#RollingStone
HOW FAR THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN,
I USED TO DREAM OF MAKING THE COVER OF ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE, AS IT USED TO BE THE ULTIMATE STATEMENT OF LEGITIMACY FOR AN ASPIRING MUSICIAN AND IT MEANT THAT YOU HAD REALLY MADE IT. OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS, ROLLING STONE HAS BECOME LESS AND LESS ABOUT MUSIC, AND HAS BECOME MORE AND MORE ABOUT BULLSHIT, POP CULTURE NONSENSE. EVEN THOUGH MANY OF US MAY NOT CARE FOR IT, WE WERE ABLE TO LIVE WITH IT...UNTIL THIS.
YOU...DARE...TO...PUT...THE...IMAGE...OF...THE...BOSTON...BOMBER...ON...THE...FUCKING...COVER...OF...YOUR...MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???
YOU HAVE NOT ONLY SUCCEEDED IN BLATANTLY INSULTING AND DISHONORING THE VICTIMS AND FAMILIES WHOSE LIVES WERE FOREVER EFFECTED BY THIS RABID ANIMAL, BUT YOU HAVE NOW GLORIFIED HIS COWARDLY AND UNFORGIVABLE ACT. WHY? BECAUSE IT WILL SELL MAGAZINES? BECAUSE IT WILL CREATE CONTROVERSY? BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY DO SYMPATHIZE WITH THIS ABHORRENT, COWARDLY, PIECE OF SHIT? YOU HAVE MADE IT ATTRACTIVE AND VALIDATED THE ACT, TO A WHOLE NEW GENERATION OF WANNA BE TERRORISTS SEEKING MARTYRDOM AND INFAMY. YOU, AND YOUR KIND ARE THE REASON WHY PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY CAN GO OUT "IN A BLAZE OF GLORY" WHILE MURDERING INNOCENTS. HONESTLY, AND I MEAN THIS FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART...GO...FUCK...YOURSELVES.
THE NEXT TERRORIST/MURDERING INCIDENT, BE IT ANOTHER BOMBER, OR A MADMAN WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE, UNLEASHING FIRE UPON A SCHOOL FULL OF CHILDREN, IS ON YOU.
MAY YOUR CONSCIENCES (IF YOU EVEN HAVE THEM) WEIGH IMMEASURABLE HEAVY ON YOU FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES. I CONDEMN THIS ACT, THIS NOTION, AND THIS WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT FUCKING RAG OF A MAGAZINE. MAY THE POWERS THAT BE HAVE MERCY UPON YOUR SOULS, BECAUSE THE NEXT TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS, I ASSURE YOU, THE WORLD WONT.
-GO TO HELL
-DAVID
Is adult entertainment killing our children? Or is killing our children entertaining our adults?
It does serve the purpose of showing that every monster does not necessarily look like a monster.Is everyone objecting to them using that photo, or that they are writing an article about him in the first place?
I like this comment on the pageWell, the article about the Rolling Stone article says that the RS one seems like a good idea, and it is logical to try to understand what lead to this, so it's mainly the photo.QuoteIt does serve the purpose of showing that every monster does not necessarily look like a monster.Is everyone objecting to them using that photo, or that they are writing an article about him in the first place?
I like this comment on the pageQuoteIt does serve the purpose of showing that every monster does not necessarily look like a monster.Is everyone objecting to them using that photo, or that they are writing an article about him in the first place?
#RollingStone
HOW FAR THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN,
I USED TO DREAM OF MAKING THE COVER OF ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE, AS IT USED TO BE THE ULTIMATE STATEMENT OF LEGITIMACY FOR AN ASPIRING MUSICIAN AND IT MEANT THAT YOU HAD REALLY MADE IT. OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS, ROLLING STONE HAS BECOME LESS AND LESS ABOUT MUSIC, AND HAS BECOME MORE AND MORE ABOUT BULLSHIT, POP CULTURE NONSENSE. EVEN THOUGH MANY OF US MAY NOT CARE FOR IT, WE WERE ABLE TO LIVE WITH IT...UNTIL THIS.
YOU...DARE...TO...PUT...THE...IMAGE...OF...THE...BOSTON...BOMBER...ON...THE...FUCKING...COVER...OF...YOUR...MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???
YOU HAVE NOT ONLY SUCCEEDED IN BLATANTLY INSULTING AND DISHONORING THE VICTIMS AND FAMILIES WHOSE LIVES WERE FOREVER EFFECTED BY THIS RABID ANIMAL, BUT YOU HAVE NOW GLORIFIED HIS COWARDLY AND UNFORGIVABLE ACT. WHY? BECAUSE IT WILL SELL MAGAZINES? BECAUSE IT WILL CREATE CONTROVERSY? BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY DO SYMPATHIZE WITH THIS ABHORRENT, COWARDLY, PIECE OF SHIT? YOU HAVE MADE IT ATTRACTIVE AND VALIDATED THE ACT, TO A WHOLE NEW GENERATION OF WANNA BE TERRORISTS SEEKING MARTYRDOM AND INFAMY. YOU, AND YOUR KIND ARE THE REASON WHY PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY CAN GO OUT "IN A BLAZE OF GLORY" WHILE MURDERING INNOCENTS. HONESTLY, AND I MEAN THIS FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART...GO...FUCK...YOURSELVES.
THE NEXT TERRORIST/MURDERING INCIDENT, BE IT ANOTHER BOMBER, OR A MADMAN WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE, UNLEASHING FIRE UPON A SCHOOL FULL OF CHILDREN, IS ON YOU.
MAY YOUR CONSCIENCES (IF YOU EVEN HAVE THEM) WEIGH IMMEASURABLE HEAVY ON YOU FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES. I CONDEMN THIS ACT, THIS NOTION, AND THIS WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT FUCKING RAG OF A MAGAZINE. MAY THE POWERS THAT BE HAVE MERCY UPON YOUR SOULS, BECAUSE THE NEXT TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS, I ASSURE YOU, THE WORLD WONT.
-GO TO HELL
-DAVID
That's the freaking media for you. I'm glad I stopped watching television so long ago. Or reading magazines.
So true. About the only television show not for kids that consistently does well at portraying everything is Doctor Who. To be fair, so do Moffat's other works. In fact, British television tends to outdo ours, barring Dexter and Castle (and Castle wins because they didn't do the same thing Bones did). Also, Batman: TAS is just as good as JL.That's the freaking media for you. I'm glad I stopped watching television so long ago. Or reading magazines.
I for one find it utterly bizarre that children's cartoons offer better entertainment than anything intended for my demographic.
I should not, in a rational world, find that Avatar: The Last Airbender and Justice League are able to portray human nature, politics, and ideological conflict better than Law and Order, newscasters in general, etc.
I honestly don't see the problem.
Because they used the rock star-looking glam selfie. The article even shows, it's done the exact same way as other Rolling Stone covers, with actual rock stars.I honestly don't see the problem.
Nor do I. When time put Hitler on it's cover (more than once) was it glorifying him? No, of course not. Just as Rolling Stone Magazine is not glorifying Dzhokar Tsarnaev or his actions. The answer is not to ignore people like Dzhokar but to try and understand them.
I heard about this on the radio.The point is, Rolling Stone is not Time. Additionally, Stalin, Hitler and Saddam are nothing like him. This is akin to when Time and Newsweek plastered the Columbine killers everywhere. It sends a message to the world that if you want to be famous, you don't need hard work, or anything like that. No, if you want to be famous, if you want to rise above everyone you think oppresses you and go down in history, kill people. Be more shocking than the last one. Blow minds, literally and figuratively. It tells people that bombers and rock stars are interchangeable. Finally, Rolling Stone is a pop culture magazine, not a hard-hitting, fact filled magazine. When they put an image like that on the cover, it's of a rock star. And now, they've done the same rock star glam shot for a murderer. That just further cements the message. You wanna be somebody? You wanna stop being a nobody? Kill people. That's what it says.
