shrader Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 This Rolling Stone thing is getting dumber by the minute. I'm one page into the article, and it seems compelling. So wait, you're saying that there is actually something we are supposed to read?
Eleven Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 So wait, you're saying that there is actually something we are supposed to read? Read it or not, it's your choice. The people drawing conclusions without reading it (doesn't seem to be a lot of those here, actually) are the ones who concern me.
Trettioåtta Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 Does someone who has read the article want to be a dear and give cliff notes? :)
TrueBlueGED Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 Does someone who has read the article want to be a dear and give cliff notes? :) And here I thought only Americans were too lazy to read :P
shrader Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 Read it or not, it's your choice. The people drawing conclusions without reading it (doesn't seem to be a lot of those here, actually) are the ones who concern me. But hey, we can still go to any of these stores and buy all the rags that tell us which celebrities are fat.
Hoss Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 It's fairly typical of society these days. Most people never see past the cover/surface of anything. Perhaps if society stopped idolizing people put on magazine covers the appearance of someone like this wouldn't stir the same feeling. It's just a picture. Who's to blame for the interpretation? I don't see it as glamorous. Every time I see his picture I associate it with the events that happened. I don't forget and I am sure as hell not thinking of him as a rock start a la Jim Morrison like the overreactionists like to claim. I'll bet the article is actually quite good. It might actually be real journalism? Oh well.. So it's the people's fault that Rolling Stone knows that putting him on the cover would be taking advantage of those people? This is like the time Darren Rovell wrote an article saying that nobody is to blame about the lockout except the fans. While the concept of your/Rovell's point is right.... it doesn't make it okay. Face it, if the cover offends you, then you're clearly unsophisticated, stupid, backwards, and belong in a shack in the hills of Tennessee tending to your one good tooth and corn cob pipe. It's cool to find as many ways as possible to sneer at the offended. Conform and join the new normal by discarding your personal reaction for the reaction all the "in" people have. You're so kind and non-judgmental. I really can't handle your ability to tolerate people with opinions different than your's. How do you do it? I won't buy it (I wasn't going to anyway) and I am not offended by it, but I completely understand why someone would be. It's irresponsible. There is no doubt that that cover makes him look cool (if I had no idea who he was, I could easily believe that he was the lead singer in an up and coming group). If some young disenfranchised reader, who's got nothing else going on in his life sees that such an awful act can get you on the cover of Rolling Stone, who knows what they might do? :clapping: Precisely. We can't sit here and compare local news channels and newspapers with Rolling Stone. If you can't see the difference in those, then I'm worried.
Weave Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 We can't sit here and compare local news channels and newspapers with Rolling Stone. If you can't see the difference in those, then I'm worried. Out of curiosity, what do you perceive to be the differences between RS and local media as related to this issue?
shrader Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 You're so kind and non-judgmental. I really can't handle your ability to tolerate people with opinions different than your's. How do you do it? We can't sit here and compare local news channels and newspapers with Rolling Stone. If you can't see the difference in those, then I'm worried. The first sarcastic statement followed up by the bolded line. Somewhat contradictory, don't you think? Again I ask, did you read the story?
... Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 The first sarcastic statement followed up by the bolded line. Somewhat contradictory, don't you think? Again I ask, did you read the story? The story is not the issue (I love a good pun). It's Rolling Stone making him seem like the next teen heart throb, and Rolling Stone taking advantage of the polarization I guarantee they anticipated before running with that cover. The excuse that they're "sparking dialogue" is just that. What was wrong with the dialogue that started in the after math of the event? Is Rolling Stone so brilliant that they will bring an angle NO ONE has thought about, researched, and discussed already? No. They were banking on the pretty boy cover causing exactly what is happening in this thread and capitalizing on it. That is what makes it offensive. The article just needs to appear measured and serious enough so they, and their apologists, can excuse it away, and, of course, seem more sophisticated and above it all while doing so. Clearly, lots of people have fallen for it.
Weave Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 Or maybe they simply decided to use imagery that would highlight the juxtaposing of two very different Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's, the typical American high school nice guy and the demon he became. Just sayin'....
shrader Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 Or maybe they simply decided to use imagery that would highlight the juxtaposing of two very different Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's, the typical American high school nice guy and the demon he became. Just sayin'.... Which does fit the words written on the cover, which have been conveniently been ignored
Weave Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 Which does fit the words written on the cover, which have been conveniently been ignored And I have no idea what was even printed on the cover.
TrueBlueGED Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 Or maybe they simply decided to use imagery that would highlight the juxtaposing of two very different Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's, the typical American high school nice guy and the demon he became. Just sayin'.... :thumbsup:
biodork Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 And I have no idea what was even printed on the cover. Pic here: http://b-i.forbesimg.com/matthewherper/files/2013/07/RollingStone.jpg
... Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 God, they are full of it this issue...the Arctic Ice Melt...yeesh.
Eleven Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 God, they are full of it this issue...the Arctic Ice Melt...yeesh. 1. The Arctic is melting. Fact. Whether humans are responsible is up for debate. 2. You do know that Rolling Stone historically has approached international issues from the right, right? 3. The magazine certainly is not making Tsarnaev out to be a heartthrob. Look at the words that accompany the picture.
shrader Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 3. The magazine certainly is not making Tsarnaev out to be a heartthrob. Look at the words that accompany the picture. The only thing that possibly backs up the idea that they are making him out to be a heart throb is if you don't know who he is. If you don't, what rock have you been living under?
