• Controversy as Rolling Stone magazine put 'Boston bomber' Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover
    62 replies, posted
Jesus people are thick. Rolling Stone haven't done anything wrong. They're trying to present some legitimate journalism for once. That exact photo was on the front cover of The New York Times and nobody cared because of the public perception of the publication. It's not as if Rolling Stone took that picture, or changed it at all. It's just a picture of Tsarnaev, and because he looks like a normal person people think he's being glorified or idolised. It's a very interesting way of subverting our expectations of what a terrorist is. They're not sensationalizing him. They're using the photo as the basis of a legitimate discussion on how he went from that perfectly normal looking 17 year old boy into the monster that committed a terrorist attack. It's great journalism from a place that isn't known for it and we should be praising and encouraging it, not turning it into a sensational issue and calling them out for sympathising with or glorifying Tsarnaev. Just because journalism is painful or not politically correct, doesn't make it any less legitimate, relevant or interesting.
It says the word "monster" in size 20 font, I don't see how this comes even close to glamorizing him.
[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 justification that he might have used (as discussed in your post) is logically inconsistent. that makes him unreasonable, not evil. he was influenced to think that unreasonable things were correct due to circumstance (upbringing, indoctrination). hence, he's not evil. not saying you think he's evil, but, you know.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.