Rolling Stone Magazine - You are Pathetic - Discussion

[beakdoctor]

What's with all this "pull the magazine" crap?!!   Is this Communist China?  What a bunch of PC whiners...

Welcome to the USA where you have the right to say and write what you want.  If you don't like it...dont buy the fucking magazine!

It's called a free market.  Keep your gestapo tactics in your third world shit hole.  

 Lol. So let me get this straight, it's wrong for a retailer to pull a magazine from their own shelves, and its not communist or gestapo tactics to mandate that the retailer sell that magazin?.

You don't see the hhypocrisy of your own post?  It is a free market. Rolling Stone is free to publish and sell whatever they want.  Target or CVS or whoever else is free to buy and still whatever product they want.

[Oly15]

Don't tell me how to operate mutant.

Fuckin loled

[Man of Steel]

Yes, we talk about it on the forums, on threads, pictures, like news stories.  What you DON'T see is me putting this sick terrorist on the front page of the website, or even glorifying him in the News & Views part of the site where it is permanent. That is a big difference in my mind. They want a story about this idiot, fine. Put it in the magazine. But on the cover, all dolled up. Fuck Rolling Stone. This guy is a terrorist. Not a model, not a 'poor' boy that got off on the wrong track. A freaking terrorist, whose main target was to kill and hurt as many people as he could, preferably women and children watching the marathon.  Sick.

Just imagine if one of the victims had a subscription to the magazine. Hey, lets put this issue on the table in the living room. Stupid move by the editor.


Nice cover. A smart editor would of thought of something like this.

I'm just surprised that others are surprised this terrorist pic is on the cover.   The fact that we're discussing it like we are validates that Rolling Stone has achieved a desired end by doing so.   I also prefer this Getbig made cover over the other.  I'm sure Rolling Stone proposed several covers and in the end $$$ took precedence over class.

In think in some small part the assumption here might be that I support what Rolling Stone did....that's simply not the case.  I'm repulsed by it; further, I'm actually relieved people are upset.  I'm not anti-information, pro-censorship, etc....I am pro-taste and pro-tact (certainly those terms are relative).  I'm also "pro-good guy" and this cover is all about glorifying the bad guy.....exactly what today's masses tend to prefer in their entertainment.

In this case Rolling Stone pulled a Getbig with a "buttons pushed, mission accomplished" approach.  

On a sidenote, it's obvious you don't promote a specific political, cultural or religious agenda on your site....that's why you site is loved by many.  Virtually every topic is allowed to be discussed and many topics have their own their own forums (which are moderated).  The core is bb (and pl and wl), but it's become much more than that for many, many members.  Still, there's no denying that the culture on Getbig is vastly different than many, many others sites out there.....and that's what members love.  Some even say it's too tame LOL!

[MP]

Fuck Rolling Stone.

[King Shizzo]

Who reads magazines these days? I'm surprised 75% of them are still in business.

[arce1988]

 turning the kid in to a star like manson

[dr.chimps]

Who reads magazines these days? I'm surprised 75% of them are still in business.

This is a good point. Print? Really? Cover explains itself.

[Nails]

turning the kid in to a star like manson

There was white woman outside of the court house when he was brought to court the first day cheering for that

crazy

white

woman

 

[dr.chimps]

There was white woman outside of the court house when he was brought to court the first day cheering for that

crazy

white

woman

 

Delete your post before Coach logs on. 

[Nails]

Delete your post before Coach logs on. 

LOL


he will probably say they were hired goons by obama

[syntaxmachine]

1. It isn't exceedingly obvious that this is a 'glorification' of terrorism.

2. It is also nothing new — OBL appeared on Times' cover a mere two weeks after the September 11th attacks, and to this day his surname remains renowned worldwide (denoting the largest construction firm in the world and all). Life moves on, no matter how tragic the event.

3. People expressing outrage need to answer the question: "When would it be acceptable to have Mr Tsarnaev [too lazy to look up the correct spelling] on a magazine cover?" The answer will necessarily be subjective, mired in vagueness (unless you think 'exactly x days' is appropriate, which would be silly). Then it must be asked, "Why should your particular answer dictate everyone else's behavior in this case? What's so special about your opinion?"

4. As has already been said, the market will decide the matter. If you don't like the product, act accordingly as a market participant.

5. Finally, the publishing of this issue is consistent with certain enshrined principles regarding free speech, not endangering anyone. So if we support those principles, we ought to support the right for this cover to be published unhampered, whether we happen to like it or not.

[Chacka]

You know, this asshole killed innocent people, hurt a lot of others, and you freaking editors put this asshole on the cover.  WTF is wrong with you.  Nothing to do with music, nothing to do with art, but all this cover is designed to do is make people hurt. 

How about putting on the cover a picture of the 19 firefighters who died in Arizona saving lives, homes and people's livings instead of destroying.

Good luck putting this magazine in any stores - it needs to go down in the toilet.

they put this looser in the cover so people would start talking about their irrelevant rag and put them in the spotlight, which you've helped do so by starting a thread about it here, nice work 

[King Shizzo]

1. It isn't exceedingly obvious that this is a 'glorification' of terrorism.

2. It is also nothing new — OBL appeared on Times' cover a mere two weeks after the September 11th attacks, and to this day his surname remains renowned worldwide (denoting the largest construction firm in the world and all). Life moves on, no matter how tragic the event.

3. People expressing outrage need to answer the question: "When would it be acceptable to have Mr Tsarnaev [too lazy to look up the correct spelling] on a magazine cover?" The answer will necessarily be subjective, mired in vagueness (unless you think 'exactly x days' is appropriate, which would be silly). Then it must be asked, "Why should your particular answer dictate everyone else's behavior in this case? What's so special about your opinion?"