LTS Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 So it's the people's fault that Rolling Stone knows that putting him on the cover would be taking advantage of those people? This is like the time Darren Rovell wrote an article saying that nobody is to blame about the lockout except the fans. While the concept of your/Rovell's point is right.... it doesn't make it okay. I think you missed what I was saying. My point was that people have no idea of the content of the article but on just seeing a photograph are willing to draw their conclusions. This is typical of society these days. Rather than take an understanding and comprehensive approach to why something is the way it is they would rather just make a split second judgment. I'm not even sure what it would be based upon. I get the feeling that most of society wouldn't even formulate their own opinion on this if it weren't for some media types and a few others spewing out their opinions so strongly. There's no doubt Rolling Stone put the image on the cover to sell issues. That's marketing. I don't agree with him being on the cover. It's not that I think it glamorizes him, it's that our society is so weak minded that they think it does. You look at people in society today who idolize people like this. The amount of women throwing themselves at Aaron Hernandez as he's sitting in jail. The women who think this idiot is cute, etc. Take the idiot Pouncey brothers who were socializing around town with "Free Hernandez" hats on their heads. It's insane. Of course they have the right to do it, I don't question that. But to feel compelled to act in such a way towards people who have proven themselves unfit to inhabit this Earth with the rest of us is extremely disturbing to me. (Noted: Aaron Hernandez has not been convicted. Still, there's NO question he was involved and that alone puts him in this category for me.) So my original point.. society looks at the cover and determines that Rolling Stone is glamorizing this person. It calls him a Monster in the tagline and no one had yet read the article. However, to address your point. Yes, it's the people's fault and whether it's okay or not depends on your point of view. If you believe people need to be saved from themselves then you likely have a problem with it. If you believe people are responsible for their own lives and are free to choose their path then you might have less of a problem with it. If a hockey fan is willing to watch hockey even after the lockout then it sends a clear message to the NHL and NHLPA that their work stoppages are not going to kill the sport and they can continue to engage in such ridiculous practices. It's like people who bitch about the price of their cable bill and then continue paying it. We are defined by our actions, not our words. Do some corporations choose to live more in harmony with society? Sure. Do they have to? Not at all. Whether someone looks down on the corporations or institutions that choose to take advantage of people is a matter of personal preference. Okay.. enough for today.
SwampD Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 1. The Arctic is melting. Fact. Whether humans are responsible is up for debate. 2. You do know that Rolling Stone historically has approached international issues from the right, right? 3. The magazine certainly is not making Tsarnaev out to be a heartthrob. Look at the words that accompany the picture. I actually saw some jackass with a couple of these on his truck. If it was anyone on this board, I'm sorry,… but you are a jackass.
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 I actually saw some jackass with a couple of these on his truck. If it was anyone on this board, I'm sorry,… but you are a jackass. Unbelievable. I'm embarrassed for our species.
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 1. The Arctic is melting. Fact. Whether humans are responsible is up for debate. 2. You do know that Rolling Stone historically has approached international issues from the right, right? 3. The magazine certainly is not making Tsarnaev out to be a heartthrob. Look at the words that accompany the picture. 1.) Actually, it isn't up for debate. It isn't that humans are solely responsible as there are natural events that contribute as well. The question is, how much we contribute and what behaviors can we modify that will decrease our level of contribution. In looking at the acceleration of the amounts of greenhouse gases deposited in the atmosphere over the last 30 years, it's evident that we contribute more than any other single aspect of nature. And yes, I don't exclude us from being part of nature; we are. 2.) Great point. But I'm not surprised it's lost on some. 3.) Heartthrob? Really? If the kid wasn't handsome, would anyone be saying that? It's obvious from the cover that they are simply drawing a stark contrast between the image and the printed caption beneath. The kid doesn't look like a monster, but he is. Heartthrob? Anything but.
LGR4GM Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-23370205 Police Photographer releases photos of tsarnaven or whatever the ###### name is and is subsequently suspended. Says he released them because of the Rolling Stone Article showing Tsarnaev all buff was discourteous to the victims and the world should see the real pics of him. "The latest pictures show the "real Boston bomber, not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine", Sgt Murphy said." O and as far as the cover on Rolling Stone goes, I thought it was Jim Morrison for a second and it seems a lot of other people see that iconic photo as being similar to Tsarnaev
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-23370205 Police Photographer releases photos of tsarnaven or whatever the ###### name is and is subsequently suspended. Says he released them because of the Rolling Stone Article showing Tsarnaev all buff was discourteous to the victims and the world should see the real pics of him. "The latest pictures show the "real Boston bomber, not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine", Sgt Murphy said." O and as far as the cover on Rolling Stone goes, I thought it was Jim Morrison for a second and it seems a lot of other people see that iconic photo as being similar to Tsarnaev That police officer overstepped his bounds during an ongoing criminal investigation that has yet to be adjudicated. He did the prosecution no favors here.
LGR4GM Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 That police officer overstepped his bounds during an ongoing criminal investigation that has yet to be adjudicated. He did the prosecution no favors here. Totally agree. Just found the contrast in pictures interesting.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.