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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7869431


(International Business Times)   I guess that Rolling Stone boycott didn't work after all   (ibtimes.com) divider line 89
    More: Followup, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Rolling Stones, innovations, Tsarnaev, Sharon Tate  
•       •       •

5157 clicks; Favorite

89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-01 09:23:33 AM  
Repeat from earlier today
 
2013-08-01 09:37:35 AM  
It isn't hard for a company like Rolling Stone to inflate their sales to minimize/neutralize potential damage of a controversy.
 
2013-08-01 10:08:17 AM  
And they were able to successfully manipulate the poutrage of morons for a good profit.

Awesome
 
2013-08-01 11:05:21 AM  
Step 1: Create inflammatory magazine cover
Step 2: Backlash
Step 3: Profit

Works every time
 
2013-08-01 11:08:42 AM  
Yeah duh.

Boycott threats turns thing like that in to collector's items.
 
2013-08-01 11:11:48 AM  
Duh, the number of people actually offended by this was always far smaller than was implied by the media and I'm willing to be that none of those people subscribed to Rolling Stone in the first place. All the "controversy" did was to give Rolling Stone lots of "free" publicity(which they may very well have paid for).
 
2013-08-01 11:14:23 AM  
They have every right to run his picture.

However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

But those running the magazine don't care about that.  They got their money.

But you know, if one of THEIR loved ones was hurt they'd be the first to complain of someone else did this.
 
2013-08-01 11:20:23 AM  
I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.
 
2013-08-01 11:25:57 AM  

abfalter: They have every right to run his picture.

However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

But those running the magazine don't care about that.  They got their money.

But you know, if one of THEIR loved ones was hurt they'd be the first to complain of someone else did this.


You probably think the news is "depressing" huh?
 
2013-08-01 11:27:18 AM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-08-01 11:29:32 AM  
as a subscriber, I waited for this issue to arrive -
the cover isn't particularly flattering. he is a fairly good-looking young man (no more than any young person) but the cover included the text:

THE BOMBER
"how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical islam and became a monster"


how anyone, familiar with the Boston bombing, could find this flattering confuses me. in the current era of committing political/personal/professional suicide by media over-exposure, the idea that "bad press is better than no press" is LONG over. The article itself was well-written and did what I expected - looked into how this person may have become radicalized. A process we might want insight into?

i'm also pleased to think that so many freaking out about this might have, yes, purchased this issue and perhaps have seen the attendant coverage on "The Arctic Ice Melt" - but, I doubt that happened.
 
2013-08-01 11:30:01 AM  
They have every right to run his picture.
However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.


Not exactly the job of their magazine. It's for entertainment. The story is interesting. I'd like to read it but then I'd actually have to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I'll wait for someone at work to buy it.
 
2013-08-01 11:32:38 AM  
doubled99

you can read the article on-line, actually - RS is available that way, fyi
 
2013-08-01 11:33:03 AM  

vygramul: www.bitlogic.com


I don't recall approving that byline.
 
2013-08-01 11:33:12 AM  
doubled99:
Not exactly the job of their magazine. It's for entertainment. The story is interesting. I'd like to read it but then I'd actually have to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I'll wait for someone at work to buy it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717
 
2013-08-01 11:34:33 AM  

abfalter: It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.


The same people who think this spend months out of their lives watching the Arias and Anthony trials on CourtTV.
 
2013-08-01 11:36:21 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Duh, the number of people actually offended by this was always far smaller than was implied by the media and I'm willing to be that none of those people subscribed to Rolling Stone in the first place. All the "controversy" did was to give Rolling Stone lots of "free" publicity(which they may very well have paid for).


Yup. Bunch of hyped-up crap against a magazine that routinely runs excellent hard-news items on topics the ruling-class would rather see ignored.
 
2013-08-01 11:39:10 AM  
What boycott?
There was a boycott?
Or was this just a snarky, trolling headline...
 
2013-08-01 11:39:35 AM  
You mean the flag waving, bible thumping, muzzie hating, teabagging, chicken pickin' listenin' pickle bums who were whinging about it WEREN'T actually regular readers of a notoriously left leaning music mag?

Shocking!!

It seriously is funny when these derp hounds act like they matter outside of their little bubble of fear and hate.
 
2013-08-01 11:40:07 AM  
abfalter: It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

It is depressing to think that the attempt to interest and enlighten the public via a major magazine cover devoted to a domestic terrorist (ie get them to READ THE ARTICLE) will not work for so many because all they will discuss is the photo.

Then again? The advertising industry lives and flourishes with this practice.
 
