If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   I think it's safe to say that Louis C.K. won't be granting Rolling Stone any interviews any time soon   (uproxx.com) divider line 143
    More: Amusing, Louis C.K., Rolling Stones, Hitler mustaches, Andrew Dice Clay, devil horns, Woody Allen  
•       •       •

13083 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 23 Jul 2013 at 11:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-23 09:19:43 AM
Quick, somebody jump in and tell him he's only pretending to be mad. Cause you all know better than he does how he feels.
 
2013-07-23 09:48:12 AM
People don't understand how much of news magazine it is.
 
2013-07-23 10:01:35 AM

flucto: Quick, somebody jump in and tell him he's only pretending to be mad. Cause you all know better than he does how he feels.


He anger is genuine. Also, misplaced.
 
2013-07-23 10:02:10 AM
He?

/His
 
2013-07-23 10:33:47 AM
lol, this was only a few months ago....

assets.rollingstone.com
 
2013-07-23 11:04:10 AM

oldernell: People don't understand how much of news magazine it is.


It hasn't been a news magazine since Hunter Thompson died and P.J. O'Rourke got shoved out the door.

Running monthly Matt Taibbi rants about banks does not mean they're a news publication.

Jann Wenner is a ridiculous old Hamptons queen and a colossal jackass. That is all
 
2013-07-23 11:40:55 AM

doublesecretprobation: lol, this was only a few months ago....


Rolling Stone put some chronic masturbator who assaulted a kid on their cover, so fark 'em.
 
2013-07-23 11:43:18 AM
Was there this much outrage when Manson was on the cover back in '69?
 
2013-07-23 11:47:21 AM
christconquers.files.wordpress.com
FARK TIME MAGAZINE!! BOYCOTT!!
 
2013-07-23 11:51:08 AM
LOL. This video is not availible in your area. It says to give up your free health care and move to the US.

fark the Daily Show is what I say. Jon Stewart is about as useful and amusing as masturbating with a fist full of thumb tacks.
 
2013-07-23 11:51:33 AM

flucto: Quick, somebody jump in and tell him he's only pretending to be mad. Cause you all know better than he does how he feels.


I never claimed people who were outraged by this were pretending to be mad. I claimed they were either f*cking crybaby idiots, or had trouble de-mythologizing the nature of evil.
 
2013-07-23 11:52:41 AM

ertznay: Was there this much outrage when Manson was on the cover back in '69?


No, because there was no internet to quickly spread the news and outrage. And back then, only dirty hippies read Rolling Stone.

/ Berkley Barb FTW.
 
2013-07-23 11:55:51 AM

ertznay: Was there this much outrage when Manson was on the cover back in '69?


No.  Because the text on the cover didn't talk about how poor Charlie was failed by his family and fell (oopsie, he just fell) into a cult.
The Manson photo wasn't exactly flattering either.
 
2013-07-23 11:57:48 AM
A lot of my Facebook friends are ranting about the cover too, frankly I'm not so outraged.

My feeling is let what's his name join two of history's greatest monsters that have also been featured on the cover of Rolling Stone - namely Charles Manson and Jar Jar Binks.
 
2013-07-23 11:58:46 AM

FarkedOver: [christconquers.files.wordpress.com image 400x527]
FARK TIME MAGAZINE!! BOYCOTT!!


And if Time Magazine wrote on the cover:  "How a popular and promising painter was failed by his family and fell into a bad political organization" there would have been a boycott.
 
2013-07-23 12:03:20 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: FarkedOver: [christconquers.files.wordpress.com image 400x527]
FARK TIME MAGAZINE!! BOYCOTT!!

And if Time Magazine wrote on the cover:  "How a popular and promising painter was failed by his family and fell into a bad political organization" there would have been a boycott.


No, they were just touting the achievement of German unification, the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and the awesome Munich agreement! WOO HOOO! Good times!
 
2013-07-23 12:05:59 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: doublesecretprobation: lol, this was only a few months ago....

Rolling Stone put some chronic masturbator who assaulted a kid on their cover, so fark 'em.


What are you talking about?
 
2013-07-23 12:07:21 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: And if Time Magazine wrote on the cover: "How a popular and promising painter was failed by his family and fell into a bad political organization" there would have been a boycott.


I suppose that if they had used a black and white picture, you would have be placated.
 
2013-07-23 12:10:27 PM
At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?
 
2013-07-23 12:10:40 PM

flucto: Quick, somebody jump in and tell him he's only pretending to be mad. Cause you all know better than he does how he feels.


Judging by the way he's laughing when he says it "so fark them", I would go more with "annoyed" than mad.
 
