• Controversy as Rolling Stone magazine put 'Boston bomber' Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover
    62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AK'z;41491129]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][/QUOTE] the reason for that photo choice is to highlight how this guy was a pretty normal(if not pretty good) person and then certain life circumstances allowed him to go down a road where he would eventually become one of the most famous terrorists in american history. i think they are going for the "it could happen to you" effect.
[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] Except there's one thing every man, woman and dog on Earth can objectively agree is evil. Russian men with gravelly voices, thick accents, a large scar and an eyepatch.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41491154]the reason for that photo choice is to highlight how this guy was a pretty normal(if not pretty good) person and then certain life circumstances allowed him to go down a road where he would eventually become one of the most famous terrorists in american history. i think they are going for the "it could happen to you" effect.[/QUOTE] i just feel like it glorifies him and makes him seem like a good person who was tempted by the dark side of the force rather than a guy who believed some stupid shit and killed people i'm very uncomfortable with the kind of media fetishism that inevitably develops over people like school shooters, serial killers, bombers etc. because i feel it leads to shit like this: [URL]http://gawker.com/freejahar-when-conspiracy-theorists-and-one-direction-478152664[/URL] i'm all for understanding motives but maybe putting his face on a cover reserved for rock stars isn't the best idea? a bit disrespectful to his victims at least
[QUOTE=TheHydra;41491212]i just feel like it glorifies him and makes him seem like a good person who was tempted by the dark side of the force rather than a guy who believed some stupid shit and killed people i'm very uncomfortable with the kind of media fetishism that inevitably develops over people like school shooters, serial killers, bombers etc. because i feel it leads to shit like this: [URL]http://gawker.com/freejahar-when-conspiracy-theorists-and-one-direction-478152664[/URL] i'm all for understanding motives but maybe putting his face on a cover reserved for rock stars isn't the best idea? a bit disrespectful to his victims at least[/QUOTE] i get the point of what you're saying and i honestly have mixed feelings about it. mostly, i don't think rolling stones is the magazine that should be doing a story on this guy at all. i'm just saying that the point they are trying to make is that this dude was an upstanding person, but for some reason ended up being part of a terrorist attack.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41491353]i get the point of what you're saying and i honestly have mixed feelings about it. mostly, i don't think rolling stones is the magazine that should be doing a story on this guy at all. i'm just saying that the point they are trying to make is that this dude was an upstanding person, but for some reason ended up being part of a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] i definitely agree that rolling stone isn't the avenue for it and i'm wondering why the heck they decided to throw their hat into this ring. like who the fuck was sitting there wondering "god i wonder what rolling stone will say about this" when the marathon blew up? if it were time magazine or something i would have far less of a problem
[QUOTE=TheHydra;41491387]i definitely agree that rolling stone isn't the avenue for it and i'm wondering why the heck they decided to throw their hat into this ring. like who the fuck was sitting there wondering "god i wonder what rolling stone will say about this" when the marathon blew up? if it were time magazine or something i would have far less of a problem[/QUOTE] rolling stones has been trying to be politically relevant for a while. they write plenty of articles on political shit. i think they do a better job writing articles about musicians, personally. they should stick with that imo.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490400]I feel like no matter what your history is, the second you start murdering innocents, you're objectively wrong[/QUOTE] "innocents" i don't think these people see the people of the US as innocents
[QUOTE=Eltro102;41491413]"innocents" i don't think these people see the people of the US as innocents[/QUOTE] I feel like they're just plain objectively wrong, I don't know how many ways that you can justify murdering random people you literally don't know, just because they take part in a society isn't enough to make them non-innocent, because it isn't like it's their fault, and if anything it's less productive to do that because it just makes them even more ridiculously hateful of the terrorists. [editline]17th July 2013[/editline] I'm not really sure what I'm arguing, like yawm said, no one would really disagree with me besides close supporters anyway.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41491429]I feel like they're just plain objectively wrong, I don't know how many ways that you can justify murdering random people you literally don't know, just because they take part in a society isn't enough to make them non-innocent, because it isn't like it's their fault, and if anything it's less productive to do that because it just makes them even more ridiculously hateful of the terrorists. [editline]17th July 2013[/editline] I'm not really sure what I'm arguing, like yawm said, no one would really disagree with me besides close supporters anyway.