Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was it me or is anyone else as shocked to see Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine? As one who has never purchased this particular magazine, I am forced to pass judgement on the entire publication based on one cover. As a result, I don't see myself purchasing this magazine any time soon or ever for that matter.
Here's what's more amazing too, Rolling Stone is defending themselves -- Rolling Stone defends Tsarnaev cover | Rare -- maybe it's just me who remembers the Boston Bombing still.
Are people these days really this stupid?
The purpose of showing this kid's face on the cover of the magazine is to show that real life monsters don't normally look like Frankenstein...they look like the people who live next door.
This concept seems to be above the average American's intellectual capabilities, judging by the dumb pointless outrage over the cover.
BTW,
A 19 year old's brain is not fully developed, yet. Most people of that age make stupid decisions. Maybe, not as stupid as this guy. But he was influenced by an older brother.
Can anyone posting on this message board honestly claim that they never did anything stupid between the ages of 16-21?
If you make that claim, you are a liar.
Actually it's the same photo the New York Times used two months ago, only just the headshot:
Remember all the fake outrage over that?
Me neither.
It's a fucking photo. A photo makes no comment by itself. Actually the RS cover does make a comment in the text below the photo, referring to him as a "monster".
What the hypocrites are yelling at RS about is their failure to join in the Two Minutes Hate Demonization Plan by drawing, say, a Hitler mustache on Tsarnaev. Or perhaps pulling a Fox Noise retouch, with the shadowed eyes, yellowed teeth and enlarged nose:
RS is being taken to task for the crime of insufficient hatemongrering. As the RS editor tweeted, ""I guess we should have drawn a dick on Dzhokhar's face or something?".
They've drugged the populace to such an extent that we not only expect biased journalism, but some of us actually complain when we don't get it. You whiners are never happy with reality. Always gotta tweak it. SMH...
That pic isn't as good as the copy they used on the Rolling Stone. It looks a bit more grungy because they didn't crop off that nasty T-shirt.
Rolling Stone is a magazine, the NYT a newspaper. Guess which one shows up better. Just flip a coin, you have a 50-50 shot.
The New York Times is a rag. We expect anti-American propaganda from them. There circulation has fallen off so much that nobody even noticed it.
It's a news story. That's what newspapers do. And the photo is what was available.
What should RS have done? Drawn a Hitler mustache? A dick coming out of his face? Dark eye shadow? Enlarge the nose? Stick a cigarette in his mouth? Photoshop a tattoo of "Death to America" on his forehead? Spelled his name "Emmanuel Goldstein"?
Again, your opinion.
No-- again, their opinions.
I laid 'em all out. Where's the beef?
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
The picture on the front cover can be seen as undue attention and the humanizing of a terrorist. Those that have been effected the most by this see it as a way of trying to soften the terrorist.
The many times I see mugshots of famous people as they are arrested I think how stupid they are.
The opinion polls are running 65-15 against the cover. I part of the 20 that sees it as neither good or bad.
Rolling Stones put the picture up to sell magazines. They are doing that, they are getting publicity that they haven't had for decades. Smart marketing.
So both opinions are fine to me, your not understanding a position because of your bias, doesn't less others opinions, they just don't make sense to you.
I'm not sure how to make it simpler for you to understand.
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
No-- again, their opinions.
I laid 'em all out. Where's the beef?
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
The picture on the front cover can be seen as undue attention and the humanizing of a terrorist. Those that have been effected the most by this see it as a way of trying to soften the terrorist.
The many times I see mugshots of famous people as they are arrested I think how stupid they are.
The opinion polls are running 65-15 against the cover. I part of the 20 that sees it as neither good or bad.
Rolling Stones put the picture up to sell magazines. They are doing that, they are getting publicity that they haven't had for decades. Smart marketing.
So both opinions are fine to me, your not understanding a position because of your bias, doesn't less others opinions, they just don't make sense to you.
I'm not sure how to make it simpler for you to understand.
There really isn't a "simpler"; this is as far down as we can grind it. You've hit the nail on the head right here:
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
-- The idea that the photo is (or is not) a "Tiger Beat" photo is subjective and unquantifiable. I don't have an opinion that something is a negative; the opinion is on the poster(s) who chose that designation. What they have to do now is explain it. What the hell does "a Tiger Beat photo" even mean? There's the rub. Until that can be explained, they make no point -- just an emotion that can't be justified with any basis. If it were, for example, airbrushed and photoshopped to make him look better than he does, there might be a point as to why they would do that. But absent that, the onus is on them to explain how NOT doctoring a photo is some wrong thing to do.
Actually you touched on the real issue with the phrase "the humanizing of a terrorist". Leaving aside that the Boston bombing doesn't qualify as "terrorism" (and substituting "mass murderer" or "bomber" or whatever you want), you've actually stated the issue in reverse: the failure to dehumanize. Again, if RS had gone out of its way to make Tsarnaev look good, "humanizing" might be a valid complaint. But the failure to do the opposite does not make the reverse case.