2013-07-23 12:11:17 PM
I finally watched Louis CK's most recent standup special.  It's enjoyable.  It's not clever or gut busting.  It's a nice, fun dialogue on his place in life.  He'd fit well in a Woody Allen film.  But I fell asleep before it ended.

You can stop trying to shove Louis CK down my throat now.  I keep giving him extra chances because he grew up somewhat near me, but it's just not working out.
 
2013-07-23 12:11:48 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: FarkedOver: [christconquers.files.wordpress.com image 400x527]
FARK TIME MAGAZINE!! BOYCOTT!!

And if Time Magazine wrote on the cover:  "How a popular and promising painter was failed by his family and fell into a bad political organization" there would have been a boycott.


Understanding why these people are the way they are could be a useful tool in helping prevention.

Or, in your terms, derp derp derp, derpy derp de derp.
 
2013-07-23 12:14:30 PM

Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?


He didnt look like a bad guy.
 
2013-07-23 12:15:02 PM

Nana's Vibrator: I finally watched Louis CK's most recent standup special.  It's enjoyable.  It's not clever or gut busting.  It's a nice, fun dialogue on his place in life.  He'd fit well in a Woody Allen film.  But I fell asleep before it ended.

You can stop trying to shove Louis CK down my throat now.  I keep giving him extra chances because he grew up somewhat near me, but it's just not working out.


He's like Stanhope, His comedy comes from anger. That's really not sustainable
 
2013-07-23 12:15:49 PM

Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?


He didn't look like what they wanted him to look like.
 
2013-07-23 12:16:11 PM

ertznay: Was there this much outrage when Manson was on the cover back in '69?


Manson didn't look like a sexy rockstar all the girls want to be with on that cover
 
2013-07-23 12:17:10 PM

Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?


Here you go:

Reginald Maudling: Manson didn't look like a sexy rockstar all the girls want to be with on that cover

 
2013-07-23 12:17:39 PM

AeAe: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: doublesecretprobation: lol, this was only a few months ago....

Rolling Stone put some chronic masturbator who assaulted a kid on their cover, so fark 'em.

What are you talking about?


Louis C.K. is a chronic masturbator who assaulted a kid while serving as a recess monitor, so fark 'em?
 
2013-07-23 12:17:48 PM
Man, the bar for "sexy rock star" has really gotten lower in the last week, hasn't it?
 
2013-07-23 12:22:38 PM
Wow! He dropped an F bomb! On TV!!! He's so edgy!
 
2013-07-23 12:25:03 PM

Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?


He wasn't shown drawn and quartered. It's much easier for folks to think he was/is simply "evil", then to actually consider he may have been drawn into the culture.
 
2013-07-23 12:25:18 PM

Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?


Glorification of a domestic terrorist, combined with the fact that some of those people do it for notoriety and this act substantiates that.

We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.
 
2013-07-23 12:28:26 PM

thecpt: Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?

Glorification of a domestic terrorist, combined with the fact that some of those people do it for notoriety and this act substantiates that.

We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.


And not agreeing with your opinion isnt really acting "too cool to outraged and all."

Almost like there is a rational middle ground on this issue.
 
2013-07-23 12:28:33 PM

thecpt: Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?

Glorification of a domestic terrorist, combined with the fact that some of those people do it for notoriety and this act substantiates that.

We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.


Done in one.
 
2013-07-23 12:28:41 PM

brap: My feeling is let what's his name join two of history's greatest monsters that have also been featured on the cover of Rolling Stone - namely Charles Manson and Jar Jar Binks.


Make that three:

assets.rollingstone.com
 
2013-07-23 12:29:06 PM

thecpt: We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.


True.  Saying "fark them" isn't over the top at all.  What it shows is a severe lack of critical thinking on his part.
 
2013-07-23 12:30:11 PM

thecpt: Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?

Glorification of a domestic terrorist, combined with the fact that some of those people do it for notoriety and this act substantiates that.

We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.


Thank you for explaining, although I don't appreciate the notion that I'm too cool to be outraged. I was just genuinely in the dark about why it might outrage other people. I suppose being ignorant is very much like being cool. in which case, call me Miles Davis.
 
2013-07-23 12:30:42 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Rolling Stone put some chronic masturbator who assaulted a kid on their cover, so fark 'em.


www.biography.com
 
2013-07-23 12:31:57 PM
img.timeinc.net
 
2013-07-23 12:32:28 PM

Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?


Because innocent until proven guilty person is depicted as criminal?
 
2013-07-23 12:36:30 PM

Gunny Highway: thecpt: Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?

Glorification of a domestic terrorist, combined with the fact that some of those people do it for notoriety and this act substantiates that.

We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.

And not agreeing with your opinion isnt really acting "too cool to outraged and all."

Almost like there is a rational middle ground on this issue.


