Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MastaG8r, Jul 18, 2013.
Good, but not really a "magazine" anymore, digital only.
Or, it evokes sympathy among teenagers and whomever else reads this left wing magazine. I mean the asshole already has groupies. And contrary to popular belief, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Stop reading too much into this, the picture was meant to sensationalize and it worked. Any publicity is good publicity. I am just undecided if it was necessary.
Do teenagers read Rolling Stone? I'd think their dads would be more likely readers.
Gonna buy 5 copies for my mother!
Yeah, that's pretty much my point. Unless you mean, "Don't read this at all. Just make a snap judgement based on the cover."
Even P4K is getting silly, I think there has always been an element of silliness to them(over-the-top elitism, pictures as reviews, etc) - but they're really a shell of what they were 4-6 years ago.
Speaking of P4K, check out this amazing track ft. Bon Iver singing with Blind Boys of Alabama covering Dylan's "Every Grain of Sand"(Maybe Dylan's best decent song of the past 25 years, in my opinion):
This is a surprise. Who knew that Rolling Stone was still in business.
It's not about being sexy. It's about the guy in a suit and tie sitting next to you on the train. The college girl in brand names clothes sitting next to you at target. The soccer mom driving the minivan. It's about them because ANY of them can be a radical Muslim and a sleeper.
If anything it is an argument against profiling.
Truth be told I'm for profiling, since statistics is my lifeblood. While RS is right that a terrorist can look like anyone, it is more likely that a terrorist fits certain characteristics. Id rather focus the bulk of our time there, but be viligant across the board.
Well now you are the one who's missing the point, exiled.
I didn't say RS "is" trying to make teenage girls swoon. I said they put a photo on their cover that "appears intended" to make teenage girls swoon. It is the appearance that's the problem.
It does not matter what their intentions were. It does not matter what the article says, or what it's about. The style of the image alone is inappropriate, considering what that guy did to your fellow Americans and why.
The cover shot is entirely deserving of all the scorn it is receiving. It is not deserving of any of the defenses that are being raised by people who at best are just being contrarian and at worst are sympathetic on some level to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
In addition to those two motivations, another thing behind some people's defense of the RS cover is the same thing behind some people's continuing condemnation of George Zimmerman. The mindset goes like this:
"Hmm. Looks like all those jerkwad Right Wingers seem to be in agreement on Point A. Guess I need to get behind Point B, then. POINT B, POINT B, hooray for Point B!! So now, what's Point B again?"
That's a worthless rag that need to become extinct.
Uh huh. So to answer my question, yes, "playing the victim card" only bothers you when Conservatives supposedly do it.
My father's the only subscriber I know.
He's a granddad to several of mine and my siblings' children.
who's playing the victim?
Some lines I can't take credit for:
"Rolling Stone thought this cover would appeal to teenagers who sympathize with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev or find him attractive. How adorable, that Rolling Stone still thinks that's their target market."
...and then three variations of this one, each funnier than the next IMO:
"If you're headed to a maximum security federal prison, 'sexy teen hearthrob' might not be the ideal public image of yourself that you want to promote before you go in."
"It was nice of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to give his future cellmates something they can hold up with one hand and use for target practice until he arrives."
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can use that magazine cover to decorate his cell someday. Actually, his future cellmate is probably already busy 'decorating' the magazine cover."
Rolling Stone magazine is "playing the victim card" by trying to cast Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in a sympathetic light. I mean, seriously - "failed by his parents"? What!?! Why on earth should anyone care if this guy was failed by his parents? And he "fell" into radical Islam, like as if by accident? Come on. Not to mention the style of the cover photo itself.
Appearance is in the eye of the beholder
I've addressed this already. Their intentions most certainly do matter. If you'd like to argue that people are too ADD to be bothered in reading the article and should simply look at the picture and form an opinion, then you would certainly have a point.
I'm somewhere in the middle - the kind of person that doesn't mind asking hard questions and reflecting on tragedies. I'm being neither contrarian nor sympathetic. I think DT should hang from his nutsack in Faneuil Hall.
Couldn't the same be said for those that are attacking this image because RS is a leftwing jerkwad magazine?
The victimhood that I object to here is the continued whine by the right about how unfair everything is for them. Always so picked on.
Rolling Stone is hardly claiming to be a victim.
Writing a story that says someone wasn't treated well by his family is hardly the same as claiming that you yourself are a victim of some great conspiracy.
Its hilarious the members of each party march to the beat of their parties drum like a misguided foot soldier. You'd think that in these situations you might see different opinions from people in the same party but you don't. Its like there is only one person that posts here for each party.
Did he buy five copies for his mother?