a2f60b790bbcf85f633530d2f27d12532a5407d)

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F2012%2FSeptember%2F120918%2F120920-james-holmes-kb-3p.380%3B380%3B7%3B70%3B0.jpg&hash=21488b17c0c84d5af5758a9ac7ff07581bb5f49e)

Three of the more terrifying pictures in the past year.  These photos were plastered everywhere, and no one complained.  Probably because they don't look like a rough ridin' Seventeen Magazine centerfold shot.

But nope, just make 'em browner. That's why people are mad.

Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 19, 2013, 06:37:43 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.necolebitchie.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FTrayvon-Martin.jpg&hash=f994f00e71da4205451cabac9cbd9882c901c1ff)
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Tobias on July 19, 2013, 08:23:03 PM
easier to swallow?

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deafpunter.net%2Femaw%2Frollingstone.jpg&hash=d1f96334a315c84e664642fb812ca2902f4c08a9)
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 19, 2013, 08:31:22 PM
the article is about how he was a normal kid once with stuff going for him and how he turned into a shitty evil terrorist who will at least spend the rest of his life in prison. the front page of the magazine says as much. the same pic has been run on multiple front pages before today. the picture is the best representation of the article available. it actually does a very good job of representing it.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 19, 2013, 10:25:48 PM
Agreed.  The entire point is he wasn't a huge nut in a cave, or living on the fringes, or diagnosed schizo, or living in his psycho mom's basement.  He was a dude who partied, went to good schools, had a future that would include girls and money and turned into a killer.  He is an outlier who didn't look or act like an outlier.
Title: Re: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: michigancat on July 19, 2013, 11:41:56 PM
Agreed.  The entire point is he wasn't a huge nut in a cave, or living on the fringes, or diagnosed schizo, or living in his psycho mom's basement.  He was a dude who partied, went to good schools, had a future that would include girls and money and turned into a killer.  He is an outlier who didn't look or act like an outlier.

that makes some people feel icky. They just can't rationally process it, apparently.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: DQ12 on July 20, 2013, 01:22:17 AM
to be fair, i think that's a pretty hard thing to rationally process.  i'm a pretty regular guy, i'd say, and it's hard for me to rationally process.  in fact, i think it's pretty weird if it's easy for some one to rationally process something like that, but like i said, i think i'm just a pretty regular guy.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: kitten_mittons on July 20, 2013, 01:53:06 AM
Anyone who says he "was a normal kid who got caught up in some bad stuff" is the worst kind of moron.  Committing terrorist attacks and killing innocent children is not getting "caught up in some bad stuff." Getting caught up in some bad stuff is like being in the same car with someone who gets pulled over and they have drugs in the car, or being I  high school and vandalizing someone's property because your friends thought it would be fun.  It's rough ridin' sick and demented to do what he did, and to downgrade it to something as simple as hanging out with the wrong crowd.  Everyone here has probably done something they regret s little bit because of peer pressure, but doing what he did was above and beyond.  You have to have hatred in your heart to be able to pull that off.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: SdK on July 20, 2013, 08:41:44 AM
There are a lot of mindless idiots in this country. I don't think bubs or team bubs really has an issue with the cover. I think he really has an issue with society. I share that same grievance with society at large. Sex sells, people are generally soft, everyone is a victim, the public sees that he is attractive and may have had some personal strife, so they become sympathetic towards him. It's sad that this happens and I hate it. But for people like the g.E crowd, this cover isn't a big deal. It changes nothing. He is what he is, what he did, not what he looks like, or his childhood. There comes a day when our lives are our own. He came to a crossroads and he chose to go down a bad path. There was a moment, a choice, he chose wrongly, albeit probably slaying trim like a yeti all along the way.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 20, 2013, 08:43:24 AM
Why anyone cares what's on this irrelevant magazine is beyond me.  The only people who read it are white guys that learned guitar after age 22, those weird music geeks that share terrible "Indy" music on Facebook, and people who collect records.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: SdK on July 20, 2013, 08:45:19 AM
Why anyone cares what's on this irrelevant magazine is beyond me.  The only people who read it are white guys that learned guitar after age 22, those weird music geeks that share terrible "Indy" music on Facebook, and people who collect records.