[/QUOTE] The US has killed plenty of innocent people in its goal of 'freeing' oppressed nations, yet, despite this, a lot of people think America is in the right in doing so (and a lot don't). The loss of those few lives to a lot of people is perfectly okay when the trade off is millions being liberated.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41491429]I feel like they're just plain objectively wrong, I don't know how many ways that you can justify murdering random people you literally don't know, just because they take part in a society isn't enough to make them non-innocent, because it isn't like it's their fault, and if anything it's less productive to do that because it just makes them even more ridiculously hateful of the terrorists. [editline]17th July 2013[/editline] I'm not really sure what I'm arguing, like yawm said, no one would really disagree with me besides close supporters anyway.[/QUOTE] the only thing that bothers me is that you use the words "objectively wrong". it sorta removes any nuance from a person's life, any complex feelings or ideas, and simply looks to vilify them. we don't need any help vilifying the boston bombers, it's already obvious they did something incredibly harmful. i think we should move beyond just categorizing them as "wrong" and seek to understand the complex motivations and justifications that allowed them to do something that you consider "objectively wrong". i mean it seems nit-picky, but i'm sorta just advocating a little bit less of a "black and white" outlook for the sake of putting incredibly harmful events properly into context. we all agree the boston bombing was a bad thing. it's tragic, in fact. but there was a reason it happened.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41491512]the only thing that bothers me is that you use the words "objectively wrong". it sorta removes any nuance from a person's life, any complex feelings or ideas, and simply looks to vilify them. we don't need any help vilifying the boston bombers, it's already obvious they did something incredibly harmful. i think we should move beyond just categorizing them as "wrong" and seek to understand the complex motivations and justifications that allowed them to do something that you consider "objectively wrong". i mean it seems nit-picky, but i'm sorta just advocating a little bit less of a "black and white" outlook for the sake of putting incredibly harmful events properly into context. we all agree the boston bombing was a bad thing. it's tragic, in fact. but there was a reason it happened.[/QUOTE] I don't think the way I view them or describe them really matters too much though, I'm still all for understanding them, their reasons for becoming the way they are, simply because we can apply that knowledge to making it not happen again, probably through fixing the problem itself one way or the other.
[QUOTE=archangel125;41489833]I don't see anything wrong with this.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding? They're idolizing someone who killed people and ruined lives.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41491566]I don't think the way I view them or describe them really matters too much though, I'm still all for understanding them, their reasons for becoming the way they are, simply because we can apply that knowledge to making it not happen again, probably through fixing the problem itself one way or the other.[/QUOTE] there are a lot more people who use the "objectively wrong" statement as a way of closing their mind to the possibility that there are complex reasons behind what we label as terrorism. i'm mostly against the guy who thinks 9/11 happened because people in the middle east just hate our freedom and want to attack it. if you are alright with understanding the causes of these sorts of events, that's great. too many people use your attitude as an excuse not to though.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;41489845]why do they always try to make terrorists seem like tragic heroes[/QUOTE] Well, to be fair, the story of this guy could be considered tragic, but he's not a hero. I still don't think that he did anything too willingly. He was just brainwashed by his fucked up brother into the peaceful religion of Islam. Now that's tragic. [editline]17th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Tacooo;41491579]Are you kidding? They're idolizing someone who killed people and ruined lives.[/QUOTE] How is this any different from Timothy McVeigh being on the cover of Time magazine?
[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 personally disagree with detonating explosives in groups of people
[QUOTE=Tacooo;41491579]Are you kidding? They're idolizing someone who killed people and ruined lives.[/QUOTE] How? All they fucking did was wrote a story about him. Just because they didn't use pic that makes him look like a insane cult leader instead of a human being doesn't mean they love him. It's like saying a textbook is idolizing Hitler by talking about his rise to power. You guys are seeing this in a way so it looks like something that is not. Besides even IF they was idolizing him, who cares? People idolize murderers and bad people all the time and declare them heros due to what title they have. Terrorist=bad U.S military bombing a country with drone strikes=good They reverse depending on where you live.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41490400]I feel like no matter what your history is, the second you start murdering innocents, you're objectively wrong[/QUOTE] You can't be objectively wrong. If you want something some innocent person has, and you kill him/her to get it, you're not doing anything wrong by your desire, given that you don't mind killing a person. If you mind killing a person, and you do it, you're doing wrong.