Apparently The New York Times has already used this photo and there hasn't been any outcry. Furthermore, magazines like Rolling Stone and Time have shown pictures of Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein on their covers before, and they were frankly much worse than Dzhokar.
Also, I think it is a good reminder that not every monster necessarily has to look like one.
Instead of literally judging a book by its cover, maybe we could talk about the actual content of the article. (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717)The article was extremely well done, and was pretty much what I expected. The article is not the issue. Since nobody seems to mention it, here's the biggest issue:
Uh, it's a cover, a mechanism to sell magazines and maintain brand identity. There is simply no way they'd use anything but the picture that went the best with their own image, and it does in fact match with the article's theme of "Hey, the kid was fucking broken and no one fucking noticed". Which is really much more than I expected.And that's the biggest problem. The implications of their actions are secondary to the money. It's a photo that makes him look like a glamorous rock star to be swooned over. That should be the last thing we make a major photo. There's something deeply wrong when it's somehow acceptable, since it sells.
That there are fangirls over the prick is a secondary thing.
That's not an implication, that's the reality of it.Uh, it's a cover, a mechanism to sell magazines and maintain brand identity. There is simply no way they'd use anything but the picture that went the best with their own image, and it does in fact match with the article's theme of "Hey, the kid was fucking broken and no one fucking noticed". Which is really much more than I expected.And that's the biggest problem. The implications of their actions are secondary to the money. It's a photo that makes him look like a glamorous rock star to be swooned over. That should be the last thing we make a major photo. There's something deeply wrong when it's somehow acceptable, since it sells.
That there are fangirls over the prick is a secondary thing.
How would you have styled the cover, Posthuman?I would have used his mugshot. If you want to join in the serious discourse, you need to act like the rest of the serious magazines. Murder is not to be glamorized, nor should murderers.
And, on one hand, I am glad about that. I'm against obscenity laws and industry wide codes. And, I get their point. They wanted to present the disconnect between how he looked, and how he ended up. So, in fact, I'm going to revise my previous answer, because a better one has come to mind. One side of his face could be that, and the other side, the mugshot. Bam. The point is made, and it's made oh so much better. On one side, the glamorous-looking teen, on the other, the bomber responsible for the death of a small child.That's not an implication, that's the reality of it.Uh, it's a cover, a mechanism to sell magazines and maintain brand identity. There is simply no way they'd use anything but the picture that went the best with their own image, and it does in fact match with the article's theme of "Hey, the kid was fucking broken and no one fucking noticed". Which is really much more than I expected.And that's the biggest problem. The implications of their actions are secondary to the money. It's a photo that makes him look like a glamorous rock star to be swooned over. That should be the last thing we make a major photo. There's something deeply wrong when it's somehow acceptable, since it sells.
That there are fangirls over the prick is a secondary thing.
Acceptable has not been a thing in the media since free speach was a valued thing again rather than innoffensive speach. You know all those various obsenity laws and industry wide codes that fell apart over the last 50 years? Yeah, turns out the industry was just doing everything it could to sell product then too, but were forced into limits. Now they don't have half as many limits and will totally present things however they can.
That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.
That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.
Agreed. I like the article itself, it's informative, but really, Rolling Stone is not where it belongs, and if Rolling Stone is going to do this, they need to learn to do it correctly. If they had done something that doesn't make him look like a rock star, I'd give them a break. However, they did the most "Look up to this person!" style picture possible. That is not acceptable, especially because it really is the worst message to send. You wanna be somebody? You can end lives and go down in history.That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.
I think the problem I have is that a rock magazine really has nothing to do with the Boston bombings. Despite the article being well written, it is a pretty blatant attempt to squeeze every last bit of media attention out of the bombings, which really just goes to show how sick and desperate the media have become.
The media really does idolize celebrity criminals because it makes them money. However in the process they do also affect the opinions of others which is incredibly unhealthy for society. Hence, while stories about the people and events involved in the Boston bombing should be printed, they need to maintain their scope.
RS actually tends to have pretty in-depth articles about politics and current events, which tends to be the cover story when they aren't including a piece on some huge musician (though that cover tends to be a cartoon caricature of the topic). To that end, the piece itself fits in rather well with RS's style, though the cover image is somewhat out of place by comparison. The Colbert Report actually has a pretty good bit on this; it's worth checking out to get some extra perspective.Agreed. I like the article itself, it's informative, but really, Rolling Stone is not where it belongs, and if Rolling Stone is going to do this, they need to learn to do it correctly. If they had done something that doesn't make him look like a rock star, I'd give them a break. However, they did the most "Look up to this person!" style picture possible. That is not acceptable, especially because it really is the worst message to send. You wanna be somebody? You can end lives and go down in history.That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.
I think the problem I have is that a rock magazine really has nothing to do with the Boston bombings. Despite the article being well written, it is a pretty blatant attempt to squeeze every last bit of media attention out of the bombings, which really just goes to show how sick and desperate the media have become.
The media really does idolize celebrity criminals because it makes them money. However in the process they do also affect the opinions of others which is incredibly unhealthy for society. Hence, while stories about the people and events involved in the Boston bombing should be printed, they need to maintain their scope.
Bad people can't look good. That might justify their behavior in the eyes of the weak-minded who already look for any excuse to justify their behavior. Reality is offensive!Bad people shouldn't be made to look good, because when you make bad people look good, it causes people who want to look good to become bad people. You know what's funny? How ironic this is. From the June 1999 issue of Rolling Stone, the article Columbine: Whose Fault Is It? (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/columbine-whose-fault-is-it-19990624) by Marilyn Manson definitely should be read repeatedly by the magazine. The entire thing is applicable, just like every other time these things happen, but the opening is the best for this.
It is sad to think that the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder. The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel's brains in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence. Whether you interpret the Bible as literature or as the final word of whatever God may be, Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around. A half-naked dead man hangs in most homes and around our necks, and we have just taken that for granted all our lives. Is it a symbol of hope or hopelessness? The world's most famous murder-suicide was also the birth of the death icon – the blueprint for celebrity. Unfortunately, for all of their inspiring morality, nowhere in the Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue.
A lot of people forget or never realize that I started my band as a criticism of these very issues of despair and hypocrisy. The name Marilyn Manson has never celebrated the sad fact that America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes. They just created two new ones when they plastered those dip-shits Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' pictures on the front of every newspaper. Don't be surprised if every kid who gets pushed around has two new idols.
We applaud the creation of a bomb whose sole purpose is to destroy all of mankind, and we grow up watching our president's brains splattered all over Texas. Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised. Does anyone think the Civil War was the least bit civil? If television had existed, you could be sure they would have been there to cover it, or maybe even participate in it, like their violent car chase of Princess Di. Disgusting vultures looking for corpses, exploiting, fucking, filming and serving it up for our hungry appetites in a gluttonous display of endless human stupidity.
When it comes down to who's to blame for the high school murders in Littleton, Colorado, throw a rock and you'll hit someone who's guilty. We're the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we're the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake right in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.
Bad people can't look good. That might justify their behavior in the eyes of the weak-minded who already look for any excuse to justify their behavior. Reality is offensive!Bad people shouldn't be made to look good, because when you make bad people look good, it causes people who want to look good to become bad people.
I'm not talking about psychopaths and sociopaths. I am talking about decent people who feel they've been pushed too far. If you read the article, this guy isn't an evil monster, he's a kid who lost his way and felt this was the only option left to him. I'm not saying it's good, or right, or moral. I am saying that when a society makes it clear that your voice will be heard if you permanently silence others, people are going to do that. When a society will make you famous for rehensible actions, it's perfectly logical for someone who feels that they need to be heard to do this. When you feel powerless and voiceless, and the media shows you that your voice will be heard if you kill people, lives are going to be ended.Bad people can't look good. That might justify their behavior in the eyes of the weak-minded who already look for any excuse to justify their behavior. Reality is offensive!Bad people shouldn't be made to look good, because when you make bad people look good, it causes people who want to look good to become bad people.