2013-08-01 11:40:17 AM  
of course it did, as long as their are people to come to the aid of corporation in the name of "anti political correctness" boycotts will continue to not work. Don't believe me? Just ask Chik Fil A
 
2013-08-01 11:43:34 AM  
Well, I'm certainly boycotting them by gum

Of course I've been boycotting them for at least 30 years so they probably won't notice.
 
2013-08-01 11:43:35 AM  

kronicfeld: vygramul: www.bitlogic.com

I don't recall approving that byline.


I made it in another thread on the Rolling Stone controversy and needed something to fill out the cover. It's not a byline, though. It means that inside there's an article about you.
 
2013-08-01 11:45:55 AM  

wygit


What boycott?
There was a boycott?


I was wondering about that too.

I can't not read RS any more than I'm already not reading it. And it has nothing to do with any recent covers.
 
2013-08-01 11:52:43 AM  

wygit: What boycott?
There was a boycott?


The NAACP called a boycott of Floriduh.

So far, non-LEO violent crime is down 16%.
 
2013-08-01 11:58:58 AM  

abfalter: They have every right to run his picture.

However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

But those running the magazine don't care about that.  They got their money.

But you know, if one of THEIR loved ones was hurt they'd be the first to complain of someone else did this.


i don't see how it's flattering. he looks like a teenager because he is/was one. would you have them photoshop an evil mustache and some devil horns on him?
 
2013-08-01 12:00:01 PM  
Makes sense, I bought two. One is in a mylar bag in my climate-controlled storage unit. The other is next to me on my nightstand, crusty with jizz.
 
2013-08-01 12:03:23 PM  

nburghmatt: i don't see how it's flattering. he looks like a teenager because he is/was one. would you have them photoshop an evil mustache and some devil horns on him?


No, but he's obviously been "Trayvonned". They published the most cutesy, flattering picture they could find of him. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't go with the 14 y/o pic.
 
2013-08-01 12:04:44 PM  

HAMMERTOE: I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.


There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar
 
2013-08-01 12:05:19 PM  
Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?
 
2013-08-01 12:08:48 PM  
It was a frickin' selfie. If they had the photo of his brother in a boa taking pictures of himself in the street would that have been glamorous too? They're obviously narcissists, an interesting relevant feature, and the photo shows that. Annie Leibowitz wan't having Johar blowing kisses at the camera!
 
2013-08-01 12:12:00 PM  
The guy is young (and looks even younger) and reasonably attractive. He's going to look good in a photo. It's not like Rolling Stone had a photo shoot and dressed him up all GQ style and put that on the cover. The bombing was news, the bombers are news, and a magazine put him on the cover. I don't see how this is offensive at all, especially when they refer to him as a monster on the cover.
 
2013-08-01 12:12:26 PM  

somedude210: HAMMERTOE: I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.

There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar


It's depressingly easy to find people on twitter who think he is both attractive and innocent
 
2013-08-01 12:13:40 PM  

ElwoodCuse: It's depressingly easy to find people on twitter who think he is both attractive and innocent


we also had a following of Manson too. It happens. Evil breeds groupies
 
2013-08-01 12:14:28 PM  
stuffy:
Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?


no - it may still be foolish to judge something you've never bought, however.
 
2013-08-01 12:14:40 PM  
People who usually broadcast that they are boycotting something would not have bought it in the first place. They just want everyone to know they are "taking a stand" without actually having to DO anything.
 
2013-08-01 12:14:56 PM  
Of course not.
The cover was designed to appeal to the liberals and it worked.

That poor kid was let down by his family and fell into radicalism. Oops he just fell.
 
2013-08-01 12:15:58 PM  

stuffy: Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?


This. Why would anyone buy that sensationalist rag in the first place? Ads on how to beat drug tests?
 
2013-08-01 12:16:05 PM  

Aarontology: the poutrage of morons

shannonallenmusic.files.wordpress.com

 
2013-08-01 12:16:31 PM  
Meh, RS is less relevent every day.
What next?

*yawn* *picks nose*
Oooo interesting.
 
2013-08-01 12:16:58 PM  
Like I said in the other thread, of course the issue will generate curiosity, but newsstand sales are less than 5% of their business. The boycott will come down to how it affects subscriptions, which this article doesn't even consider. If 10% of subscribers refuse to renew because of this, they will lose out tremendously.
 
2013-08-01 12:17:34 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: stuffy: Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?

This. Why would anyone buy that sensationalist rag in the first place? Ads on how to beat drug tests?


I bet you watch a lot of Dr. Oz and Fox News don't you?
 
2013-08-01 12:18:52 PM  
Besides, most of the extra sales are probably speculators who imagine the issue is going to fetch them $100 on eBay someday.
 
