Author Topic: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber  (Read 21933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #45 on: July 19, 2013, 05:25:53 pm »
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.

The squirrels go "chitter chitter".  Very persuasive.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline PosthumanHeresy

  • Directing Scenes for Celebritarian Needs
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Gender: Male
  • Whatever doesn't kill you is gonna leave a scar
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #46 on: July 19, 2013, 07:52:36 pm »
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.

The squirrels go "chitter chitter".  Very persuasive.
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.
What I used to think was me is just a fading memory. I looked him right in the eye and said "Goodbye".
 - Trent Reznor, Down In It

Together as one, against all others.
- Marilyn Manson, Running To The Edge of The World

Humanity does learn from history,
sadly, they're rarely the ones in power.

Quote from: Ben Kuchera
Life is too damned short for the concept of “guilty” pleasures to have any meaning.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #47 on: July 19, 2013, 07:59:53 pm »
It's not that I disagree, but I don't agree either.

In fact I don't even find myself in the middle.  I just find myself outside of the matter, opinion-wise.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4213
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #48 on: July 19, 2013, 10:20:43 pm »
They put dictators and Charles Manson on there, and I don't recall anyone being inspired by The Rolling Stone to be Charles Manson or one of the tinpots. They are just a magazine, an industry some claim is dying. Why care about what they put on their magazine when the internet is probably better suited for you?

It is a complete and total nonissue, blown out of proportion and turned into a "scandal". You cannot put a picture of him anywhere without one Harley Quinn wannabe squeeing about how hot he is.

Why bother with what others may think in regards to bad people? I mean, I see why people consider him attractive and I don't have any problem with the notion, but does this mean I cackle evilly and plan how to murder massive amounts of people? No.

Let alone the point of the picture and the article inside was to point out how an innocent, good kid could go from that to a probably broken down man who thought his brother's way was the only way out.
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer

Offline The Illusive Man

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 869
  • Gender: Male
  • Saw the ME3 endings, got turned into a husk. :(-
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #49 on: July 19, 2013, 11:01:44 pm »
Huh?
Masturbation joke, jimmies is slang for testicles. Eg Jimmy kick.
Rustle: To move or act energetically or with speed.



It also has a second meaning referring to discontent or discomfort expressed by a person on the internet. "That really rustled my jimmies."




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.”
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.


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.


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!" Overlaps with circular reasoning too!
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 11:16:53 pm by The Illusive Man »
Despite knowing about indoctrination I thought it was a good idea to put a human Reaper near my office. Now I am a sentient husk :(.

*RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRR* *SCREECH* *smokes*


Offline Lithp

  • Official FSTDT Spokesman
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #50 on: July 19, 2013, 11:58:19 pm »
I didn't know the first meaning. Hence my confusion.

Something I would like to know, why is it not only okay, but preferable to make the murderer look bad? If audiences are really that easily swayed, aren't you just enforcing the notion that handsome=good, & also implying that ugly people are bad people? Why is that any better?

Offline Alehksunos

  • Transvestite Boo-kin
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1456
  • Gender: Male
  • Gay Witch for Abortion
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #51 on: July 20, 2013, 12:35:20 am »
When I had read these magazines, I was far more interested in Peter Traver's film reviews, for the way he writes those reviews I find myself entertained, often amused. There is no other reviewer who did this besides the late Roger Ebert (and when I heard he died, I was somewhat but still devastated because that means we now live in a world without witty film reviews from him). And you're hearing this from a person who doesn't like any reviewers very much because often they're pretentious fucknuggets who take themselves too seriously. Even so, there are things those two men said that I've disagreed with (notably Ebert's sentiments towards video games as a "soulless" medium, not to say there aren't video games that are soulless). And often the reason I read reviews is because I want to see if something is worth my time and money and not to be some sort of tool who can't make up his own damn mind (as I've already stated, there were things Travers and Ebert said that I've disagreed with). I didn't care for most of the Rolling Stone's other reviews, most of them stuff I'm not interested in.

But to hear this magazine (on accident or not) has romanticized a young man whom he and his dead brother rigged the finish line of the Boston Marathon with bombs, killing three and maiming many others and leaving another bloody chapter of our civilization and more incidence of Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiment... that just makes me want to think twice about wanting to read that magazine ever again, even for Peter Traver's reviews and nothing but. Shit, I thought the editors of the magazine were progressive, even though they occasionally got heavy-handed at times. Nope, this is extreme Tumblr Social Justice meets Draco in Leather Pants, two things that I despise of a lot.