No, they were already bad people. It doesn't turn people bad, but it might lead bad people to do bad things. Nobody who wasn't already so inclined is going to murder a bunch of people because of a nice photos on magazine covers.
They didn't make him look good, they used an already existing image. We can argue all damn day about how people might react. The fact is that Jahar idolization existed before this issue & we have no way of knowing what effect, if any, this had on that trend.They used an already existing image taken by a teenage boy for his online profile. Of course it's meant to make him look good, and anyone who would argue that the image was not originally created in order to make him appear sexually appealing does not understand teenage boys. Additionally, if the current trend is everyone seeing this as glamorizing him, it is glamorizing him due to the fact that, even if it was unintentional, it still is happening. Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.
They used an already existing image taken by a teenage boy for his online profile. Of course it's meant to make him look good, and anyone who would argue that the image was not originally created in order to make him appear sexually appealing does not understand teenage boys. Additionally, if the current trend is everyone seeing this as glamorizing him, it is glamorizing him due to the fact that, even if it was unintentional, it still is happening. Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.Ok, so I'm still a bit lost here, it's a bad thing because stupid people may continue to do stupid things over it? At least if they don't bother to read the article. Which is obviously utterly critical of this EXACT ISSUE. Since everyone thought, oh he's such a good boy it can't possibly be him. No that must be some other person bombing those people. Showing the glamor for what it is, a thin plating of something attractive over utter shit. As typical.
I got the perfect response to this non-issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0
Ironbite-seriously.
It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good. Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people. That's already what's happening. Showing he had a broken family and a hard past makes him more sympathetic, and as wrong as it is, him looking good makes him even more sympathetic.They used an already existing image taken by a teenage boy for his online profile. Of course it's meant to make him look good, and anyone who would argue that the image was not originally created in order to make him appear sexually appealing does not understand teenage boys. Additionally, if the current trend is everyone seeing this as glamorizing him, it is glamorizing him due to the fact that, even if it was unintentional, it still is happening. Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.Ok, so I'm still a bit lost here, it's a bad thing because stupid people may continue to do stupid things over it? At least if they don't bother to read the article. Which is obviously utterly critical of this EXACT ISSUE. Since everyone thought, oh he's such a good boy it can't possibly be him. No that must be some other person bombing those people. Showing the glamor for what it is, a thin plating of something attractive over utter shit. As typical.
And I'm not sure Rolling Stone ever had a leg to stand on for not glamorising psychotics, they're a rock magazine. They know all about broken little shits with power fantasies and the will/money to carry through with them.
They had covers including the likes of Charles Manson, so I see nothing wrong with this.Yes, they can do what they want with their covers, and we can get extremely pissed at them and get stores to start refusing to sell them. It's called a boycott.
It is their magazine, and their publicity. They can do what they like with their covers.
It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good. Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people. That's already what's happening. Showing he had a broken family and a hard past makes him more sympathetic, and as wrong as it is, him looking good makes him even more sympathetic.How? Why? Are you seriously pulling this out of your ass? I am calling it now you cannot even demonstrate how.
Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.How are you measuring “the risk of perpetuating the idolry”, is this some sort of butthurt subjective measure?
Some are saying The Rolling Stone Magazine has just crossed that line with their “sexed up” cover shot of Boston bomber, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, pictured in full rock star pout, tousled hair, and dreamy eyes staring coolly into the camera. If you didn’t know better, you’d think he was the latest singer/songwriter sensation rather than the guy who blew the crap out of 264 people and killed 3 on a sunny day in Boston.Lol look at all that sensationalism. But the hypocrisy is what really makes that article, deride click gathering measures yet employ them. Quick moar Facebook reaction links!
I never thought I would see the day when Fark comments make a FSTDT seem rational in comparison. Oh jeebus where to start with the fail train:Thanks for the personal attacks. Always enjoy those. Let's ignore the hundreds of examples of fiction using "attractive" as a shorthand for "good guy". (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyEqualsGoodness) It's not like the fiction and artwork of a society say anything about how they view the world, after all. Let's not get into the fact he already has thousands of mostly-female supporters. After all, there's no way that the fact that thousands of people already see him as a sympathetic figure due to his beauty that using a glam selfie would in any way promote this. You do realize that certain pictures are used for setting a specific tone by the press, right? That's why when Republicans talk about Obama they tend to use pictures where his mouth is open or he has one of the millions of split-second stupid faces we make, but when Democrats are reporting on him they use photos that are normally intended for promotional use.It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good. Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people. That's already what's happening. Showing he had a broken family and a hard past makes him more sympathetic, and as wrong as it is, him looking good makes him even more sympathetic.How? Why? Are you seriously pulling this out of your ass? I am calling it now you cannot even demonstrate how.Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.How are you measuring “the risk of perpetuating the idolry”, is this some sort of butthurt subjective measure?QuoteSome are saying The Rolling Stone Magazine has just crossed that line with their “sexed up” cover shot of Boston bomber, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, pictured in full rock star pout, tousled hair, and dreamy eyes staring coolly into the camera. If you didn’t know better, you’d think he was the latest singer/songwriter sensation rather than the guy who blew the crap out of 264 people and killed 3 on a sunny day in Boston.Lol look at all that sensationalism. But the hypocrisy is what really makes that article, deride click gathering measures yet employ them. Quick moar Facebook reaction links!
But my favorite is that reactionary twitter picHis hair and facial style looks like other people’s, TERRORISM!(click to show/hide)
Cullen concluded that the killers weren't part of the Trench Coat Mafia, that they weren't bullied by other students and that they didn't target popular jocks, African-Americans or any other group. A school shooting wasn't their initial intent, he said. They wanted to bomb their school in an attack they hoped would make them more infamous than Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people.How and why will people, according to your prediction, reach that conclusion from just the picture and selective misinterpretation of the article? With no other influence or previous bias. Please do provide at least an example.
It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good.I find it funny that you literally ripped a page out of Fox News’s handbook and provided justification for it without a hint of irony or self-awareness.
Let's ignore the hundreds of examples of fiction using "attractive" as a shorthand for "good guy". (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyEqualsGoodness)Quick ignore all the aversions listed on that page in addition to the playing with section because it does not fit your argument.
It's not like the fiction and artwork of a society say anything about how they view the world, after all.[Citation needed] But let’s have some fun with this, FATAL. By the standard you set forth: FATAL being a work of fiction, containing artwork and being published in the United States must then represent how society within the United States views the world. Garb yourself a live one! Over generalization, how does it fucking work?
It's Let's not get into the fact he already has thousands of mostly-female supporters. After all, there's no way that the fact that thousands of people already see him as a sympathetic figure due to his beauty that using a glam selfie would in any way promote this.Lol good old Argumentum ad populum. How can X amount of people be wrong after all? :P
I'm with Ironbite, this topic is pretty masturbatory.Always rustle the jimmies.
I'm with Ironbite, this topic is pretty masturbatory.Always rustle the jimmies.
Did I claim "With no other influence or previous bias"? No. I understand, most won't be affected. However, the type of people who could actually see it that way are the ones who are likely to kill people.Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people.How and why will people, according to your prediction, reach that conclusion from just the picture and selective misinterpretation of the article? With no other influence or previous bias. Please do provide at least an example.