2013-08-01 12:19:44 PM  
I read RS while I ate a chick-fil-a sandwich. Finished with a rainbow Oreo dessert.
 
2013-08-01 12:22:25 PM  

somedude210: There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.


Forgive me. I misspoke. Certainly, they did 'apprehend" him. After they failed to FIND him. But they surely made up for that by having a "shootout" with him, (despite his being unarmed.) The only casualty that evening was a defenseless, innocent boat.

Citation:
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/04/david-henneberry-found-boston-bomb er -boat/

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Citation:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/boston-door-to-door- se arches-legal/64461/

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you.

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar


I have exactly ZERO reason to lie. Like I said, it was a personal friend of mine, and her exact words were, "I just can't believe it! He's too cute to be a terrorist!"
 
2013-08-01 12:26:25 PM  
Oh, so we're not a nation of cowards fleeing from a photograph? Good to know, I was getting worried
 
2013-08-01 12:26:49 PM  

HAMMERTOE: nburghmatt: i don't see how it's flattering. he looks like a teenager because he is/was one. would you have them photoshop an evil mustache and some devil horns on him?

No, but he's obviously been "Trayvonned". They published the most cutesy, flattering picture they could find of him. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't go with the 14 y/o pic.


Some people think the bomber is cute. Others think he's an ugly terrorist monster. These sorts of assessments are subjective by nature. It's telling that you refer to the cover as "most cutesy, flattering."
As far as your lamenting tooold:(.jpg, I'm not going anywhere near that but you might want to have a seat right over there.
 
2013-08-01 12:27:17 PM  

somedude210: Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering


Specific Citation, in case you want to get a little more "in-depth".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313249/Boston-bomber-search -M oment-SWAT-teams-ordered-innocent-neighbors-houses-GUNPOINT.html
 
2013-08-01 12:28:35 PM  

Pep Streebeck: Aarontology: the poutrage of morons

[shannonallenmusic.files.wordpress.com image 628x362]


yes. Really.

All of this manufactured poutrage was by morons who 1) literally judge things by their cover (They flat out called him a monster on the cover, but they're more concerned that it's "glamorizing" him because he didn't get the OJ on Time treatment,  2) are upset that a terrorist could look like a normal white kid who wouldn't be out of place wherever they live instead of Osama bin Laden, (in short. he looks like them and that makes them profoundly uncomfortable) and 3) think that a picture can somehow encourage other people to commit acts of evil.

If a f*cking picture is enough to get people pissed off and afraid, then really they should just never leave the house because they're incapable of dealing with the real world

Morons.
 
2013-08-01 12:31:06 PM  
I wonder what it's like inside the head of a "Conservative," being terrified of imaginary things all day long, offended by phantoms, unable to leave the house without being armed, spending all your money on monstrously overpriced "survival food" and GOLD! And railing against Rolling Stone.

/Pictures of the war criminal Allan West on conservative magazine covers is just fine though. Same with convicted traitor Oliver North.
 
2013-08-01 12:32:58 PM  

404 page not found: It's telling that you refer to the cover as "most cutesy, flattering."


Not in that way, exactly. I meant it in more of a "Hollywood image" context. kind of like how they found the most amusing, idiotic-looking pictures of Bush to run with. The picture of Tsarnaev looks almost like a modeling photo-shoot image.
 
2013-08-01 12:35:05 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Debeo Summa Credo: stuffy: Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?

This. Why would anyone buy that sensationalist rag in the first place? Ads on how to beat drug tests?

I bet you watch a lot of Dr. Oz and Fox News don't you?


 YOU NEED TO THE SHUT THE FARK UP AND GO INSIDE.  THESE RUBARBS DON'T BELONG TO ANYONE!
 
2013-08-01 12:35:43 PM  
1 + 1 = 2

that's dubbel.

HErp deRP!
 
2013-08-01 12:44:35 PM  

abfalter: They have every right to run his picture.

However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

But those running the magazine don't care about that.  They got their money.

But you know, if one of THEIR loved ones was hurt they'd be the first to complain of someone else did this.


If you're suggesting that a well placed glamour shot is enough to create domestic terrorists then we have a much bigger problem on our hands.
 
2013-08-01 12:46:31 PM  
He is sexy.

Prison rape sexy.


/rape
 
2013-08-01 12:48:56 PM  
Rolling Stone sent out interns to buy out a bunch of copies? Good for them. Probably the biggest spike in sales they'll see for years.
 
2013-08-01 12:49:32 PM  

Aarontology: Pep Streebeck: Aarontology: the poutrage of morons

[shannonallenmusic.files.wordpress.com image 628x362]

yes. Really.