The fact is Tsarnaev doesn't fit the accustomed narrative of a crazy old geezer with a long beard and Semitic accent. And there's no reason to dress him up that way.
I really could not possibly care less how polls are running. Polls reflect which POV is getting splash at the moment. They don't reflect any kind of rationality. The worst reason in the world to do something or take some position is that "Everybody's doing it". As they used to tell us in grammar school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
The picture on the front cover can be seen as undue attention and the humanizing of a terrorist. Those that have been effected the most by this see it as a way of trying to soften the terrorist.
The many times I see mugshots of famous people as they are arrested I think how stupid they are.
The opinion polls are running 65-15 against the cover. I part of the 20 that sees it as neither good or bad.
Rolling Stones put the picture up to sell magazines. They are doing that, they are getting publicity that they haven't had for decades. Smart marketing.
So both opinions are fine to me, your not understanding a position because of your bias, doesn't less others opinions, they just don't make sense to you.
I'm not sure how to make it simpler for you to understand.
There really isn't a "simpler"; this is as far down as we can grind it. You've hit the nail on the head right here:
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
-- The idea that the photo is (or is not) a "Tiger Beat" photo is subjective and unquantifiable. I don't have an opinion that something is a negative; the opinion is on the poster(s) who chose that designation. What they have to do now is explain it. What the hell does "a Tiger Beat photo" even mean? There's the rub. Until that can be explained, they make no point -- just an emotion that can't be justified with any basis. If it were, for example, airbrushed and photoshopped to make him look better than he does, there might be a point as to why they would do that. But absent that, the onus is on them to explain how NOT doctoring a photo is some wrong thing to do.
Actually you touched on the real issue with the phrase "the humanizing of a terrorist". Leaving aside that the Boston bombing doesn't qualify as "terrorism" (and substituting "mass murderer" or "bomber" or whatever you want), you've actually stated the issue in reverse: the failure to dehumanize. Again, if RS had gone out of its way to make Tsarnaev look good, "humanizing" might be a valid complaint. But the failure to do the opposite does not make the reverse case.
The fact is Tsarnaev doesn't fit the accustomed narrative of a crazy old geezer with a long beard and Semitic accent. And there's no reason to dress him up that way.
I really could not possibly care less how polls are running. Polls reflect which POV is getting splash at the moment. They don't reflect any kind of rationality. The worst reason in the world to do something or take some position is that "Everybody's doing it". As they used to tell us in grammar school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"
First to remind you, I'm part of the 20% that see both sides of the argument. You are another part of the argument.
I find the terrorist, just that, a terrorist. His picture and his looks don't matter to me, he is a killer and represents one of the worst examples of a human being.
If you can't figure out the Tiger Beat reference, it is either that you don't want to or you are very ignorant. I suspect you don't want to.
Emotion is a factor in almost any issue. RS wanted to spark emotion, that is why they did what they did.
The emotion is a hatred for a terrorist setting a bomb off in Boston. The terrorist is a symbol of a tragedy, the terrorist is scum, is disgusting and if found guilty should die for all the pain and suffering he inflicted on people for no rational reason. That is the rational for not liking the picture. The picture is offensive to those he hurt, it is offensive to the city of Boston.
The emotion is a hatred for a terrorist setting a bomb off in Boston. The terrorist is a symbol of a tragedy, the terrorist is scum, is disgusting and if found guilty should die for all the pain and suffering he inflicted on people for no rational reason. That is the rational for not liking the picture.
No-- again, their opinions.
I laid 'em all out. Where's the beef?
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
The picture on the front cover can be seen as undue attention and the humanizing of a terrorist. Those that have been effected the most by this see it as a way of trying to soften the terrorist.
The many times I see mugshots of famous people as they are arrested I think how stupid they are.
The opinion polls are running 65-15 against the cover. I part of the 20 that sees it as neither good or bad.
Rolling Stones put the picture up to sell magazines. They are doing that, they are getting publicity that they haven't had for decades. Smart marketing.
So both opinions are fine to me, your not understanding a position because of your bias, doesn't less others opinions, they just don't make sense to you.
I'm not sure how to make it simpler for you to understand.
There really isn't a "simpler"; this is as far down as we can grind it. You've hit the nail on the head right here:
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
-- The idea that the photo is (or is not) a "Tiger Beat" photo is subjective and unquantifiable. I don't have an opinion that something is a negative; the opinion is on the poster(s) who chose that designation. What they have to do now is explain it. What the hell does "a Tiger Beat photo" even mean? There's the rub. Until that can be explained, they make no point -- just an emotion that can't be justified with any basis. If it were, for example, airbrushed and photoshopped to make him look better than he does, there might be a point as to why they would do that. But absent that, the onus is on them to explain how NOT doctoring a photo is some wrong thing to do.