4. As has already been said, the market will decide the matter. If you don't like the product, act accordingly as a market participant.

5. Finally, the publishing of this issue is consistent with certain enshrined principles regarding free speech, not endangering anyone. So if we support those principles, we ought to support the right for this cover to be published unhampered, whether we happen to like it or not.

Impressive. Still a meltdown.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

I think Hitler was once Time magz "Man of the year" 

Yes I also believe Tbombs got man of the year once

[Nails]

freejahartsarnaev.tumblr.com/.










Move over Justin Bieber, America’s latest teen heartthrob is none other than Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the teenage suspected Boston Marathon bomber who is winning over the hearts of teenage girls all across the United States.

Girls claiming Dzhokhar, also known as Jahar, is too cute to be a terrorist is actually a real thing going on right now. From Tumblr pages to Twitters supporting Dzhokhar, the 19-year-old terrorist suspect has teen girls pouring out their support for him.

Between memes and gifs highlight Jahar, there are all sorts of peculiar messages sent by supporters of the suspected terrorist.




I hate to break it to these young girls with their fantasies, but a tweet can’t prove his innocence, and if the reports of him shooting at police and throwing pressure cooker bombs in order to get away on that fateful Thursday evening that saw his older brother, Tamerlan, killed are true, then there isn’t much hope for young Dzhokhar in our judicial system.

One blog claims to support Dzhokhar because “he’s attractive,” but not his older brother because “he’s gross.” Yup, this is real life.

There may not be hope for this upcoming generation after all.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Rolling Stone mags is chief editor Jann Wenner started the mag years ago...And before anyone asks, yes he is of Hierarchy bloodline...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jann_Wenner

[King Shizzo]

Yes I also believe Tbombs got man of the year once

I was man of the year. I know you have seen my cover.

[MP]

1. It isn't exceedingly obvious that this is a 'glorification' of terrorism.
Thought you were being sarcastic until I read your other points. Get your head out of your ass.

2. It is also nothing new — OBL appeared on Times' cover a mere two weeks after the September 11th attacks, and to this day his surname remains renowned worldwide (denoting the largest construction firm in the world and all). Life moves on, no matter how tragic the event.
Time is a news magazine. Rolling Stone typically pictures entertainment and music celebs. No comparison.

3. People expressing outrage need to answer the question: "When would it be acceptable to have Mr Tsarnaev [too lazy to look up the correct spelling] on a magazine cover?" The answer will necessarily be subjective, mired in vagueness (unless you think 'exactly x days' is appropriate, which would be silly). Then it must be asked, "Why should your particular answer dictate everyone else's behavior in this case? What's so special about your opinion?"
What are you rambling about? When would it be appropriate? When it's a music magazine, never! That's why many people are justifiably expressing their "opinion."

4. As has already been said, the market will decide the matter. If you don't like the product, act accordingly as a market participant.
God damn right. Hope this is the "jumped the shark" moment for the rag and they cease publishing sooner rather than later.

5. Finally, the publishing of this issue is consistent with certain enshrined principles regarding free speech, not endangering anyone. So if we support those principles, we ought to support the right for this cover to be published unhampered, whether we happen to like it or not.
Glorifying this killer could motivate others, thus endangering us. Again, get your head out of your ass.

[syntaxmachine]

Thought you were being sarcastic until I read your other points. Get your head out of your ass.

I think it's fair to say that the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim: that this cover/article is glorifying terrorism. So, good luck.

Time is a news magazine. Rolling Stone typically pictures entertainment and music celebs. No comparison.

Rolling Stone consistently functions as a news magazine, as the article under discussion and other examples indicate (e.g., their infamous interview with former ISAF commander, General McChrystal). More generally, they are a part of popular media, so the comparison is apt.

What are you rambling about? When would it be appropriate? When it's a music magazine, never! That's why many people are justifiably expressing their "opinion."

Once again, Rolling Stones consistently functions as a news magazine, something that seems to me within their right to do. The issue isn't whether people may justifiably express their opinion (of course they can), it's whether the expressed opinion is justified. Why does your mere personal opinion have preference over opposing ones? Why do you get to dictate what magazines may justifiably print?

Glorifying this killer could motivate others, thus endangering us. Again, get your head out of your ass.

This argument could be applied to a huge variety of media in order to justify censorship ("that Call of Duty mission glorified killing civilians so we'd better censor this video game just in case!"). Needless to say, this is an extremely authoritarian view inconsistent with the basic principles of this country, to say nothing of the unlikelihood of ever demonstrating that a cover like this "causes" another attack.

[MP]

You obviously can't see that this is just plain wrong, so going back and forth with you is rather pointless.

If you knew someone who was injured or killed, it might help you step outside of whatever world you are living in and see this for what it is.

Glorifying a terrorist killer. Plain and simple.

[Rhino]

White muslims of peace (rolls eyes)

[pedro01]

What's with all this "pull the magazine" crap?!!   Is this Communist China?  What a bunch of PC whiners...

Welcome to the USA where you have the right to say and write what you want.  If you don't like it...dont buy the fucking magazine!

It's called a free market.  Keep your gestapo tactics in your third world shit hole. 

I'm amazed that it took till reply 66 till someone posted this.

Are there any Americans left in the USA? Freedom of what?

[Borracho]

White muslims of peace (rolls eyes)

lol

nice sig btw 

[MP]

Glad there are some people with some sense behind the stores who refuse to sell the magazine.

True, it's a free market.

So ... feel free to run a business that sells publications and sell this rag. No one is stopping you.

[Rhino]

Glad there are some people with some sense behind the stores who refuse to sell the magazine.

True, it's a free market.

So ... feel free to run a business that sells publications and sell this rag. No one is stopping you.

boycott any store that sells this crap