[QUOTE=proch;41492345]You can't be objectively wrong.[/QUOTE] If only my high school algebra teacher could hear you
An act can be considered good or evil based on a certain perspective held by a group of people. And even that is too simplistic. A person cannot be reduced to fit a single specific adjective. You consider him evil, there are people who would consider him a good or even a hero. Why is your point of view more or less valid than theirs? He committed a violent and horrible act, but does that immediately define his entire life as "evil"? This is not an attempt to excuse him or his acts, but atrocities are committed all around the world all the time, usually in the name of law, order, justice, freedom or other words. All governments around the world commit horrible acts yet only a handful are considered evil and usually branded evil by more powerful governments. A drone strike kills many people, usually the innocents as well as the guilty, yet even amongst those who condemn drone strikes very few people call USA evil and those who do are usually branded as terrorists. Why? Because a government is not defined by a single act and a government is not black or white but all shades of grey with many reasons (usually self serving) for doing something. A person is not different. All of this being said, I feel this would be more down Time's alley rather than Rolling Stone, but even so how is this at all glorifying him?
If it were Time or Life magazine running this type of story, it would be a little more understandable. Time has put its fair share of characters on their covers. Whereas Rolling Stone, whose only purpose is to glorify and give fame, is not the right magazine for the bomber.
[QUOTE=Tacooo;41491579]Are you kidding? They're idolizing someone who killed people and ruined lives.[/QUOTE] That was such an idiotic statement it made me want to fucking greentext on Facepunch.
it's just odd that it's Rolling Stone that's doing this
[QUOTE=TheHydra;41489845]why do they always try to make terrorists seem like tragic heroes[/QUOTE] Because they are idiots and don't realize this is exactly what terrorists are trying to do. Suicide bombers are usually very young because it makes them more influencable, but also because it emotionally touches more people to see a kid get blown to bit than a middle aged man. Building up pathetic cases like that is what gets more influencable people to become terrorists as well.
Wasn't the Rolling Stone a magazine about music?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41491512]the only thing that bothers me is that you use the words "objectively wrong". it sorta removes any nuance from a person's life, any complex feelings or ideas, and simply looks to vilify them. we don't need any help vilifying the boston bombers, it's already obvious they did something incredibly harmful. i think we should move beyond just categorizing them as "wrong" and seek to understand the complex motivations and justifications that allowed them to do something that you consider "objectively wrong". i mean it seems nit-picky, but i'm sorta just advocating a little bit less of a "black and white" outlook for the sake of putting incredibly harmful events properly into context. we all agree the boston bombing was a bad thing. it's tragic, in fact. but there was a reason it happened.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Solely villifying terrorists and bashing them is not going to stop more people from becoming terrorists. We need to learn what circumstances leads a person to becoming a terrorist every step of the way, and how we can stop it. Rolling Stones is doing the right thing here by showing us how a seemingly normal and promising kid ended up being a mass murderer. [editline]17th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SuddenImpact;41493448]Wasn't the Rolling Stone a magazine about music?[/QUOTE] People need to stop making this argument. The Rolling Stones was never solely about music. It has and it always will be about American culture. Their focus may shift, but its unfair to say the magazine has abandoned everything it stood for by focusing on something besides music sometimes.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;41489845]why do they always try to make terrorists seem like tragic heroes[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/8084/fjos.png[/IMG]
I smell fish and alphabet soup. This was anything but what you think it was.
Pretty sure this is just a marketing ploy, making it controversial and to get people talking about it :/. I personally think rolling stone should only but bands on the cover as that is why people are buying it. It's every bands dream to make it on the cover of rolling stone and instead of giving that privilege to a band that has worked hard for it they are giving it away to some mass murdering jackass.
well that didn't take long [img]http://puu.sh/3Fuj5.jpg[/img]
Well, come on you guys it's not like they're putting Hitler on the-- [t]http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1941/1101410414_400.jpg[/t] Shit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.