I didn't justify anything, I said that's what our society does. I have no idea how the hell that's supposed to justify bias in the media. I was saying "this is what is done". I never said "this is what should be done". I was simply saying that when you make someone look pretty, it makes people less likely to be negative towards them. For example, attractive women get lighter sentences than unattractive women, and overall, women get less death penalty sentences for the same crimes that men get them for.It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good.I find it funny that you literally ripped a page out of Fox News’s handbook and provided justification for it without a hint of irony or self-awareness.
(http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/O/Od/fark_OdWrkpB5F_qYeLl_ezpskL_AxAE.jpg?t=iYmTAbWO3jh4tDf3xZCwHw&f=1374465600)
This standard you have set justifies bias in the media via image impression. Journalism is to overcome such hang-ups and report truthfully and informatively.
The fact is, historically, it has leaned more towards playing it straight, and still does. Those who play with it or advert it notice the common trend and purposely play with our expectations.Let's ignore the hundreds of examples of fiction using "attractive" as a shorthand for "good guy". (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyEqualsGoodness)Quick ignore all the aversions listed on that page in addition to the playing with section because it does not fit your argument.
You're joking, right? I'm sorry, I was pretty sure this was common knowledge. I was pretty sure that every knew that we study the tales and art of periods of time and societies in order to gain a better insight to them. I was pretty sure we study the art and statues of the Greeks to see their obsession with perfection. I was pretty sure that we study the more realistic artwork of ancient Rome to see how they differed from the Greeks. I was pretty sure we studied the uniform style of the Egyptian artwork to gain a better insight into the ceremonial nature of it, as well as their culture and their creation myths. I was pretty sure that it's a general thing that the creations of a society reflect their culture. I was pretty sure that everyone learned that in high school, but I guess not.It's not like the fiction and artwork of a society say anything about how they view the world, after all.[Citation needed] But let’s have some fun with this, FATAL. By the standard you set forth: FATAL being a work of fiction, containing artwork and being published in the United States must then represent how society within the United States views the world. Garb yourself a live one! Over generalization, how does it fucking work?
That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm not saying they're not wrong. In fact, I think they are wrong. I'm saying, if that many people already believe it, then why would you think more can't? It's like going "Well, all the religious people now believe their faiths, but I'm sure nobody would ever convert to them!"It's Let's not get into the fact he already has thousands of mostly-female supporters. After all, there's no way that the fact that thousands of people already see him as a sympathetic figure due to his beauty that using a glam selfie would in any way promote this.Lol good old Argumentum ad populum. How can X amount of people be wrong after all? :P
My only input on the matter is that, if I had to choose between agreeing with PosthumanHeresy and agreeing with TIM, I'm going to agree with the squirrels.That's fine, I don't mind. Seriously, I really don't mind disagreement. I'll address points, and respond to criticism and try to persuade, but I legitimately don't mind disagreement. It just bothers me when people completely dismiss me out of hand and insult me, especially when I've read up on the thing I'm talking about and have stuff to argue and I'm just being insulted. Honestly, I feel a little bad for getting as pissed and sarcastic as I did there (and that sentence just set off a "Holy shit you've changed" alarm in my head), but that's just my biggest berserk button. Disagree, fine. Insult and dismiss, not fine. I guess I'm mainly posting this to say, sorry for being pissed.
The squirrels go "chitter chitter". Very persuasive.
Huh?Masturbation joke, jimmies is slang for testicles. Eg Jimmy kick.
Did I claim "With no other influence or previous bias"? No.Tell me how can a “completely foreign message” be completely foreign when previously experienced?
I didn't justify anything, I said that's what our society does. I have no idea how the hell that's supposed to justify bias in the media. I was saying "this is what is done". I never said "this is what should be done".Actually you did, you set a moral standard, “by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good.” By making him look good other crazy and/or desperate people will murder others: “They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people.”, “However, the type of people who could actually see it that way are the ones who are likely to kill people.”
The fact is, historically, it has leaned more towards playing it straight, and still does.[citation needed]
Those who play with it or advert it notice the common trend and purposely play with our expectations.Expectations of fictional stories not reality, there is a disconnect between the two. In fact there is an sub forum here dedicated to arguing that over and over again. (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?board=11.0)
You're joking, right? I'm sorry, I was pretty sure this was common knowledge. I was pretty sure that every knew that we study the tales and art of periods of time and societies in order to gain a better insight to them. I was pretty sure we study the art and statues of the Greeks to see their obsession with perfection. I was pretty sure that we study the more realistic artwork of ancient Rome to see how they differed from the Greeks. I was pretty sure we studied the uniform style of the Egyptian artwork to gain a better insight into the ceremonial nature of it, as well as their culture and their creation myths. I was pretty sure that it's a general thing that the creations of a society reflect their culture. I was pretty sure that everyone learned that in high school, but I guess not.Why do you keep over generalizing? Art is a primary source, art by subject matter only provides insight towards an aspect of a culture in a society within a timeframe. That aspect is not inherently fictional or nonfictional until verified as pertaining to a fictional or nonfictional account.
That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm not saying they're not wrong. In fact, I think they are wrong. I'm saying, if that many people already believe it, then why would you think more can't? It's like going "Well, all the religious people now believe their faiths, but I'm sure nobody would ever convert to them!""Why are so many people attracted to the Pontiac Grand Prix? It could be that so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix because—so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix!" (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html) Overlaps with circular reasoning too! (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html)
Completely foreign message from that which was intended. Didn't explain well enough, I guess.Did I claim "With no other influence or previous bias"? No.Tell me how can a “completely foreign message” be completely foreign when previously experienced?
Okay, I actually get your point here, and will admit that yes, it could go badly. However, you failed to read the quote about Columbine I posted. They had intended to bomb the cafeteria and then swoop in and kill the last few survivors, because they wanted to top the Oklahoma City bomber. Additionally, the American Psychological Association believes that the Virginia Tech shooting was possibly inspired by Columbine, and says that the high coverage of these types of people is likely a factor in the new ones actions.I didn't justify anything, I said that's what our society does. I have no idea how the hell that's supposed to justify bias in the media. I was saying "this is what is done". I never said "this is what should be done".Actually you did, you set a moral standard, “by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good.” By making him look good other crazy and/or desperate people will murder others: “They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people.”, “However, the type of people who could actually see it that way are the ones who are likely to kill people.”
You literally called for image impression over journalism for the sake of preventing a perceived threat.
Which brings me to the questions I asked previously. How? And Why? You need more than a claim to prove such otherwise your claim has no grounds. Especially since such rapidly turns into censorship via harm/harm’s way/sufficiently harmful justification faster than you can say Censorship By Proxy (http://www.law.yale.edu/Panel_5_Censorship_by_Proxy.rtf).
Go read Greek, Roman and other ancient myths. Then go back to the fiction of most centuries of the west. In general, barring the occasional Sherlock Holmes and his ilk, most heroes have been attractive. Just look at most of Hollywood's output, ever.The fact is, historically, it has leaned more towards playing it straight, and still does.[citation needed]
Still, fictional stories tell about a culture. I really don't need to rehash that rant, because it's already been said.Those who play with it or advert it notice the common trend and purposely play with our expectations.Expectations of fictional stories not reality, there is a disconnect between the two. In fact there is an sub forum here dedicated to arguing that over and over again. (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?board=11.0)
Yes, it provides an insight towards an aspect of culture in a timeframe. I don't see how you can't agree with me on this, because you're saying what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether it's fictional, I'm saying that the common tropes and outlook of a society says stuff about that society.You're joking, right? I'm sorry, I was pretty sure this was common knowledge. I was pretty sure that every knew that we study the tales and art of periods of time and societies in order to gain a better insight to them. I was pretty sure we study the art and statues of the Greeks to see their obsession with perfection. I was pretty sure that we study the more realistic artwork of ancient Rome to see how they differed from the Greeks. I was pretty sure we studied the uniform style of the Egyptian artwork to gain a better insight into the ceremonial nature of it, as well as their culture and their creation myths. I was pretty sure that it's a general thing that the creations of a society reflect their culture. I was pretty sure that everyone learned that in high school, but I guess not.Why do you keep over generalizing? Art is a primary source, art by subject matter only provides insight towards an aspect of a culture in a society within a timeframe. That aspect is not inherently fictional or nonfictional until verified as pertaining to a fictional or nonfictional account.