And now all of us, you, and the nation, are talking about it. Mission accomplished.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: SdK on July 20, 2013, 08:48:42 AM
two birds, one (rolling) stone
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 20, 2013, 09:18:08 AM
FWIW, this is the only forum Ive seen or heard this being talked about.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: star seed 7 on July 20, 2013, 11:27:31 AM
FWIW, this is the only forum Ive seen or heard this being talked about.  :dunno:

I've seen it multiple places.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 20, 2013, 11:30:18 AM
There are a lot of mindless idiots in this country. I don't think bubs or team bubs really has an issue with the cover. I think he really has an issue with society. I share that same grievance with society at large. Sex sells, people are generally soft, everyone is a victim, the public sees that he is attractive and may have had some personal strife, so they become sympathetic towards him. It's sad that this happens and I hate it. But for people like the g.E crowd, this cover isn't a big deal. It changes nothing. He is what he is, what he did, not what he looks like, or his childhood. There comes a day when our lives are our own. He came to a crossroads and he chose to go down a bad path. There was a moment, a choice, he chose wrongly, albeit probably slaying trim like a yeti all along the way.

yes, 'PoundsignKid, that's pretty much how i feel  :thumbs:

that plus the fact that i hate america's enemies more than most. 
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 20, 2013, 11:33:13 AM
FWIW, this is the only forum Ive seen or heard this being talked about.  :dunno:

yeah, it really isn't getting any play at all nationally. more of a goEMAW thing.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 20, 2013, 11:40:19 AM
FWIW, this is the only forum Ive seen or heard this being talked about.  :dunno:

yeah, it really isn't getting any play at all nationally. more of a goEMAW thing.

npr had an editor on. the host went after him and he was pretty sheepish.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: steve dave on July 20, 2013, 11:41:26 AM
FWIW, this is the only forum Ive seen or heard this being talked about.  :dunno:

yeah, it really isn't getting any play at all nationally. more of a goEMAW thing.

npr had an editor on. the host went after him and he was pretty sheepish.

ok, npr and goEMAW but that's it
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 20, 2013, 11:42:26 AM
FWIW, this is the only forum Ive seen or heard this being talked about.  :dunno:

yeah, it really isn't getting any play at all nationally. more of a goEMAW thing.

npr had an editor on. the host went after him and he was pretty sheepish.

ok, npr and goEMAW but that's it

gizmodo and gawker.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 20, 2013, 12:43:38 PM
 
FWIW, this is the only forum Ive seen or heard this being talked about.  :dunno:

yeah, it really isn't getting any play at all nationally. more of a goEMAW thing.

Not sure you have a strong grasp on what "fwiw" means, libtard.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Kat Kid on July 20, 2013, 12:56:23 PM
FWIW, I've never lost in a foot race to Usain Bolt.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Paul Moscow on July 20, 2013, 01:59:53 PM
Why anyone cares what's on this irrelevant magazine is beyond me.  The only people who read it are white guys that learned guitar after age 22, those weird music geeks that share terrible "Indy" music on Facebook, and people who collect records.

But we are still gonna kill that writer from that irrelevant magazine tho, right? Cause danger and stuff.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 20, 2013, 03:35:44 PM
Why anyone cares what's on this irrelevant magazine is beyond me.  The only people who read it are white guys that learned guitar after age 22, those weird music geeks that share terrible "Indy" music on Facebook, and people who collect records.

But we are still gonna kill that writer from that irrelevant magazine tho, right? Cause danger and stuff.

Uhhhh, go for it.  But don't be surprised if he stands his ground and doesn't let you kill him.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: OK_Cat on July 23, 2013, 10:43:07 AM
FWIW i've never not been in the same room as brad pitt
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 23, 2013, 11:44:04 AM
 The Dzokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Controversy Is Kanye West's Fault (http://gawker.com/the-dzokhar-tsarnaev-rolling-stone-controversy-is-kany-870939728)
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: bubbles4ksu on October 21, 2014, 05:30:25 PM
 FBI Dashes American Teen Girl Trio's Dreams of Joining ISIS (http://gawker.com/fbi-dashes-american-teen-girl-trios-dreams-of-joining-i-1649046003)

I read that article today and was reminded of this thread. I also remembered something I should have mentioned when I was raising a fuss the first time. The following is an excerpt from a review of Mein Kampf by George Orwell written in 1940. I'd read the review a couple of weeks before the Marathon bombing and it affected me. I'm not drawing any parallels between the two situations except that our postmodern attitudes continue to be less psychologically sound than something as miserable as jihad. I find this to be an extremely uncomfortable and unfortunate truth. The RS cover bothered me much more as an example of this situation rather than a potential cause for more terrorism.

Quote
...I should like to to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power - till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter- I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs - and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett's edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the  expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that there is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at, but at any rate the grievance is there. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero  who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can't win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous, half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.

Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers, tin pacifists somehow won't do. Hitler, because in his joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don't only want comfort, safety, short working hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense, they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin's militarized version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation "Greatest happiness of the greatest number" is a good slogan, but at this moment "Better an end with horror than a horror without end" is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underestimate it emotional appeal.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 21, 2014, 06:08:49 PM
In a rudderless country where our leaders stand for nothing, people in search of meaning will naturally gravitate towards people who stand for something, even villains. How else do you explain young girls gravitating towards black burqa'd servitude?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone Cover
Post by: star seed 7 on October 21, 2014, 06:23:04 PM
You are a rough ridin' idiot