All of this manufactured poutrage was by morons who 1) literally judge things by their cover (They flat out called him a monster on the cover, but they're more concerned that it's "glamorizing" him because he didn't get the OJ on Time treatment,  2) are upset that a terrorist could look like a normal white kid who wouldn't be out of place wherever they live instead of Osama bin Laden, (in short. he looks like them and that makes them profoundly uncomfortable) and 3) think that a picture can somehow encourage other people to commit acts of evil.

If a f*cking picture is enough to get people pissed off and afraid, then really they should just never leave the house because they're incapable of dealing with the real world

Morons.


I've developed a new theory about people like this. I believe it's a remnant of the Mcarthy style patriotism that took place after 9/11. There was so much drum beating and "sympathizer" accusing going around that it created this mindset where people felt the need to declare their hatred and disdain for all things "terrorist" related as loudly and angrily as they could. It didn't matter how inconsequential or actually even UNrelated the thing was. Unless they completely flipped their sh*t over everything that even hinted at being soft on "terrorists" they might be branded as unpatriotic and perhaps even a "turrist" themselves. It's turned into a self perpetuating thing where everyone is trying out outrage each other to make themselves appear to love America more than the next guy. Kind of like whackaloon religious freaks trying to out pious each other.

The hilarious part is EVERY FREAKING NEWS OUTLET has used that EXACT SAME PIC. I guess because someone decided that because the libby libtard mag RS was using it it was all of a sudden a sympathetic display and the True Patriot Brigade started working themselves up into a froth. The article could have been a thousand word essay condemning him to being tortured for the rest of his life before being cremated in a dumpster fire and these types of people would STILL freak out about the picture because someone told them to and they don't to look weak or suspicious.

Another significant historical event that this type of mentality could be associated with is the Salem witch trials. Once it starts it is hard to stop. Scary stuff.
 
2013-08-01 12:53:17 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course not.
The cover was designed to appeal to the liberals and it worked.

That poor kid was let down by his family and fell into radicalism. Oops he just fell.


AKA "radicalization" - but you already knew that, right?

The article also discusses some important concepts from a criminology / forensic profile perspective, but you already knew that, too, right?

Let me guess, you don't think the picture is the most cutesy, flattering picture you've ever seen, do you? Did the Rolling Stone cover give you a raging hard-on like  HAMMERTOE?
 
2013-08-01 12:56:43 PM  

Bontesla: abfalter: They have every right to run his picture.

However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

But those running the magazine don't care about that.  They got their money.

But you know, if one of THEIR loved ones was hurt they'd be the first to complain of someone else did this.

If you're suggesting that a well placed glamour shot is enough to create domestic terrorists then we have a much bigger problem on our hands.


We have a much bigger problem on our hands. Reference: the last 10-15 years.
 
2013-08-01 12:59:29 PM  

abfalter: It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.


brunoberry.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-01 01:01:03 PM  
Just reposting from the other thread... Overblown issue was overblown. I'm a RS subscriber. When my copy arrived in the mail, what became apparent and seems the ZOMG media outrage didn't convey was that the picture was very low-res and fuzzy. Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo. Yeah, OK, he had the touseled hair and pouty face thing going on, but that was just how the kid looked.


And the article, on balance, was pretty good. Talked to a lot of the guy's friends, and tried to piece together how an otherwise pretty normal immigrant kid with plenty of opportunity in life could become a deranged monster.
 
2013-08-01 01:06:12 PM  
Was that a common look for him or not?
I rather suspect it was.

I did not see the glamor.
I just saw a presentable face.
 
2013-08-01 01:06:22 PM  

Aarontology: Pep Streebeck: Aarontology: the poutrage of morons

[shannonallenmusic.files.wordpress.com image 628x362]

yes. Really.

All of this manufactured poutrage was by morons who 1) literally judge things by their cover (They flat out called him a monster on the cover, but they're more concerned that it's "glamorizing" him because he didn't get the OJ on Time treatment,  2) are upset that a terrorist could look like a normal white kid who wouldn't be out of place wherever they live instead of Osama bin Laden, (in short. he looks like them and that makes them profoundly uncomfortable) and 3) think that a picture can somehow encourage other people to commit acts of evil.

people who saw this coming: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/12/free_jahar_why_does _bo ston_bomber_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_have_so_many_female.html

It's a bit exasperating when you realize someone's put lipstick on a pig and yet some people are too stupid to see that it's still a pig.

To be fair, this is more of a general disgust with a society that puts "Honey Boo-Boo" on the air.
 
2013-08-01 01:11:46 PM  

Pontious Pilates: Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo.