I'm not using circular reasoning. I'm saying, they're attracted to him because he looks sympathetic and attractive. From there, they're opened up to the idea of him being an innocent figure or a martyr, or someone to emulate due to his fame. I've already cited other examples where people have looked at mass murder on the news and gone "I should do that".That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm not saying they're not wrong. In fact, I think they are wrong. I'm saying, if that many people already believe it, then why would you think more can't? It's like going "Well, all the religious people now believe their faiths, but I'm sure nobody would ever convert to them!""Why are so many people attracted to the Pontiac Grand Prix? It could be that so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix because—so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix!" (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html) Overlaps with circular reasoning too! (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html)
Okay, I actually get your point here, and will admit that yes, it could go badly. However, you failed to read the quote about Columbine I posted. They had intended to bomb the cafeteria and then swoop in and kill the last few survivors, because they wanted to top the Oklahoma City bomber.
The subtler cruelty comes in the long-term effects of speculation and copycat-baiting; of simplification and assumption and shallow debate; of turning a living place into its most horrific day — “Newtown,” “Aurora,” “Columbine” — and then refusing to let the locals opt out of endless, image-bloated reruns.
Additionally, the American Psychological Association believes that the Virginia Tech shooting was possibly inspired by Columbine, and says that the high coverage of these types of people is likely a factor in the new ones actions.Did they establish causality? Because otherwise its bullshit.
Still, fictional stories tell about a culture. I really don't need to rehash that rant, because it's already been said.Fictional stories tell about an aspect of a culture within a time frame.
Yes, it provides an insight towards an aspect of culture in a timeframe. I don't see how you can't agree with me on this, because you're saying what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether it's fictional, I'm saying that the common tropes and outlook of a society says stuff about that society.So close yet so far, do not assume a primary source provides a complete and accurate picture.
Go read Greek, Roman and other ancient myths. Then go back to the fiction of most centuries of the west. In general, barring the occasional Sherlock Holmes and his ilk, most heroes have been attractive. Just look at most of Hollywood's output, ever.Those fictional stories mutate according to a cultural framework in a time frame. Do not confound.
I'm not using circular reasoning.
I'm saying, if that many people already believe it, then why would you think more can't?This premise is both Argumentum Ad Populum and circular reasoning.
You're pretty much arguing my point because you fail to understand what you are reading. I am not arguing they are predictable or rational. I'm arguing that they could see someone kill others and be inspired by those crimes to commit theirs, in an effort to become just as famous, to go down in history. Which, you know, is exactly what you just showed them saying. So, you literally just posted information that shows they were inspired by the publicity and fame of another killer to argue that people will not be inspired by the publicity and fame of another killer. Is there even an actual name for arguing for your opponent on accident?Okay, I actually get your point here, and will admit that yes, it could go badly. However, you failed to read the quote about Columbine I posted. They had intended to bomb the cafeteria and then swoop in and kill the last few survivors, because they wanted to top the Oklahoma City bomber.QuoteThe subtler cruelty comes in the long-term effects of speculation and copycat-baiting; of simplification and assumption and shallow debate; of turning a living place into its most horrific day — “Newtown,” “Aurora,” “Columbine” — and then refusing to let the locals opt out of endless, image-bloated reruns.
This begs the question, what is copycat-baiting? It seems to be the lasting media attention given to a story about mass murder. Assuming that is accurate, the arguments put forth by you and Salon work upon the assumption that psychotic persons act in a predictably rational yet reactive manner. This is countered by the very book you cited!
Eric was a psychopath Dylan was “recruited.” The records they left, the proverbial Basement Tapes.(click to show/hide)
Eric was deluded due to his psychosis.(click to show/hide)
Did you think the info in Chapter 8. Maximum Human Density stated a cause? You might as well blame Doom by what is stated in the book.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Yep, kids, people with a decade of training and decades of experience cannot speak from their expert position on the human mind. If they don't have 100% proof, it's bullshit, even if they have researched the criminal mind for decades. Thank you for insulting an entire field that saves thousands of lives and saying that all their research and knowledge is bullshit.Additionally, the American Psychological Association believes that the Virginia Tech shooting was possibly inspired by Columbine, and says that the high coverage of these types of people is likely a factor in the new ones actions.Did they establish causality? Because otherwise its bullshit.
So much over generalization, why?
One work shows one aspect. The total works of a society show many, many aspects. And, no personal bias, I'm simply pointing out that there are characters written to be less attractive, and even then, people increase their attractiveness for adaptations. Fairy tales, myths and fiction all tend to have some sort of message in them, even if it's minor. They are all stories that reflect their society's viewpoints. Just because one is old and one is new doesn't mean they're unrelated.Still, fictional stories tell about a culture. I really don't need to rehash that rant, because it's already been said.Fictional stories tell about an aspect of a culture within a time frame.Yes, it provides an insight towards an aspect of culture in a timeframe. I don't see how you can't agree with me on this, because you're saying what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether it's fictional, I'm saying that the common tropes and outlook of a society says stuff about that society.So close yet so far, do not assume a primary source provides a complete and accurate picture.Go read Greek, Roman and other ancient myths. Then go back to the fiction of most centuries of the west. In general, barring the occasional Sherlock Holmes and his ilk, most heroes have been attractive. Just look at most of Hollywood's output, ever.Those fictional stories mutate according to a cultural framework in a time frame. Do not confound.
“Sherlock Holmes and his ilk”? Me thinks your personal bias is bleeding into this and affecting your judgment via minimization.
Did you just confound Hollywood and ancient myths? Because I am not sure if those with a degree in History or those with a degree in Literature would foam at the mouth more over that.
No, it really isn't. You keep using those terms, but you don't understand them. Argumentum Ad Populum makes the fact that something is popular as a reason it is good, and should be popular. I am saying that because something is popular, it can get more popular. I do not say it is good or should be. Additionally, this is not circular reasoning. Let's just go with the classic example: The Bible. To Christians, The Bible is true because it is the Word of God. We know this because it says it is the Word of God. We know this is true because the Bible is true. The Bible is true because it is the Word of God. That is circular reasoning. I am saying that due to this making him famous and look attractive, the mentally disturbed can be inspired by him, as shown by past cases of the mentally disturbed being inspired by people who killed others. That's not circular reasoning. That is making a statement based on past evidence and occurrences.I'm not using circular reasoning.I'm saying, if that many people already believe it, then why would you think more can't?This premise is both Argumentum Ad Populum and circular reasoning.
Wait, this isn't a goddamn controversy, the bomber already got 7 million hours on tv!I find that just as sickening. I find the press Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got sickening. I find the press Richard Ramirez got sickening. I find the press John Wayne Gacy got sickening. I find the press David Berkowitz got sickening. I find the press Jeffery Dahmer got sickening. I find the press Charles Manson got sickening (including him being on Rolling Stone). I find the press Adam Lanza got sickening. I find the press they all get equally disgusting. To me, this isn't special or new, but I also am not one of the people who is just now reacting. I've always been against this. You can't use the past ones to defend it in my eyes, because they're equally horrible. The Columbine killers wanted to be famous. They got their wish at the hands of the media that sees dollar signs in carnage and posh lifestyles in the suffering of others.