(click to show/hide)

Offline PosthumanHeresy

  • Directing Scenes for Celebritarian Needs
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Gender: Male
  • Whatever doesn't kill you is gonna leave a scar
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #52 on: July 20, 2013, 02:09:13 am »
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?
Completely foreign message from that which was intended. Didn't explain well enough, I guess.

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.
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.

The fact is, historically, it has leaned more towards playing it straight, and still does.
[citation needed]
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 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.
Still, fictional stories tell about a culture. I really don't need to rehash that rant, because it's already been said.

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.
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.

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!" Overlaps with circular reasoning too!
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".
What I used to think was me is just a fading memory. I looked him right in the eye and said "Goodbye".
 - Trent Reznor, Down In It

Together as one, against all others.
- Marilyn Manson, Running To The Edge of The World

Humanity does learn from history,
sadly, they're rarely the ones in power.

Quote from: Ben Kuchera
Life is too damned short for the concept of “guilty” pleasures to have any meaning.

Offline The Illusive Man

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 869
  • Gender: Male
  • Saw the ME3 endings, got turned into a husk. :(-
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #53 on: July 20, 2013, 06:20:55 pm »
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.

Quote
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.

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)



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?
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.


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.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 07:17:52 pm by The Illusive Man »
Despite knowing about indoctrination I thought it was a good idea to put a human Reaper near my office. Now I am a sentient husk :(.

*RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRR* *SCREECH* *smokes*


Offline PosthumanHeresy

  • Directing Scenes for Celebritarian Needs
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Gender: Male
  • Whatever doesn't kill you is gonna leave a scar
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #54 on: July 20, 2013, 08:00:59 pm »
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.

Quote
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.

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)
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?


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?
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.


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.
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.

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.
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.
What I used to think was me is just a fading memory. I looked him right in the eye and said "Goodbye".
 - Trent Reznor, Down In It

Together as one, against all others.
- Marilyn Manson, Running To The Edge of The World

Humanity does learn from history,
sadly, they're rarely the ones in power.

Quote from: Ben Kuchera
Life is too damned short for the concept of “guilty” pleasures to have any meaning.

Offline Iconic Komodo Dragon 2

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Gender: Male
  • Try not to bleed to much.
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #55 on: July 20, 2013, 10:21:16 pm »
Wait, this isn't a goddamn controversy, the bomber already got 7 million hours on tv!
I support the SCP Foundation.

I'm 91 kilograms, 2.59 meters long; Have 57 strains of bacteria in my mouth, and can eat 80% of my weight in food in a single sitting.
LAAAAYYYYDDDDIIEEES...( ͡° ͜ʖ͡°)

Offline PosthumanHeresy

  • Directing Scenes for Celebritarian Needs
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Gender: Male
  • Whatever doesn't kill you is gonna leave a scar
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #56 on: July 20, 2013, 10:42:42 pm »
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.
What I used to think was me is just a fading memory. I looked him right in the eye and said "Goodbye".
 - Trent Reznor, Down In It

Together as one, against all others.
- Marilyn Manson, Running To The Edge of The World

Humanity does learn from history,
sadly, they're rarely the ones in power.

Quote from: Ben Kuchera
Life is too damned short for the concept of “guilty” pleasures to have any meaning.

Offline Barbarella

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2767
  • Gender: Female
  • A Little REY of Sunshine!
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #57 on: July 21, 2013, 01:08:24 pm »
I actually agree with PosthumanHeresy a bit. The point he's making is the same point that Roger Ebert made in this article.

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.

Offline PosthumanHeresy

  • Directing Scenes for Celebritarian Needs
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Gender: Male
  • Whatever doesn't kill you is gonna leave a scar
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #58 on: July 21, 2013, 01:31:33 pm »
I actually agree with PosthumanHeresy a bit. The point he's making is the same point that Roger Ebert made in this article.

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.
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.
What I used to think was me is just a fading memory. I looked him right in the eye and said "Goodbye".
 - Trent Reznor, Down In It

Together as one, against all others.
- Marilyn Manson, Running To The Edge of The World

Humanity does learn from history,
sadly, they're rarely the ones in power.

Quote from: Ben Kuchera
Life is too damned short for the concept of “guilty” pleasures to have any meaning.

Offline nickiknack

  • I Find Your Lack of Ponies... Disturbing
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Gender: Female
  • HAS A KINK FOR SPACE NAZIS
Re: Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber
« Reply #59 on: July 21, 2013, 09:13:03 pm »
I do see the point to the objectification of the photo, but given that it was used by other media outlets, I think this whole controversy is bullshit.