Agreed.  It wasn't a good pic but it wasn't a particularly bad one either.

Pontious Pilates: Talked to a lot of the guy's friends, and tried to piece together how an otherwise pretty normal immigrant kid with plenty of opportunity in life could become a deranged monster.


The people who were outraged by the cover don't care about the "why" and "how" any more.  They're mostly too shallow to care about complicated things like that.  All that matters to them is the lable Nancy Grace applies to the guy.
 
2013-08-01 01:11:59 PM  
Aarontology:

All of this manufactured poutrage was by morons who 1) literally judge things by their cover (They flat out called him a monster on the cover, but they're more concerned that it's "glamorizing" him because he didn't get the OJ on Time treatment,

Wow, you just made me realize -- nobody's calling Racism on this one?  Surely if this had been a brown person, we'd have a much uglier pic!
 
2013-08-01 01:12:35 PM  

Muta: Pontious Pilates: Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo.

Agreed.  It wasn't a good pic but it wasn't a particularly bad one either.

Pontious Pilates: Talked to a lot of the guy's friends, and tried to piece together how an otherwise pretty normal immigrant kid with plenty of opportunity in life could become a deranged monster.

The people who were outraged by the cover don't care about the "why" and "how" any more.  They're mostly too shallow to care about complicated things like that.  All that matters to them is the lable Nancy Grace applies to the guy.



Oh, crap, is he a Tot Mom as well?
 
2013-08-01 01:12:53 PM  

elchupacabra: It's a bit exasperating when you realize someone's put lipstick on a pig and yet some people are too stupid to see that it's still a pig.


Even if they gave him devil horns and a goatee there'd be stupid people out there who want to f*ck him, glorify him, emulate him, etc...

Chicks marry the most depraved pscyho rapist/murderers on death row. Some people are just f*cked. This is all about putting a political spin on that phenomena. "Look! Look! Some dumb broads think he's sexy! F*CKING LIBRULZ SUPPORT TERRORISM!!!"
 
2013-08-01 01:15:42 PM  

404 page not found: Did the Rolling Stone cover give you a raging hard-on like HAMMERTOE?


Haha. You're funny. I'm not the only one that picked up on the glamour-shot quality of the photo. Aside from people in this very discussion, there was the P.R. cop that released the bloody picture of him in response to this cover, so affronted was he with its apparent beatification of the punk.

Still, even if I was speaking in that context (and I wasn't,), don't you and your homophobia have a middle-school class to get back to?
 
2013-08-01 01:18:55 PM  

HAMMERTOE: somedude210: There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.

Forgive me. I misspoke. Certainly, they did 'apprehend" him. After they failed to FIND him. But they surely made up for that by having a "shootout" with him, (despite his being unarmed.) The only casualty that evening was a defenseless, innocent boat.

Citation:
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/04/david-henneberry-found-boston-bomb er -boat/

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Citation:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/boston-door-to-door- se arches-legal/64461/

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you.

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar

I have exactly ZERO reason to lie. Like I said, it was a personal friend of mine, and her exact words were, "I just can't believe it! He's too cute to be a terrorist!"


Does she LITERALLY believe he's innocent because he's cute? Or was it more of an expression of surprise that he doesn't look the way we expect a terrorist to look, that he looks pretty much like someone sitting next to her in class, someone she would probably flirt with?

I was surprised when I first saw him, I thought it was sad because he was cute and looks like a nice kid and it seems like such a waste of his life. And I'm far from my teenage years.
 
2013-08-01 01:20:42 PM  
Even if they gave him devil horns and a goatee there'd be stupid people out there who want to f*ck him, glorify him, emulate him, etc...

Chicks marry the most depraved pscyho rapist/murderers on death row. Some people are just f*cked. This is all about putting a political spin on that phenomena. "Look! Look! Some dumb broads think he's sexy! F*CKING LIBRULZ SUPPORT TERRORISM!!!"


Or all about not having more young people become mass murderers? Not everything has to be political. Sometimes it can just be good common sense: don't glorify scumbags.
 
2013-08-01 01:22:55 PM  

Phins: Does she LITERALLY believe he's innocent because he's cute? Or was it more of an expression of surprise that he doesn't look the way we expect a terrorist to look, that he looks pretty much like someone sitting next to her in class, someone she would probably flirt with?

I was surprised when I first saw him, I thought it was sad because he was cute and looks like a nice kid and it seems like such a waste of his life. And I'm far from my teenage years.


I think she knows better now. But in the beginning, she actually believed it had, just HAD to be a case of mistaken identity. The words I've emboldened, she also said to me, almost word for word.
 
