Post: #26

(07-18-2013 10:01 AM)NYJ Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 09:54 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  I'm also taking issue with the 'xxx failed him' part.

The US military has failed me, do I get to blow them up?

Society has failed me, do I get to go on a shooting spree?

One time Burger King got my order wrong, should I jihad against burgers?

One time a woman flaked on me, I guess it's okay to go Bateman on then now.


This whole western phenomenon of removing your own accountability for your own actions is a cancer. A sickness that must be stopped. The bomber's life has been candy canes and unicorn farts compared to many of my friends, and they still conduct themselves with honor and integrity. Trying to romanticize this wretch and portray him in a tragic light to sell consumables to misguided hamster vaginas makes me physically sick. This is why the West is on an irreversible death spiral.

It has to be stopped for sure. The first thing they should be telling kids in school is that the world owes you nothing. But with contests with no losers and participation awards it's the birth place for this type of shit IMO.

Yes- and it's not like he was some poor arab guy who grew up with only taliban kinds of teachings. Not saying that's any excuse to be bombing people ata marathon, but it is clear to me that this kid was very much in control of what he was doing.

But, even if he was brainwashed or whatever, Rollingstone has finally lost what little respect it ever had from me..

Post: #27

(07-18-2013 09:54 AM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 08:18 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  People should stop complaining and read the article. Wait, I forgot, most people are too lazy to slog through a 10,000 word article and would just rather take the easy way out and get outraged over the cover.

Explain.

Post: #28

So reading the article will cause me to change my opinion that the cover was in poor taste? I'm positive this chick will hang on every word in said article.

   

Post: #29

(07-18-2013 08:06 AM)puckman Wrote:  Publicity stunt of a failed business model. Out of business in two years tops.

Exactly. CVS and a few other major stores have already banned this issue from ever appearing in their stores.

Post: #30

(07-18-2013 03:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 08:06 AM)puckman Wrote:  Publicity stunt of a failed business model. Out of business in two years tops.

Exactly. CVS and a few other major stores have already banned this issue from ever appearing in their stores.

Circulation is falling like a brick year after year. Jan Wenner has other media companies that fair better, like US Weekly and a few others. Their online presence sucks even worse, people simply dont visit their sites in big enough numbers to produce the advertising revenue that justifies their cushy salaries, offices and hiring sucky writers(except for Matt Taibbi..). Anytime you see a stunt like this, its to get more eyeballs so they can sell more advertising. People that believe its 'journalistic integrity' are the biggest dupes of all and exactly who they are trying to get to buy the magazine.

Post: #31

RS= multiple FAIL

2011:



2012:




2013:




FAIL FAIL FAIL

Post: #32

Aren't they supposed to show him all beat up and stuff? Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet...that we know of. It will though.

Post: #33

Sadly the best we can hope for is a one way ticket to GITMO Bay for our poor, tragic heart throb. He'll be in protective custody if he goes to a civilian or fed prison, but if they decide to stick him with his Haji-Jihadis in GITMO the guard cadre will probably have some fun with him.

Post: #34

People still read Rolling Stone? The fuck?

The magazine reminds me of this boomer woman I know who still wears low-cut tops and no bra and thinks she's the shit because she was a groupie back in the day. Just irrelevant, desperate and kind of sad.

Even SWPL rags like The Guardian are acknowledging that putting a terrorist in the company of rockstars and actors is pretty sleazy.

Also, don't think that disenfranchised men (read: mentally ill omegas) aren't picking up on the message this kind of irresponsible garbage is sending by glamorizing him.

"You mean all I have to do is make some homemade bombs and I'll get groupies and be on the cover of a magazine?"

Never underestimate the desperation of option-less, involuntarily celibate dudes to do some fucked up shit upon the whiff of pussy and female validation, especially when real options like game are widely shamed as "misogynist" and "creepy"

Sometimes I wonder if the west is turning into a sick parody of itself. Rome is burning, boys.

edit: lol, the justin bieber covers

Post: #35

(07-18-2013 01:33 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  I've been hearing about this controversy all day but I fail to see what the big deal about the cover is. What am I missing? They keep saying they're portraying him as a rock star but it just looks like an ordinary picture of a guy to me. Though one might question why a music magazine puts any terrorist on the cover in the first place when the focus should be music. But I see nothing glorifying him, especially when you read the huge block of text below his face.