I actually agree with PosthumanHeresy a bit. The point he's making is the same point that Roger Ebert made in this article.I don't agree with the "censor everything" mindset, and I did enjoy the article. That said, completely agreed. Outside of maybe Rachel Scott, how many Columbine victim names do most people know? How about the victims of the VT shooter? The Dark Knight Rises guy? Dzhokhar's victims? Richard Ramirez's? John Wayne Gacy's? Ted Kaczynski's? Jeffrey Dahmer's? Charles Manson's (outside of Sharon Tate)? Chances are, the answer to all of those is little to none. The only way we remember the victims is if they were already big, like JFK, or close to someone big, like Sharon Tate. Rachel Scott only gets remembered due to her family's efforts in changing the world in her name. Otherwise, the dead are ignored, while the press focuses on the killers.
http://boingboing.net/2012/12/15/roger-ebert-on-how-the-press-r.html
The point that PosthumanHeresy, Roger Ebert, Marilyn Manson have been trying to make is that when a serial/killer/mass murderer-type does something, their mug is all over the place to the point where they're practically celebrities. Little is spent on the victims or their memory (apart from a few poignant human interest & candlelight/prayer vigil stories). In today's hyper-obsessed with celebrity-culture, a person with psychopathic tendencies or other severe mental/social issues may see their face, name, biography & maybe a manifesto plastered all over the place and get weird ideas.
I'm not saying, "censor everything" and I'm aware that folks are interested in what makes such folks tick....why they did it. That said, the point is that they should not put up their manifestos and they should cut back on show their face & names and they should focus more energy on those lives lost. They can still talk about the culprit but don't shove their visage everywhere!
Now, there have always been mass murders but you'd have to admit, something is up when there's a mass-murder practically every month in this country....and the media hypes it all.
I have nothing against the article. It may be a valuable cautionary tale. The cover doesn't make me rage or anything though I do admit they chose an overly photogenic pic. I would have preferred a split-screen effect with "Dzokhar being a regular guy in school or goofing around" on the left & "Marathon surveillance photo" on the right.
You're pretty much arguing my point because you fail to understand what you are reading. I am not arguing they are predictable or rational.You are making a prediction about psychopaths, in the logic of if X then Y. I will demonstrate, part X is underlined, part Y is bolded.
I'm arguing that they could see someone kill others and be inspired by those crimes to commit theirs, in an effort to become just as famous, to go down in history.Psychosis causes of a psychotic’s behavior first and foremost. Anything could be seen as a justification by a psychotic because their cognition is warped. The wanton for harm and the behaviors associated with it is present since childhood.
Which, you know, is exactly what you just showed them saying. So, you literally just posted information that shows they were inspired by the publicity and fame of another killer to argue that people will not be inspired by the publicity and fame of another killer. Is there even an actual name for arguing for your opponent on accident?Ignoring primary sources in favor of inference is not how research is conducted. Re read what I quoted, I will make it easier just the parts bolded:
though Eric discussed topping Oklahoma City, so they may have been planning to echo that anniversary, as Tim McVeigh had done with Waco.Inference, the usage of “so they may have.”
Oklahoma City was a one-note performance: McVeigh set his timer and walked away; he didn't even see his spectacle unfold. Eric dreamed much bigger than that.Difference in methodology, tell me do copycats use different methods?
"it'll be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world."If the mention of Oklahoma in their journal is to count as evidence of inspiration, what disqualifies the LA Riots, WWII, Vietnam, Duke and Doom? Each of them were equal in Eric’s psychotic mind.
Yep, kids, people with a decade of training and decades of experience cannot speak from their expert position on the human mind. If they don't have 100% proof, it's bullshit, even if they have researched the criminal mind for decades. Thank you for insulting an entire field that saves thousands of lives and saying that all their research and knowledge is bullshit.Tell me, what is the difference between correlation and causality? Take a guess which one needs to be established to determine if one event causes the other.
One work shows one aspect. The total works of a society show many, many aspects. And, no personal bias, I'm simply pointing out that there are characters written to be less attractive, and even then, people increase their attractiveness for adaptations. Fairy tales, myths and fiction all tend to have some sort of message in them, even if it's minor. They are all stories that reflect their society's viewpoints. Just because one is old and one is new doesn't mean they're unrelated.Good grief qualify that they mutate according to a cultural framework in a time frame. The message and interpretation changes via such. To ignore such is to ignore the history of the work.
No, it really isn't. You keep using those terms, but you don't understand them. Argumentum Ad Populum makes the fact that something is popular as a reason it is good, and should be popular. I am saying that because something is popular, it can get more popular. I do not say it is good or should be.The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html)
Additionally, this is not circular reasoning. Let's just go with the classic example: The Bible. To Christians, The Bible is true because it is the Word of God. We know this because it says it is the Word of God. We know this is true because the Bible is true. The Bible is true because it is the Word of God. That is circular reasoning.
I am saying that because something is popular, it can get more popular.Tell me, how is the aspect of popular not elliptical?
I actually agree with PosthumanHeresy a bit. The point he's making is the same point that Roger Ebert made in this article.I don't agree with the "censor everything" mindset, and I did enjoy the article. That said, completely agreed. Outside of maybe Rachel Scott, how many Columbine victim names do most people know? How about the victims of the VT shooter? The Dark Knight Rises guy? Dzhokhar's victims? Richard Ramirez's? John Wayne Gacy's? Ted Kaczynski's? Jeffrey Dahmer's? Charles Manson's (outside of Sharon Tate)? Chances are, the answer to all of those is little to none. The only way we remember the victims is if they were already big, like JFK, or close to someone big, like Sharon Tate. Rachel Scott only gets remembered due to her family's efforts in changing the world in her name. Otherwise, the dead are ignored, while the press focuses on the killers.
http://boingboing.net/2012/12/15/roger-ebert-on-how-the-press-r.html
The point that PosthumanHeresy, Roger Ebert, Marilyn Manson have been trying to make is that when a serial/killer/mass murderer-type does something, their mug is all over the place to the point where they're practically celebrities. Little is spent on the victims or their memory (apart from a few poignant human interest & candlelight/prayer vigil stories). In today's hyper-obsessed with celebrity-culture, a person with psychopathic tendencies or other severe mental/social issues may see their face, name, biography & maybe a manifesto plastered all over the place and get weird ideas.
I'm not saying, "censor everything" and I'm aware that folks are interested in what makes such folks tick....why they did it. That said, the point is that they should not put up their manifestos and they should cut back on show their face & names and they should focus more energy on those lives lost. They can still talk about the culprit but don't shove their visage everywhere!
Now, there have always been mass murders but you'd have to admit, something is up when there's a mass-murder practically every month in this country....and the media hypes it all.
I have nothing against the article. It may be a valuable cautionary tale. The cover doesn't make me rage or anything though I do admit they chose an overly photogenic pic. I would have preferred a split-screen effect with "Dzokhar being a regular guy in school or goofing around" on the left & "Marathon surveillance photo" on the right.
Except it has been shown that school shootings were on the decline before Columbine, and on the rise after Columbine, and still are. In fact, mass shootings are still becoming more common. Now, you'll likely still argue with this, but when something is going one way, and then something happens and the trend reverses, it is the most logical thing to say that the happening is what caused it.You're pretty much arguing my point because you fail to understand what you are reading. I am not arguing they are predictable or rational.You are making a prediction about psychopaths, in the logic of if X then Y. I will demonstrate, part X is underlined, part Y is bolded.I'm arguing that they could see someone kill others and be inspired by those crimes to commit theirs, in an effort to become just as famous, to go down in history.Psychosis causes of a psychotic’s behavior first and foremost. Anything could be seen as a justification by a psychotic because their cognition is warped. The wanton for harm and the behaviors associated with it is present since childhood.