2013-08-01 01:26:08 PM  

InstaZen25: Or all about not having more young people become mass murderers? Not everything has to be political. Sometimes it can just be good common sense: don't glorify scumbags.


*facepalm*

Read the article. And how come no one is boycotting all of the other news outlets that used that EXACT SAME PIC!

No... not everything has to be political but this "boycott" most certainly was. The story itself was not.
 
2013-08-01 01:28:45 PM  

HAMMERTOE: I think she knows better now. But in the beginning, she actually believed it had, just HAD to be a case of mistaken identity. The words I've emboldened, she also said to me, almost word for word.


it sounds like it was more of "this isn't what a terrorist is supposed to look like" than "omg, he's so dreamy. He must be innocent cause I want him in my pants" type thing
 
2013-08-01 01:29:46 PM  

HAMMERTOE: I think she knows better now. But in the beginning, she actually believed it had, just HAD to be a case of mistaken identity. The words I've emboldened, she also said to me, almost word for word.


So you are friends with an idiot. This is the fault of RS editorial staff how?
 
2013-08-01 01:30:32 PM  

Muta: Pontious Pilates: Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo.

Agreed.  It wasn't a good pic but it wasn't a particularly bad one either.


Well, yeah, and like I said, he had the tousled hair and pouty look on just because that's just how he looked. Yeah, some people took that for rock star glam. Upon personal inspection up close it looked a lot worse than it did in thumbnail size over the shoulder of some talking head on teevee yelling about freedom and boycotts.
 
2013-08-01 01:31:30 PM  
All this ridiculous indignation about the cover but no one talking about the story itself, which is a question that should be explored: how does someone who grew up in the US, who appears to be living a normal life, become a terrorist, willing to kill and injure innocent people?

The day they identified him, there was an interview with a couple of guys he played soccer with and rode to games with. When they first saw the picture from the video, their only thought was that it looked like their friend and they were going to tease him about it. It never even occurred to them that it actually was the guy they knew.

I notice none of the teahard types want to have that conversation. They just want to tell "radical mooslum hate fear hate."
 
2013-08-01 01:40:00 PM  
And really it was the older brother who was the real d-bag here. If it wasn't for his loserness the younger brother likely wouldn't have gotten involved in this crap. He still needs to face justice and pay a severe penalty for what he has done but it's like the older brother who was the one who truly radicalized, actively sought out guidance from terrorists in other countries and set this whole thing has been forgotten in all this. Joker here seems like he was a dopey kid trying to impress his big bro. Maybe not but why the hell are we talking about HIM all the time and not the older brother?

They are both losers. They are both murderers. Anyone with half a brain knows that. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot. That's that. Freaking out about a stupid selfie is pointless. Find out who the older brother was trained by and Seal Team those mother f*ckers. THAT'S what people should be talking about. Or how about all that weird sh*t about the kid who got killed while being interrogated? Or the dude they supposedly killed and sprinkled with pot? What's going on with THOSE stories? WHY THE F*CK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A STUPID PICTURE???!!!

That is all.
 
2013-08-01 01:46:15 PM  

here to help: They are both losers. They are both murderers. Anyone with half a brain knows that. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot. That's that. Freaking out about a stupid selfie is pointless. Find out who the older brother was trained by and Seal Team those mother f*ckers. THAT'S what people should be talking about. Or how about all that weird sh*t about the kid who got killed while being interrogated? Or the dude they supposedly killed and sprinkled with pot? What's going on with THOSE stories? WHY THE F*CK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A STUPID PICTURE???!!!


because BOSTON STRONGGGGGG

no, seriously, I would love those things to be asked and according to the RS article, the older brother tried to get in with the Islamist fighters in Chechnya and even they said he was an idiot and that it wasn't their fight. But as it is, we're a fickle people this far north. We're jumping at shadows and picking fights where no fight was needed. It's our mentality, we can take on the world because *ARRRRRRRRRRGH* BOSTON STRONG

Seriously, I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims of the bombing, but this city/statewide victimization is a load of crap. Thankfully it's not at 9/11 levels but this is pretty sad that we've gotten to this point all because of some magazine cover
 
2013-08-01 01:46:48 PM  

Phins: All this ridiculous indignation about the cover but no one talking about the story itself


People don't want to actually read the story, they just want to make sure everyone knows that they are outraaaaaged by the cover.
 
2013-08-01 01:49:35 PM  
Things that Bostonians fear:

1. Lite-Brites
2. Magazine covers

Things that Bostonians love:

1. Neil Diamond
 
2013-08-01 01:49:47 PM  
*facepalm*

Read the article. And how come no one is boycotting all of the other news outlets that used that EXACT SAME PIC!

