Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber

[The Illusive Man]

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.

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?

[QueenofHearts]

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.

Or maybe it's easier to remember 1 or 2 people's names than it is to remember 30 victims. Maybe because examining the killer and their motives can help prevent future tragedies. That said, this thread is dumb. There is no story here, just a bunch of people crying over the Rolling Stone cover. As Nickerson said page one Hitler & Stalin where on the cover of Times and people didn't go out and become genocidal despotic dictators...

[niam2023]

^ Agreed. This thread is just plain stupid. Crying and wailing over a magazine putting this guy's face on it is, frankly, an overreaction and trying way too hard to preserve a state of pissed off / terrified.

Mourning the dead is good. For a certain amount of time. By focusing on the killers, we can find out why they did this and how to make sure something similar doesn't happen, we can see what went wrong with them in their head psychologically.

We cannot do the same by fixating on the victims.

[PosthumanHeresy]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Difference in methodology, tell me do copycats use different methods?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[niam2023]

Correlation does not imply causation. When you are dealing with psychological things, you need direct proof before you make loaded statements.

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.

[Lt. Fred]

Please read

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719

[PosthumanHeresy]

Correlation does not imply causation. When you are dealing with psychological things, you need direct proof before you make loaded statements.

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.

You're not a mentally unhinged person who is susceptible to it. At least, I hope not.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Please read

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719

Read 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.

Also, you know, I think I'll quote some comments from that that I like:

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.

And, there's a big, major point here. Being on the cover of Rolling Stone is a dream for most celebrities. It's something they aspire to. "He was on the cover of Rolling Stone" is seen as a great achievement.

[niam2023]

Does not change the fact that you have correlation, which as my psychology professor said, is not causation nor can it provide you with cause and effect.

And as to your first post toward me, I was compared to Eric Harris in ninth grade. My PE teacher had me constantly going to the school therapist. I constantly vocalized my desire to see the popular, muscular elite die, simply for existing too close to me.

And as you can tell by my posting here, I did not go full nutso.

Because people listened. Because I wasn't thrown into American Gun Culture. And because I talked it out, actually spoke to the people I detested for no reason, and found that they weren't so evil after all.

[Sigmaleph]

Quick comment before go back to observing:

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.

I disagree. "Something happens" is the broadest possible statement you can make; when dealing with societal issues thousands of things are happening all the time, it's not easy to single out one as a tend-changer. The general hypothesis to consider is that some societal factor changed at or around the time Columbine happened, causing school shooting to become more common. It could be Columbine itself, but it could also be any other of the thousand things going on at that time (or multiple ones acting together), and Columbine just was the one of the first instances of the new trend . Without some strong, independent evidence that that particular highly-publicised shooting was the thing that happened, you are unfairly privileging the Columbine hypothesis. If you do have that strong evidence, it'd probably make a better argument to present it directly than to use Columbine as a proxy.

That's all, please carry on.

[QueenofHearts]

Well, school violence & homicide 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.

[Radiation]

You know, I'm going to have to agree with Lithp, Ironbite and Queen on this in that this topic is pretty pointless. As it has been pointed out, magazines and the media have plastered the faces of criminals, dictators, terrorists, etc. probably to discuss the person(s) responsible for the crimes.

I can't even get into the argument between PHH's and TIM's walls of text so I don't think I can formulate a coherent argument. It seems that some think that putting that picture on the cover is in bad taste because of how the bomber was posing as well as it being similar to pictures RS has used for other rock stars. Though it may not be their intention to glamorize Jafar, in fact, that picture may have been the only one available that is in line to RS's taste.

I don't have a TV so I don't get all the news. Still I think that this thread is going to go nowhere and it's going to run around in circles.

[davedan]

Well, school violence & homicide 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

[PosthumanHeresy]

Well, school violence & homicide 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.

[QueenofHearts]

Well, school violence & homicide 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

Damn, you're old >.>