I never called them copycats. In fact, I made a point to say these people aren't copycats. They're inspired. As in, they aren't looking to mimic the crime, but the result, and may even desire to top it. Additionally, they're still showing the number one point I'm making, which you refuse to address. As he said, he "want[ed] to leave a lasting impression on the world". He wanted to be remembered for this, and famous for this. He knew that killing people would make him famous. Someone explain to me how you get famous in the 1990s without the media, because I'd certainly like to know it.Which, you know, is exactly what you just showed them saying. So, you literally just posted information that shows they were inspired by the publicity and fame of another killer to argue that people will not be inspired by the publicity and fame of another killer. Is there even an actual name for arguing for your opponent on accident?Ignoring primary sources in favor of inference is not how research is conducted. Re read what I quoted, I will make it easier just the parts bolded:Quotethough Eric discussed topping Oklahoma City, so they may have been planning to echo that anniversary, as Tim McVeigh had done with Waco.Inference, the usage of “so they may have.”QuoteOklahoma City was a one-note performance: McVeigh set his timer and walked away; he didn't even see his spectacle unfold. Eric dreamed much bigger than that.Difference in methodology, tell me do copycats use different methods?Quote"it'll be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world."If the mention of Oklahoma in their journal is to count as evidence of inspiration, what disqualifies the LA Riots, WWII, Vietnam, Duke and Doom? Each of them were equal in Eric’s psychotic mind.
It cannot be established 100%, obviously, because he's dead. However, if the experts on a subject speak on the subject, their opinion counts more than a random person on the internet. The experts have spoken, and they disagree with you. They are far more knowledgeable than you on this. We don't like it when fundies try to argue with scientists on things they don't understand, and I doubt you're nearly as educated in psychology as the American Psychological Association, so please don't do the exact same thing that the fundies do when they argue with biologists, geneticists, archeologists and geologists.Yep, kids, people with a decade of training and decades of experience cannot speak from their expert position on the human mind. If they don't have 100% proof, it's bullshit, even if they have researched the criminal mind for decades. Thank you for insulting an entire field that saves thousands of lives and saying that all their research and knowledge is bullshit.Tell me, what is the difference between correlation and causality? Take a guess which one needs to be established to determine if one event causes the other.
I'm not saying the message of a work mutates to the timeframe it's told. I'm saying a work reflects the mindset of the timeframe it is from.One work shows one aspect. The total works of a society show many, many aspects. And, no personal bias, I'm simply pointing out that there are characters written to be less attractive, and even then, people increase their attractiveness for adaptations. Fairy tales, myths and fiction all tend to have some sort of message in them, even if it's minor. They are all stories that reflect their society's viewpoints. Just because one is old and one is new doesn't mean they're unrelated.Good grief qualify that they mutate according to a cultural framework in a time frame. The message and interpretation changes via such. To ignore such is to ignore the history of the work.
Okay, let's try putting this into different words. Their conclusion is that he is innocent, or at least, a martyr, or someone to be inspired by. I am not arguing for their conclusion. In fact, I am opposed to their conclusion. I am saying that it is dangerous to give them someone they can see that way, but I think that they are wrong. I am arguing that although it is popular, it is wrong. That is not Argumentum Ad Populum.No, it really isn't. You keep using those terms, but you don't understand them. Argumentum Ad Populum makes the fact that something is popular as a reason it is good, and should be popular. I am saying that because something is popular, it can get more popular. I do not say it is good or should be.The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html)
Because, I am not arguing that he is getting popular by being popular. I am arguing that, because he has gotten popular, trends can continue and he can become more popular, not because he is popular, but for the same reasons he got popular with the first group.Additionally, this is not circular reasoning. Let's just go with the classic example: The Bible. To Christians, The Bible is true because it is the Word of God. We know this because it says it is the Word of God. We know this is true because the Bible is true. The Bible is true because it is the Word of God. That is circular reasoning.I am saying that because something is popular, it can get more popular.Tell me, how is the aspect of popular not elliptical?
Correlation does not imply causation. When you are dealing with psychological things, you need direct proof before you make loaded statements.You're not a mentally unhinged person who is susceptible to it. At least, I hope not.
Does Media Coverage turn sociopaths into school shooters? I can say in my own case it doesn't. I've seen manifestos, numerous cases of the media giving fame to killers, and I haven't done anything wrong to anyone.
You don't have cause and effect evidence. You have correlation. Which does not imply causation.
End of story. Buh Bye.
Please readRead it, still don't agree. The writer used the same defense of "EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT!" He may have also tried to give an explanation of why, but a large portion of his argument relied on "Nobody complained about the NYT doing it, or the others doing it". I have already addressed this argument. I find it just as sickening when they do it. Additionally, I'd like to point out to TIM, this is Argumentum Ad Populum. It's acceptable because everyone else is doing it. That's what Rolling Stone just said. I am saying it is unacceptable even though they all are doing it and have done it. They are arguing that it is acceptable because everyone is doing it and has done it.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719
I don't really buy it but if indeed, people at the magazine are "in shock and very freaked out", after they've seen the backlash - why aren't they donating ALL of the proceeds from the magazine sales to one of the countless funds for the victims of the bombing?
Sorry Matt. Not buying it. You at Rolling Stone know EXACTLY what and how your magazine appeals to people. You're probably too young to remember the Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show song from the 70's that glamorized being on the cover of RS. That, sir, is the common perception about those whose photographs appear on your cover. RS is NOT Time or Newsweek. You want to print an article about a terrorist? Have at it. Just don't put him on the cover if you expect to keep your readership. He's not a rock star. Or an idol. He's a criminal.
The article was very good and anyone who read it would know Rolling Stone's position on Tsarnaev is not apologist. That being said, I don't think putting him on the cover was a smart choice. Making the cover of RS is rock's holy grail. It's an honor to make the cover and should be reserved for those who earn it with positive contributions to pop culture. This is not the place for a murderer. Remember that scene in "Almost Famous"? They weren't singing about being on the cover of Time or Newsweek, they were singing about being on the cover of Rolling Stone f'ing magazine! That's because being on the cover is the height of cool!!! Rolling Stone, you're better than that and you know it. I don't disagree with Taibbi, RS is a hard-news source. Some of the stories they cover are fantastic and more credible than many other "main-stream" media outlets. But come on, RS, this guy on the cover...the cover??? I'm a faithful RS fan and still will be but I'm definitely disappointed. You must know that the general perception of this choice for a cover image would make it look as though you're glamorizing a terrorist. Perception is reality and that's exactly what you did in this issue. It's really a shame...
Yeah, most people understand this. My question is what do we really need to understand about Johar? The answer is nothing. RS decided to cover this story bc they knew Johar had sex appeal and by putting him on the cover would cause a lot of controversy, hedging that it'd probably be a windfall in the short term and they could do damage control by the time the next issue came out. This is precisely why they didn't do stories on Adam Lanza, the nut in Arizona, and James Holmes. They don't have sex appeal. They don't look like rock stars. 'And, in considering how to sell the story and defend themselves against complaints about putting Johar's mug on the cover, they pitched the story to the public as a great way "to gain a more complete understanding" of how tragedies like the Boston Marathon bombing happen. Really?
I appreciate that Rolling Stone considers itself a publisher of hard news, but to me both Rolling Stone and the New York Times (as well as the other magazine covers you show by example) are dead wrong in publishing terrorists pictures. Why? Would-be terrorists. These losers have little to live for but creating havoc, and any attention they get for it is positive reinforcement to them. Ask any criminal profiler. Terrorists could care less if RS is a hard news magazine. And the terrorists-in-waiting are given an extra reason for planning heinous acts whenever they see the media featuring these people, who otherwise go unnoticed throughout their miserable lives. Have some social responsibility, Rolling Stone. If I were a publisher, I would just refer to known terrorists as A__holes, and not use their name or picture.
Even if one has been long aware of the fact that RS produces outstanding investigative journalism, one can be offended by the cover. As Matt himself points out, it's the perception of the magazine that puts the photo in context. Yes, the New York Times ran the photo on its front page, but you'll never see beefcake shots of Justin Bieber or Johnny Depp on the Times' front page. RS editors should have considered what their cover photos traditionally represent when choosing to use such a gauzy image of a murderer.