No... not everything has to be political but this "boycott" most certainly was. The story itself was not.


I really haven't seen that pic anywhere but the RS cover, and people gotta know what the guy looks like. Especially when there is an active manhunt going on.

The boycott may have been a little silly, but the issue isn't the story. I would say that problem is that stupid people like the Tsar brothers see a stupid cover like that as their ticket to fame. Sure, someone will plaster his face up somewhere but those with a conscience may not want to be part of the problem in glorifying these losers.
 
2013-08-01 02:05:23 PM  

somedude210: because BOSTON STRONGGGGGG

no, seriously, I would love those things to be asked and according to the RS article, the older brother tried to get in with the Islamist fighters in Chechnya and even they said he was an idiot and that it wasn't their fight. But as it is, we're a fickle people this far north. We're jumping at shadows and picking fights where no fight was needed. It's our mentality, we can take on the world because *ARRRRRRRRRRGH* BOSTON STRONG

Seriously, I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims of the bombing, but this city/statewide victimization is a load of crap. Thankfully it's not at 9/11 levels but this is pretty sad that we've gotten to this point all because of some magazine cover


Man, I feel for you having to live in the middle of that jingoistic crap. It truly was a terrible event but man... it appears to be a couple lone losers. One is dead and the other is in custody. I guess people need to release the rage and take revenge on SOMETHING but if they were indeed just two lone idiots... it's done. You can't go to war with them. You can't boycott them. You can't do sh*t except mourn the dead, support the injure and insure justice is served. I like that you mentioned the Chechen rebels telling Tamerwhatshisf*ck to piss off. I could definitely see them not wanting the Russkies having the US as an ally against their "plight" (I think they're assholes but so are the Russians in that scenario... no good guys there).

Sometimes sh*t happens. It doesn't make sense and the more you try to make sense of it the more frustrated you will get. The more frustrated you get the more likely it is you will sink to the level of those that hurt you... and the beat goes on and on and on.

Boston strikes me as a strong place with strong people and I hope they get over it... and I'm sure they will. I think it's more other assholes around the country trying to hijack their pain for the own purposes which is absolutely despicable. Just like the arsewads who would sh*t down a New Yorkers throat in a heartbeat but will use 9/11 as some kind of holy day for their crusade. Disgusting.

Anyway... I guess we are off the mainpage now (I WAS GETTIN' TOO REAL!! IT'S A CONSPRIACY!! lol) but yeah... best to you and Boston. Sh*tty stuff and watching the news come out in real time was heartbreaking and I am many MANY miles away.

Cheers.
 
2013-08-01 02:16:25 PM  

InstaZen25: I really haven't seen that pic anywhere but the RS cover, and people gotta know what the guy looks like. Especially when there is an active manhunt going on.


Really? It was all over the place and kind of iconic well before RS even touched it. I think that's why they used it in the first place. Not because they wanted to make it a pop culture thing but BECAUSE it was already a pop culture thing. It complimented the insanity of the whole scenario and the media reaction perfectly and went hand in hand with the related article. They didn't start the fire.

InstaZen25: The boycott may have been a little silly, but the issue isn't the story. I would say that problem is that stupid people like the Tsar brothers see a stupid cover like that as their ticket to fame. Sure, someone will plaster his face up somewhere but those with a conscience may not want to be part of the problem in glorifying these losers.


People who are capable of perpetrating such disgusting acts will do it whether their is a symbol for them to cling to or not. It's like blaming video games for Columbine or or other spree killings. The people who do that kind of thing are sick and will likely act out one way or the other. See my post to somedude. People need something to blame and/or attack so tragic nonsensical events make sense. Sometimes they just don't make sense. This atrocity did not make sense. Mourn your dead, help the injured and insure justice is served... but not at the expense of the ideals of your country.

Knowadimean?
 
2013-08-01 03:49:38 PM  

Pontious Pilates: Just reposting from the other thread... Overblown issue was overblown. I'm a RS subscriber. When my copy arrived in the mail, what became apparent and seems the ZOMG media outrage didn't convey was that the picture was very low-res and fuzzy. Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo. Yeah, OK, he had the touseled hair and pouty face thing going on, but that was just how the kid looked.


And the article, on balance, was pretty good. Talked to a lot of the guy's friends, and tried to piece together how an otherwise pretty normal immigrant kid with plenty of opportunity in life could become a deranged monster.


Thanks for the input. I had an immediate gut reaction about this cover too, so I'm glad to hear that they actually did an in-depth analysis of how he radicalized. That does actually sound like a worthwhile story.
 
