Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber

[m52nickerson]

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

It would be infamy and it is actually a good thing.  A person can't learn anything from someone they no nothing about.

[PosthumanHeresy]

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

It would be infamy and it is actually a good thing.  A person can't learn anything from someone they no nothing about.

Because as we all know, if we see someone as infamous, everyone sees them as infamous. There's no glorification or fetishization of terrorists or criminals at all. Serial killers don't have fangirls, nope. Wait, no, that other thing. The exact opposite of all that. That's reality.

[Lithp]

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

It would be infamy and it is actually a good thing.  A person can't learn anything from someone they no nothing about.

Because as we all know, if we see someone as infamous, everyone sees them as infamous. There's no glorification or fetishization of terrorists or criminals at all. Serial killers don't have fangirls, nope. Wait, no, that other thing. The exact opposite of all that. That's reality.

And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.

[PosthumanHeresy]

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

It would be infamy and it is actually a good thing.  A person can't learn anything from someone they no nothing about.

Because as we all know, if we see someone as infamous, everyone sees them as infamous. There's no glorification or fetishization of terrorists or criminals at all. Serial killers don't have fangirls, nope. Wait, no, that other thing. The exact opposite of all that. That's reality.

And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.

Nothing can be proven to be inevitable. It's better to try to fight and maybe save some lives than to roll over because it makes them money.

[Lithp]

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

It would be infamy and it is actually a good thing.  A person can't learn anything from someone they no nothing about.

Because as we all know, if we see someone as infamous, everyone sees them as infamous. There's no glorification or fetishization of terrorists or criminals at all. Serial killers don't have fangirls, nope. Wait, no, that other thing. The exact opposite of all that. That's reality.

And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.

Nothing can be proven to be inevitable. It's better to try to fight and maybe save some lives than to roll over because it makes them money.

It's better to not completely fucking overreact to a magazine cover just because it might contribute in some way to the death of someone down the line.

[PosthumanHeresy]

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

It would be infamy and it is actually a good thing.  A person can't learn anything from someone they no nothing about.

Because as we all know, if we see someone as infamous, everyone sees them as infamous. There's no glorification or fetishization of terrorists or criminals at all. Serial killers don't have fangirls, nope. Wait, no, that other thing. The exact opposite of all that. That's reality.

And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.

Nothing can be proven to be inevitable. It's better to try to fight and maybe save some lives than to roll over because it makes them money.

It's better to not completely fucking overreact to a magazine cover just because it might contribute in some way to the death of someone down the line.

It's better to do everything you can to prevent the death of others.

[Lithp]

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

It would be infamy and it is actually a good thing.  A person can't learn anything from someone they no nothing about.

Because as we all know, if we see someone as infamous, everyone sees them as infamous. There's no glorification or fetishization of terrorists or criminals at all. Serial killers don't have fangirls, nope. Wait, no, that other thing. The exact opposite of all that. That's reality.

And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.

Nothing can be proven to be inevitable. It's better to try to fight and maybe save some lives than to roll over because it makes them money.

It's better to not completely fucking overreact to a magazine cover just because it might contribute in some way to the death of someone down the line.

It's better to do everything you can to prevent the death of others.

Car accidents kill way more people by any objective measurement. I don't see you arguing that we should outlaw private transportation.

[Witchyjoshy]

*sips soda*

This is kind of an argument-go-round, isn't it?

[Lithp]

*sips soda*

This is kind of an argument-go-round, isn't it?

I have a problem. I keep trying to pull away from this thread, but it won't let me.

[ironbite]

The gravitational pull of all the stupid over a non-issue is too much captain!

[Witchyjoshy]

Oh, that explains why my soda flew out of my hands, into the center of the topic, then was crushed into a single atom.

...Oh.  Oh shit.

[PosthumanHeresy]

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

It would be infamy and it is actually a good thing.  A person can't learn anything from someone they no nothing about.

Because as we all know, if we see someone as infamous, everyone sees them as infamous. There's no glorification or fetishization of terrorists or criminals at all. Serial killers don't have fangirls, nope. Wait, no, that other thing. The exact opposite of all that. That's reality.

And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.

Nothing can be proven to be inevitable. It's better to try to fight and maybe save some lives than to roll over because it makes them money.

It's better to not completely fucking overreact to a magazine cover just because it might contribute in some way to the death of someone down the line.

It's better to do everything you can to prevent the death of others.

Car accidents kill way more people by any objective measurement. I don't see you arguing that we should outlaw private transportation.

Private transportation is useful. Making killers famous? Not so much.

[The Illusive Man]

Hardly. That's not even addressing my point. I'm not talking about their race or anything. My point is you put a terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. Why not put them on the cover of People and Us? After all, if it's fine for them to be on Rolling Stone, why not there? I think they should be on no magazine covers. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not Time. Not Newsweek. Most certainly not fucking Rolling Stone.

So your argument has boiled down to "I don't agree with it so it should not be."

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

Psychopaths do not act in rational, predictable manner because they are detached from reality.

How much are you going to willfully ignore? Let’s go down the list:

Dave Cullen, author of the Columbine book you cite as proof, specifically created the term "normal lens” to conceptualize that psychopaths do not act in a predictable manner because they are detached from reality.

The rest of the entire chapter aptly titled Psychopath of the Columbine book you cite as proof.

The entirety of Axis I from the DSM-IV onward which spells out in great detail what constitutes psychosis and how it differentiates from other psychological disorders.

As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the head

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/25/the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat

Hardly. That's not even addressing my point. I'm not talking about their race or anything. My point is you put a terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. Why not put them on the cover of People and Us? After all, if it's fine for them to be on Rolling Stone, why not there? I think they should be on no magazine covers. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not Time. Not Newsweek. Most certainly not fucking Rolling Stone.

Which is not censorship because?

It's not government mandated. It would be corporations having tact. However, tact is dead. The almighty dollar killed it. I'm glad to see you support the pursuit of money over any tact or sanity.

Censorship requires government mandate? I call bullshit and challenge you to demonstrate how and why ever entity other than government inherently cannot censor.

[m52nickerson]

Because as we all know, if we see someone as infamous, everyone sees them as infamous. There's no glorification or fetishization of terrorists or criminals at all. Serial killers don't have fangirls, nope. Wait, no, that other thing. The exact opposite of all that. That's reality.

All that does happen, but it is not caused by a picture on the cover of a magazine.