Or it could be that in the last 20 years it has been celebrities, rock stars and important or presidential political figures (Bush, Obama, Romney) on the cover. People that are idolized and famous.
Except it has been shown that school shootings were on the decline before Columbine, and on the rise after Columbine, and still are. In fact, mass shootings are still becoming more common. Now, you'll likely still argue with this, but when something is going one way, and then something happens and the trend reverses, it is the most logical thing to say that the happening is what caused it.
Well, school violence & homicide (http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/violence-in-schools/school-violence-myths) are both in decline. So PHH just pulled that stat out of his butt. However, if it were true, I could just as easily say that Marilyn Manson and gothic music are responsible for the shootings since Manson preceded Columbine, and therefore this hypothetical raise in violence.
Well, school violence & homicide (http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/violence-in-schools/school-violence-myths) are both in decline. So PHH just pulled that stat out of his butt. However, if it were true, I could just as easily say that Marilyn Manson and gothic music are responsible for the shootings since Manson preceded Columbine, and therefore this hypothetical raise in violence.Okay, I screwed up my info there. I meant to say mass shootings are on the rise, not school shootings. Thanks for catching that, though.
Well, school violence & homicide (http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/violence-in-schools/school-violence-myths) are both in decline. So PHH just pulled that stat out of his butt. However, if it were true, I could just as easily say that Marilyn Manson and gothic music are responsible for the shootings since Manson preceded Columbine, and therefore this hypothetical raise in violence.
I was at High School in '94 - man we were tough
As he said, he "want[ed] to leave a lasting impression on the world". He wanted to be remembered for this, and famous for this. He knew that killing people would make him famous. Someone explain to me how you get famous in the 1990s without the media, because I'd certainly like to know it.Eric’s psychotic urges to cause harm existed since childhood because he was psychotic. As I quoted before anything was a justification. He simply did not view an event one day and then spontaneously decide that it was time to plan a mass murder. Psychosis does not work that way.
"it'll be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world."Videogames, history, television, his own perceived self-styled rebel rousing. To censor the media in an attempt to stop a psychotic person is an ineffectual reactive measure. Finding and treating such psychotic persons before they cause harm is how to stop them.
It cannot be established 100%, obviously, because he's dead. However, if the experts on a subject speak on the subject, their opinion counts more than a random person on the internet. The experts have spoken, and they disagree with you. They are far more knowledgeable than you on this. We don't like it when fundies try to argue with scientists on things they don't understand, and I doubt you're nearly as educated in psychology as the American Psychological Association, so please don't do the exact same thing that the fundies do when they argue with biologists, geneticists, archeologists and geologists.Look at all those words and anger yet not a link to a work or source showing a shred of causality.
I'm not saying the message of a work mutates to the timeframe it's told. I'm saying a work reflects the mindset of the timeframe it is from.The original work yes, as culture changes the work is changed with it. Common confounding factors include oral tradition and translation anomalies/loss of context. Sleeping Beauty is not raped in the modern versions of the story for a reason.
There is a new serial killer in Cleveland who allegedly was influenced by the publicity of a different Cleveland serial killer. This stuff is still seriously rare.Rare or not, people are dying.
First off, I am not blaming fiction. I am blaming flesh-and-blood killers who are real people in reality getting real media attention by the real media in real life. Secondly, it's still the thing that set him off. It was the catalyst.As he said, he "want[ed] to leave a lasting impression on the world". He wanted to be remembered for this, and famous for this. He knew that killing people would make him famous. Someone explain to me how you get famous in the 1990s without the media, because I'd certainly like to know it.Eric’s psychotic urges to cause harm existed since childhood because he was psychotic. As I quoted before anything was a justification. He simply did not view an event one day and then spontaneously decide that it was time to plan a mass murder. Psychosis does not work that way.Quote"it'll be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world."Videogames, history, television, his own perceived self-styled rebel rousing. To censor the media in an attempt to stop a psychotic person is an ineffectual reactive measure. Finding and treating such psychotic persons before they cause harm is how to stop them.
I have to ask with due seriousness. Are you seriously this unaware, do you not recognize this sentiment from the past? You have put forth the same stupid argument calling for the banning of video games. Worse yet this argument is still present in academia! (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1723)
~facedesks repeatedly~ Here's a sociologist (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-media-needs-to-stop-inspiring-copycat-murders-heres-how/266439/) discussing both what should be done about this, and discussing the historical similarities between highly-reported suicides and increases in them.It cannot be established 100%, obviously, because he's dead. However, if the experts on a subject speak on the subject, their opinion counts more than a random person on the internet. The experts have spoken, and they disagree with you. They are far more knowledgeable than you on this. We don't like it when fundies try to argue with scientists on things they don't understand, and I doubt you're nearly as educated in psychology as the American Psychological Association, so please don't do the exact same thing that the fundies do when they argue with biologists, geneticists, archeologists and geologists.Look at all those words and anger yet not a link to a work or source showing a shred of causality.
Ergo why the original tale shows the culture of the creator, while the modified versions show their modifiers'.I'm not saying the message of a work mutates to the timeframe it's told. I'm saying a work reflects the mindset of the timeframe it is from.The original work yes, as culture changes the work is changed with it. Common confounding factors include oral tradition and translation anomalies/loss of context. Sleeping Beauty is not raped in the modern versions of the story for a reason.
First off, I am not blaming fiction. I am blaming flesh-and-blood killers who are real people in reality getting real media attention by the real media in real life. Secondly, it's still the thing that set him off. It was the catalyst.You keep missing the point, detachment from reality. Dave Cullen put it simply, “a "normal" lens.” You are trying to predict the actions and reactions a psychopath has through “a "normal" lens.” Psychopaths cognate very differently than sane persons, their behaviors and outlook are warped because of this. For the sake of simplicity call it “a warped lens.”
~facedesks repeatedly~ Here's a sociologist (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-media-needs-to-stop-inspiring-copycat-murders-heres-how/266439/) discussing both what should be done about this, and discussing the historical similarities between highly-reported suicides and increases in them.You just confounded suicidal persons with psychotic persons. I have to ask, how and why do you think that these two groups of people are similar to the point of predictability? Heck the book you cite as a source designates an entire chapter (40. Psychopath) spelling this out in no uncertain terms.
TIM do you have to keep editing your post several times so that I keep thinking there's actual new content and then I click on the topic and there's nothing? :PActually that seems to be a problem when I route traffic through TOR, which is damn near always. Should use JAP or I2P instead I guess. I have found that both work with Privoxy, though not at the same time.I have to test if node to node connections (not node to internet) are man-in-the-middle proof though, because TOR's is.
#Jap
#forward / 127.0.0.1:4001
#I2P
#forward / 127.0.0.1:4444
As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the headHardly. 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.
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
Which is not censorship because?As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the headHardly. 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.
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
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.Which is not censorship because?As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the headHardly. 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.
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.
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?)"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?)"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?)"
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.
It's better to do everything you can to prevent the death of others.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.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.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.
And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.
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.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.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.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.
And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.
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.
*sips soda*
This is kind of an argument-go-round, isn't it?
Private transportation is useful. Making killers famous? Not so much.It's better to do everything you can to prevent the death of others.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.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.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.
And we know it's our mission to fight the inevitable by censoring magazine covers.
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.
Car accidents kill way more people by any objective measurement. I don't see you arguing that we should outlaw private transportation.
Psychopaths do not act in rational, predictable manner because they are detached from reality.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?)"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."
Censorship requires government mandate? I call bullshit and challenge you to demonstrate how and why ever entity other than government inherently cannot censor.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.Which is not censorship because?As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the headHardly. 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.
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
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.