Actually you touched on the real issue with the phrase "the humanizing of a terrorist". Leaving aside that the Boston bombing doesn't qualify as "terrorism" (and substituting "mass murderer" or "bomber" or whatever you want), you've actually stated the issue in reverse: the failure to dehumanize. Again, if RS had gone out of its way to make Tsarnaev look good, "humanizing" might be a valid complaint. But the failure to do the opposite does not make the reverse case.
The fact is Tsarnaev doesn't fit the accustomed narrative of a crazy old geezer with a long beard and Semitic accent. And there's no reason to dress him up that way.
I really could not possibly care less how polls are running. Polls reflect which POV is getting splash at the moment. They don't reflect any kind of rationality. The worst reason in the world to do something or take some position is that "Everybody's doing it". As they used to tell us in grammar school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
The picture on the front cover can be seen as undue attention and the humanizing of a terrorist. Those that have been effected the most by this see it as a way of trying to soften the terrorist.
The many times I see mugshots of famous people as they are arrested I think how stupid they are.
The opinion polls are running 65-15 against the cover. I part of the 20 that sees it as neither good or bad.
Rolling Stones put the picture up to sell magazines. They are doing that, they are getting publicity that they haven't had for decades. Smart marketing.
So both opinions are fine to me, your not understanding a position because of your bias, doesn't less others opinions, they just don't make sense to you.
I'm not sure how to make it simpler for you to understand.
There really isn't a "simpler"; this is as far down as we can grind it. You've hit the nail on the head right here:
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
-- The idea that the photo is (or is not) a "Tiger Beat" photo is subjective and unquantifiable. I don't have an opinion that something is a negative; the opinion is on the poster(s) who chose that designation. What they have to do now is explain it. What the hell does "a Tiger Beat photo" even mean? There's the rub. Until that can be explained, they make no point -- just an emotion that can't be justified with any basis. If it were, for example, airbrushed and photoshopped to make him look better than he does, there might be a point as to why they would do that. But absent that, the onus is on them to explain how NOT doctoring a photo is some wrong thing to do.
Actually you touched on the real issue with the phrase "the humanizing of a terrorist". Leaving aside that the Boston bombing doesn't qualify as "terrorism" (and substituting "mass murderer" or "bomber" or whatever you want), you've actually stated the issue in reverse: the failure to dehumanize. Again, if RS had gone out of its way to make Tsarnaev look good, "humanizing" might be a valid complaint. But the failure to do the opposite does not make the reverse case.
The fact is Tsarnaev doesn't fit the accustomed narrative of a crazy old geezer with a long beard and Semitic accent. And there's no reason to dress him up that way.
I really could not possibly care less how polls are running. Polls reflect which POV is getting splash at the moment. They don't reflect any kind of rationality. The worst reason in the world to do something or take some position is that "Everybody's doing it". As they used to tell us in grammar school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"
Uh.....hate you tell you, but most terrorists that commit violent acts against innocent people aren't "crazy old geezers". Most of them are between the age of 15 and 30. The crazy old geezers are the worthless pieces of shit that talk about committing acts of violence and then sit back and watch the carnage.
Again, your opinion.
No-- again, their opinions.
I laid 'em all out. Where's the beef?
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
The picture on the front cover can be seen as undue attention and the humanizing of a terrorist. Those that have been effected the most by this see it as a way of trying to soften the terrorist.
The many times I see mugshots of famous people as they are arrested I think how stupid they are.
The opinion polls are running 65-15 against the cover. I part of the 20 that sees it as neither good or bad.
Rolling Stones put the picture up to sell magazines. They are doing that, they are getting publicity that they haven't had for decades. Smart marketing.
So both opinions are fine to me, your not understanding a position because of your bias, doesn't less others opinions, they just don't make sense to you.
I'm not sure how to make it simpler for you to understand.
No-- again, their opinions.
I laid 'em all out. Where's the beef?
Your opinion that it doesn't look like a Tiger Beat picture is your OPINION, others have a differing OPINION.
The picture on the front cover can be seen as undue attention and the humanizing of a terrorist. Those that have been effected the most by this see it as a way of trying to soften the terrorist.
The many times I see mugshots of famous people as they are arrested I think how stupid they are.
The opinion polls are running 65-15 against the cover. I part of the 20 that sees it as neither good or bad.
Rolling Stones put the picture up to sell magazines. They are doing that, they are getting publicity that they haven't had for decades. Smart marketing.
So both opinions are fine to me, your not understanding a position because of your bias, doesn't less others opinions, they just don't make sense to you.
I'm not sure how to make it simpler for you to understand.
From the number of stores that are refusing to carry the issue, the marketing doesn't appear to be very smart.
