• Controversy as Rolling Stone magazine put 'Boston bomber' Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover
    62 replies, posted
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/rolling-stone-boston-bomber-cover_n_3607630.html[/url] [quote]The cover, which features a self-taken portrait of Tsarnaev donning shaggy hair and a goatee, identifies him simply as "The Bomber."[/quote] [img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1247701/thumbs/o-ROLLING-STONE-TSARNAEV-570.jpg?6[/img] Several bands are taking to Facebook and Twitter to vent their anger.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
why do they always try to make terrorists seem like tragic heroes
Oh no, instead of blindly persecuting the guy as a monster (which he is, but still) we're actually going to learn about the series of events which probably led him to being so fucked up in the first place? ... how... horrible?
[QUOTE=TheHydra;41489845]why do they always try to make terrorists seem like tragic heroes[/QUOTE] Because real life isn't like Lord of the Rings, and 'Good' and 'Evil' don't exist. Just what you agree with and disagree with.
[QUOTE=archangel125;41489833]I don't see anything wrong with this.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Personally I feel that instead of villainizing these people (although they have done horrible things), we should study their cases and make an attempt to figure out what drove them to radical Islam. That strikes me as a more effective method for preventing further isolation of the Islamic community and the di-radicalisation of various religious communities as a whole.
[QUOTE=archangel125;41489854]Because real life isn't like Lord of the Rings, and 'Good' and 'Evil' don't exist. Just what you agree with and disagree with.[/QUOTE] I feel like no matter what your history is, the second you start murdering innocents, you're objectively wrong
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490400]I feel like no matter what your history is, the second you start murdering innocents, you're objectively wrong[/QUOTE] I can imagine it's conceivable that there'd be possible instances in which that isn't the case (like in a case where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few). I wouldn't say it's an objectively 'right' decision to make either in a case where it may be necessary, but it might not necessarily be 'wrong' either. Decisions in life are rarely black or white. Decisions are usually just varying shades of shit - brown to browner.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490400]I feel like no matter what your history is, the second you start murdering innocents, you're objectively wrong[/QUOTE] The innocence of those people could be argued as well though. What is innocence after all except for something that you conceive to be innocence which leads back to a view of right and wrong. The argument would go on forever since just about anything can have two perspectives.
Was he in a band?
Yeah holy shit he looks like he's a band member
[QUOTE=archangel125;41489833]I don't see anything wrong with this.[/QUOTE] I can see where they're coming from, it's basically telling someone you can get on the cover of one of the world's most famous magazines by blowing up a fuckload of people.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;41489860]Agreed. Personally I feel that instead of villainizing these people (although they have done horrible things), we should study their cases and make an attempt to figure out what drove them to radical Islam. That strikes me as a more effective method for preventing further isolation of the Islamic community and the di-radicalisation of various religious communities as a whole.[/QUOTE] Not even 'radical Islam', but how they progress to find radical ideologies appealing (in general). It might be able to help people (friends, family, medical practitioners, etc) identity what is happened. Might stop normal people from becoming future killers.
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;41490451]The innocence of those people could be argued as well though. What is innocence after all except for something that you conceive to be innocence which leads back to a view of right and wrong. The argument would go on forever since just about anything can have two perspectives.[/QUOTE] I don't think that in this case innocence was in any way a grey area, it was pretty clear that the people targeted did nothing to harm the people he represented, especially since it was indiscriminate and did harm children.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;41489845]why do they always try to make terrorists seem like tragic heroes[/QUOTE] because it is tragic
Usually Rolling stone magazine covers are made to both glorify and honor the subject...which looks really bad when you place a terrorist in that position. Not that I care.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490515]I don't think that in this case innocence was in any way a grey area, it was pretty clear that the people targeted did nothing to harm the people he represented, especially since it was indiscriminate and did harm children.[/QUOTE] Innocence is another human concept though, created by a sense of right and wrong. In another universe where fun is not allowed, casually watching a sporting event could be seen as wrong. An example of this on our planet could be the bull runs in Spain. The people participating in this are by all means innocent, they are just enjoying a tradition, but some people may not believe they are innocent since the event itself can be perceived as unethical.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490515]I don't think that in this case innocence was in any way a grey area, it was pretty clear that the people targeted did nothing to harm the people he represented, especially since it was indiscriminate and did harm children.[/QUOTE] i don't think most people who aren't sociopaths actually intend to harm people they feel are innocent. terrorists justify their murder by thinking that the people they are indiscriminately killing are people who participate in a system that oppresses or hurts the ideals or people that they value. for example, a palestinian terrorist who bombs an israeli coffee shop might see the patrons of that coffee shop as being guilty simply because they are complacent with the actions of their government. and also they might use the old "needs of many outweigh the few", that by killing a few innocent people they are helping to liberate more innocent people. that's why i don't like the word "terrorist" very much in the first place. not a lot of murderers see themselves as terrorists, they see themselves as freedom-fighters. to simply chuck them in a bin and say they are "objectively wrong" or "terrorists" does no one any service because it doesn't seek to understand the context of their actions or how to prevent people from sympathizing with those actions in the future. it seems sickening to try and understand people who go against your most basic morals, but sometimes we need to do difficult things for the good of society. we don't have to glorify him, we don't even need to give the guy sympathy, we just need to understand his story.