Definitely not saying that about the opinion matter, I'm just saying these threads have been full of people essentially saying "u mad?" And rubbing in how much free press rs is getting.

I like what my local radio station did by only referring to them as s bag #1 and #2. I don't want to remember their names after having lanza's name on every local news page for 6 straight months.
 
2013-07-23 12:39:00 PM

Nurglitch: thecpt: Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?

Glorification of a domestic terrorist, combined with the fact that some of those people do it for notoriety and this act substantiates that.

We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.

Thank you for explaining, although I don't appreciate the notion that I'm too cool to be outraged. I was just genuinely in the dark about why it might outrage other people. I suppose being ignorant is very much like being cool. in which case, call me Miles Davis.


At least you asked why rather than just assuming that since you're not offended then the other people must be immature babies. (Not that there aren't any on that side, just that there is a valid point for being mad)
 
2013-07-23 12:39:02 PM

AnotherBluesStringer: tenpoundsofcheese: FarkedOver: [christconquers.files.wordpress.com image 400x527]
FARK TIME MAGAZINE!! BOYCOTT!!

And if Time Magazine wrote on the cover:  "How a popular and promising painter was failed by his family and fell into a bad political organization" there would have been a boycott.

Understanding why these people are the way they are could be a useful tool in helping prevention.

Or, in your terms, derp derp derp, derpy derp de derp.


Keep believing that derp. 

As society changes why people behave they way they do will also change so you will truly never understand why causes a so called normal person to behave in a horrible manner
 
2013-07-23 12:39:51 PM

FarkedOver: thecpt: We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.

True.  Saying "fark them" isn't over the top at all.  What it shows is a severe lack of critical thinking on his part.


Could you sound like more of an arrogant prick? You sound so farking full of yourself. Sorry that some of us non-intellectuals think it was cynical and misguided of Rolling Stone to treat a violent terrorist like a cover story out of Seventeen magazine.

Stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you on this is just too stupid to 'get' what Rolling Stone was doing. We get it, we just think it was wrong.
 
2013-07-23 12:41:28 PM

velvet_fog: Could you sound like more of an arrogant prick? You sound so farking full of yourself. Sorry that some of us non-intellectuals think it was cynical and misguided of Rolling Stone to treat a violent terrorist like a cover story out of Seventeen magazine.

Stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you on this is just too stupid to 'get' what Rolling Stone was doing. We get it, we just think it was wrong


Ok.
 
2013-07-23 12:42:19 PM

Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?


I'm not getting all the outrage, either. It's a current event, he's part of the story, they published his image. That's about the long and short of it.
 
2013-07-23 12:42:25 PM

thecpt: Gunny Highway: thecpt: Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?

Glorification of a domestic terrorist, combined with the fact that some of those people do it for notoriety and this act substantiates that.

We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.

And not agreeing with your opinion isnt really acting "too cool to outraged and all."

Almost like there is a rational middle ground on this issue.

Definitely not saying that about the opinion matter, I'm just saying these threads have been full of people essentially saying "u mad?" And rubbing in how much free press rs is getting.

I like what my local radio station did by only referring to them as s bag #1 and #2. I don't want to remember their names after having lanza's name on every local news page for 6 straight months.


This is not a repeat from 356 BC
 
2013-07-23 12:44:48 PM
Louis CK is my favorite comedian working today, followed closely by Patton Oswalt and Bill Burr. It would appear I have an ear for comedy involving angry white guys.

/keep doin' what you do, Louis!
 
2013-07-23 12:45:31 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: doublesecretprobation: lol, this was only a few months ago....

Rolling Stone put some chronic masturbator who assaulted a kid on their cover, so fark 'em.


love4mj.files.wordpress.com


static.actustar.com
 
2013-07-23 12:46:48 PM

LewDux: thecpt: Gunny Highway: thecpt: Nurglitch: At the risk of sounding like a space alien who just landed, what exactly is so offensive about having the surviving Boston bomber's picture on the cover of Rolling Stone? Was he wearing too many clothes?

Glorification of a domestic terrorist, combined with the fact that some of those people do it for notoriety and this act substantiates that.

We get that you guys are too cool to be outraged and all. It's still a dick move, and saying fark them isn't really over the top outrage.

And not agreeing with your opinion isnt really acting "too cool to outraged and all."

Almost like there is a rational middle ground on this issue.

Definitely not saying that about the opinion matter, I'm just saying these threads have been full of people essentially saying "u mad?" And rubbing in how much free press rs is getting.

I like what my local radio station did by only referring to them as s bag #1 and #2. I don't want to remember their names after having lanza's name on every local news page for 6 straight months.

This is not a repeat from 356 BC


Artemis at hephasteaus reference? On my fark?
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report