2013-08-01 04:28:16 PM  

kronicfeld: Things that Bostonians fear:

1. Lite-Brites
2. Magazine covers


Things that Bostonians love:

1. Neil Diamond


Why not both?

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-08-01 05:33:11 PM  

here to help: Man, I feel for you having to live in the middle of that jingoistic crap. It truly was a terrible event but man... it appears to be a couple lone losers. One is dead and the other is in custody. I guess people need to release the rage and take revenge on SOMETHING but if they were indeed just two lone idiots... it's done. You can't go to war with them. You can't boycott them. You can't do sh*t except mourn the dead, support the injure and insure justice is served. I like that you mentioned the Chechen rebels telling Tamerwhatshisf*ck to piss off. I could definitely see them not wanting the Russkies having the US as an ally against their "plight" (I think they're assholes but so are the Russians in that scenario... no good guys there).

Sometimes sh*t happens. It doesn't make sense and the more you try to make sense of it the more frustrated you will get. The more frustrated you get the more likely it is you will sink to the level of those that hurt you... and the beat goes on and on and on.

Boston strikes me as a strong place with strong people and I hope they get over it... and I'm sure they will. I think it's more other assholes around the country trying to hijack their pain for the own purposes which is absolutely despicable. Just like the arsewads who would sh*t down a New Yorkers throat in a heartbeat but will use 9/11 as some kind of holy day for their crusade. Disgusting.

Anyway... I guess we are off the mainpage now (I WAS GETTIN' TOO REAL!! IT'S A CONSPRIACY!! lol) but yeah... best to you and Boston. Sh*tty stuff and watching the news come out in real time was heartbreaking and I am many MANY miles away.

Cheers.


*slowclaps* sir, that is one of the finest responses I've ever read to a post like that. Thank you. It's nice to know I'm not alone in feeling like this crap has gotten out of control.

*favorited as "Understandable Marathon RS person"
 
2013-08-01 05:36:14 PM  

Aarontology: Pep Streebeck: Aarontology: the poutrage of morons

[shannonallenmusic.files.wordpress.com image 628x362]

yes. Really.

All of this manufactured poutrage was by morons who 1) literally judge things by their cover (They flat out called him a monster on the cover, but they're more concerned that it's "glamorizing" him because he didn't get the OJ on Time treatment,  2) are upset that a terrorist could look like a normal white kid who wouldn't be out of place wherever they live instead of Osama bin Laden, (in short. he looks like them and that makes them profoundly uncomfortable) and 3) think that a picture can somehow encourage other people to commit acts of evil.

If a f*cking picture is enough to get people pissed off and afraid, then really they should just never leave the house because they're incapable of dealing with the real world

Morons.


From the article from columnist Jon Keller:
It looks like there is no one in America without a strong opinion on the Rolling Stone cover photo of one of the alleged Boston Marathon mass murderers.
And no wonder.
Thee wounds are still raw. The anger and horror is still fresh. We aren't even close to understanding the amount of damage that was done.


The article accompanying the story is unobjectionable. It gathers available information about the Tsarnaev family and throws in some fresh but relatively uninformative interviews with Dzhokhar's friends, all of which paints a sorry portrait of a dysfunctional family full of failure, self-pity, and demented hatred.
It's worth reading, I suppose, if you don't mind getting sick to your stomach.
But the uproar is all about the photo, a picture we've seen often since marathon day, including on the front page of the New York Times. And here's the problem: it is, as best I can tell, the most flattering photo of this alleged mass murderer that Rolling Stone could find.
The editors are trying to hide behind the fact that they call Dzhokhar a "monster," but if they had wanted to illustrate that properly they could have used one of many less-flattering pictures.
And the fact is, the very rare exceptions notwithstanding, the cover photo on Rolling Stone is reserved for pop stars the magazine wants to hype. It's not a news context - the magazine itself put this piece under the heading of "culture."
Rolling Stone thought it was OK to showcase this creature, barely three months after his crime, as some kind of cultural icon.
But it's not OK. It's exploitative and offensive.
And that's why so many of us are so disgusted by it."

So, in summary:

i.qkme.me
 
2013-08-01 09:58:08 PM  

vygramul: kronicfeld: Things that Bostonians fear:

1. Lite-Brites
2. Magazine covers

Things that Bostonians love:

1. Neil Diamond

Why not both?


You left the k out of Ignignokt
 
2013-08-02 01:08:03 AM  

ransack.: vygramul: kronicfeld: Things that Bostonians fear:

1. Lite-Brites
2. Magazine covers

Things that Bostonians love:

1. Neil Diamond

Why not both?

You left the k out of Ignignokt


It's not the only mistake. I also didn't use a more flattering photo.

www.bitlogic.com
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report