Being on the cover of rolling stone has been viewed as a huge huge status symbol for decades.

Post: #36

Its one thing to be PC about the whole thing, but really I think this was a poor judgement call. This mag is supposed to represent first and foremost entertainers. If a terrorist is now an entertainer, then maybe concerts should end in a slaughter so the band can express their love of their fans. Gheesh.

Post: #37

(07-18-2013 11:24 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 09:54 AM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 08:18 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  People should stop complaining and read the article. Wait, I forgot, most people are too lazy to slog through a 10,000 word article and would just rather take the easy way out and get outraged over the cover.

Explain.

The article and the cover are two different issues. They could write a brilliant award winning piece of journalism without being distasteful with their cover.

Post: #38

(07-19-2013 01:10 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:24 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 09:54 AM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 08:18 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  People should stop complaining and read the article. Wait, I forgot, most people are too lazy to slog through a 10,000 word article and would just rather take the easy way out and get outraged over the cover.

Explain.

The article and the cover are two different issues. They could write a brilliant award winning piece of journalism without being distasteful with their cover.

Great post. This points to the (expected) general lack of class that Americans have.

In many ways, we are the laughing stock of the world. We are also very envied.

I wonder what Ben Franklin would say about this.

Post: #39

The people offended by this are failing to consider that if you want to do a bunch of stories about a specific person in your magazine, it's probably a good idea to have a picture of the very person you are doing the stories on as the cover.

Post: #40

Here's another sexy bomber that has appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone:

Post: #41

Progressives don't hate Muslims as much as they hate Christians, for some reason. One of my biggest pet peeves, and why I think that Bill Maher is solid. He points out that Islam is by far the worst religion in the world for what it's followers do.

Post: #42

Matt Taibbi is a good reporter but he needs to tone down the gratuitous swearing. He's become a caricature of himself with the "cocksucker"s and the "fucker"s every other paragraph.

Post: #43

The cover is in many ways used in concert with the article to show that no matter how well we know someone, we may never know the whole truth about that person. The article then explores how he falls so far away from reality that he ends up committing these murders. Personally, I do not find it distasteful.

But then again, it doesn't matter what I say, you'll still criticize my standpoint.

Post: #44

Big fucking deal. People are too damn sensitive. Or maybe they just enjoy having something else to complain about. Do you think even 10% of those people complaining about this give half a shit about the victims of the bombing? Nope, they give 0 shits. They just want to be mad about something or feel like they have an opinion that they feel us important. Since the media and now majority think its terrible, why not? Hop on bored. Lets say it's terrible! Then we can seem sympathetic and good natured. I bet if the media was pushing it being a good idea, half these people would change their minds. I can see it now. "I think it's a great thing. It points out signs to look for in troubled youth." Mindless drones.

Post: #45

Post: #46

(07-19-2013 04:33 AM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  I bet if the media was pushing it being a good idea, half these people would change their minds. I can see it now. "I think it's a great thing. It points out signs to look for in troubled youth." Mindless drones.

The media tentatively did try pushing it as a good idea. TMZ tried to frame it as CVS curtailing Rolling Stone's first amendment rights.

Post: #47

He's going to be popular in prison.

Post: #48

He's probably going to in death row.

Post: #49

(07-19-2013 04:26 AM)MikeinMKE Wrote:  Progressives don't hate Muslims as much as they hate Christians, for some reason. One of my biggest pet peeves, and why I think that Bill Maher is solid. He points out that Islam is by far the worst religion in the world for what it's followers do.

Progressives hate fundamentalist Christians because they actually have some political power in this country, as opposed to Muslims who don't have any real political power.

Thus, the progressive hate directed toward fundamentalist Christians is really just hate directed at their political rivals.

Post: #50

(07-19-2013 04:30 AM)MikeinMKE Wrote:  Matt Taibbi is a good reporter but he needs to tone down the gratuitous swearing. He's become a caricature of himself with the "cocksucker"s and the "fucker"s every other paragraph.

Did he write the cover article?