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41490683]i don't think most people who aren't sociopaths actually intend to harm people they feel are innocent. terrorists justify their murder by thinking that the people they are indiscriminately killing are people who participate in a system that oppresses or hurts the ideals or people that they value. for example, a palestinian terrorist who bombs an israeli coffee shop might see the patrons of that coffee shop as being guilty simply because they are complacent with the actions of their government. and also they might use the old "needs of many outweigh the few", that by killing a few innocent people they are helping to liberate more innocent people. that's why i don't like the word "terrorist" very much in the first place. not a lot of murderers see themselves as terrorists, they see themselves as freedom-fighters. to simply chuck them in a bin and say they are "objectively wrong" or "terrorists" does no one any service because it doesn't seek to understand the context of their actions or how to prevent people from sympathizing with those actions in the future. it seems sickening to try and understand people who go against your most basic morals, but sometimes we need to do difficult things for the good of society. we don't have to glorify him, we don't even need to give the guy sympathy, we just need to understand his story.[/QUOTE] Saying that terrorists are just unfortunate souls that aren't truly evil, but rather just fighting for what they believe, does no one a service. The reality is that these people are dangerous to the furthering of OUR society, well, in theory anyway, so while I'm sure they have great reasons, they need to be stopped, and saying they're not meaning anything bad is pointless.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490722]Saying that terrorists are just unfortunate souls that aren't truly evil, but rather just fighting for what they believe, does no one a service. The reality is that these people are dangerous to the furthering of OUR society, well, in theory anyway, so while I'm sure they have great reasons, they need to be stopped, and saying they're not meaning anything bad is pointless.[/QUOTE] dehumanising people because they did a bad thing does no one a service its only purpose is to vindicate our own feelings about them not to mention its anti-intellectual
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41490734]dehumanising people because they did a bad thing does no one a service its only purpose is to vindicate our own feelings about them[/QUOTE] Who's dehumanizing them? I never said they're any less human, they're just people whose interpretation is too dangerous to us, and while it's unfortunate, this is our curse as a sentient intelligent species, we have conflicting opinions. Though to be fair if some of these terrorists had their way...the world would be pretty ruined.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490722]Saying that terrorists are just unfortunate souls that aren't truly evil, but rather just fighting for what they believe, does no one a service. The reality is that these people are dangerous to the furthering of OUR society, well, in theory anyway, so while I'm sure they have great reasons, they need to be stopped, and saying they're not meaning anything bad is pointless.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying they are unfortunate souls that aren't truly evil. i personally don't want to concern myself with good and evil because it does tend to be subjective(i might even think you are evil in some ways, dude). what i want to concern myself with is understanding the context of situations. how does someone become involved in movements that seek to murder people? how does someone become able to so casually set aside any value for human life to advance their own agenda? understanding their reasoning doesn't mean we apologize for their actions, it just means we will be better equipped in the future to deal with it. your logic can be applied to the mentally insane as well, btw. schizophrenics sometimes murder other people(although they are more likely to hurt themselves). by your logic we shouldn't understand the illness of a schizophrenic murderer because it was simply a "bad thing" that they did, and we shouldn't give any sympathy to it. instead, what i'm saying is that we should study schizophrenia, come up with ways to fight against it, and then maybe less people will end up being hurt in the future by homicidal schizophrenic people.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490744]Who's dehumanizing them? I never said they're any less human, they're just people whose interpretation is too dangerous to us, and while it's unfortunate, this is our curse as a sentient intelligent species, we have conflicting opinions. Though to be fair if some of these terrorists had their way...the world would be pretty ruined.[/QUOTE] You're saying there isn't anything wrong in calling them evil
should have done something like this for it to make sense: [img]http://www.andysowards.com/blog/assets/charles-manson-life-magazine-cover.jpeg[/img] instead they make him look like some band icon... ridiculous.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41490760]i'm not saying they are unfortunate souls that aren't truly evil. i personally don't want to concern myself with good and evil because it does tend to be subjective(i might even think you are evil in some ways, dude). what i want to concern myself with is understanding the context of situations. how does someone become involved in movements that seek to murder people? how does someone become able to so casually set aside any value for human life to advance their own agenda? understanding their reasoning doesn't mean we apologize for their actions, it just means we will be better equipped in the future to deal with it. your logic can be applied to the mentally insane as well, btw. schizophrenics sometimes murder other people(although they are more likely to hurt themselves). by your logic we shouldn't understand the illness of a schizophrenic murderer because it was simply a "bad thing" that they did, and we shouldn't give any sympathy to it. instead, what i'm saying is that we should study schizophrenia, come up with ways to fight against it, and then maybe less people will end up being hurt in the future by homicidal schizophrenic people.[/QUOTE] /laughs maniacally stroking my cat I never said we shouldn't understand them though, of course we should, and we should attempt to fix some of the issues they find problems with, if we are able, or if it even makes sense. All I'm saying is that their justifications don't change that they're horribly dangerous to our future.
[QUOTE=AK'z;41490774]should have done something like this for it to make sense: [img]http://www.andysowards.com/blog/assets/charles-manson-life-magazine-cover.jpeg[/img] instead they make him look like some band icon... ridiculous.[/QUOTE] its called a juxtaposition
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490783]/laughs maniacally stroking my cat I never said we shouldn't understand them though, of course we should, and we should attempt to fix some of the issues they find problems with, if we are able, or if it even makes sense. All I'm saying is that their justifications don't change that they're horribly dangerous to our future.[/QUOTE] you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't directly sympathize with these groups that would disagree with you.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41490791]its called a juxtaposition[/QUOTE] It doesn't work though. It's like having a story on O.J. Simpson's murder and using this as the cover: [img]http://millercards.net/im_xg_large/xg011.jpg[/img]
I'm all for running a story on the kid, but plastering his face on the cover of a prestigious magazine and bringing attention to him in such a way that makes him look like an icon was not the way to do it.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;41491146]I'm all for running a story on the kid, but plastering his face on the cover of a prestigious magazine and bringing attention to him in such a way that makes him look like an icon was not the way to do it.[/QUOTE] dude do you postmodern
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.