'Rolling Stone' Boston bomber cover

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Jul 18, 2013 5:42 AM GMT
    'Rolling Stone' Boston bomber cover


    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/rolling-stone-cover-controversy/2524081/

    I'm not using the article title on this one.
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Jul 18, 2013 3:48 PM GMT
    This is the Rolling Stone's Actual Article:



    Jahar's World
    He was a charming kid with a bright future. But no one saw the pain he was hiding or the monster he would become.



    http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 18, 2013 4:59 PM GMT
    Society pushes the boy/girl next door images down our throats, then wants to censor the image when they turn out to be evil terrorists. The pic on the cover is a self shot. That's what he saw when he looked in the mirror, and he was a monster. People want pretty models and ugly terrorists. Sorry, but beautiful people don't get the privilege of presumed morality, while everyone else gets accepted as potentially suspicious. Osama Bin Laden was on countless magazine covers. Rolling Stone did nothing wrong here. The people getting upset about it are being hypocrites.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2013 5:01 PM GMT
    Here was my take: http://500sardonicwords.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/the-taboo-of-humanizing-monsters/

    Snippet: "Let’s be frank, he’s a cutie pie. And a monster. And not all of us can seem to handle the two at the same time. Let’s remember something though, Ted Bundy got marriage proposals while in prison. People have always been weird about humanizing monsters. It’s why there’s also a fanbase for Tsarnaev."
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Jul 18, 2013 6:12 PM GMT
    Rolling Stone's 'The Bomber' Issue Banned By CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid And Kmart

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/cvs-tedeschi-rolling-stone_n_3611805.html


    I don't think it should be banned. I read the entire article. I still don't understand why someone would do what they did. But it did give me a glimpse into who he and his brother were. I think that one thing that really scares people even more about this is that he could have been anyone. He did not really fit into the stereotypes of a terrorist. And people feel more comfort when they can put people into little boxes.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 18, 2013 6:16 PM GMT
    metta8 saidRolling Stone's 'The Bomber' Issue Banned By CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid And Kmart

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/cvs-tedeschi-rolling-stone_n_3611805.html

    They're the ones glorifying him. Nothing gives a rock star more credibility than getting banned. Smh. That pic is what he looks like in the mirror.

    They had no problem selling magazines with Bin Laden on the cover. It's national racial profiling at the corporate level. Makes me sick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2013 1:04 AM GMT
    I'd have rather seen a shirtless picture of you on the cover of Rolling Stone, Joe. They could have put a small picture in the corner somewhere, the sole reason was to sell magazines to anyone attracted to him. Tabloids. Personally, I couldn't care less about the evil brothers' background stories. It's a good thing one is dead, and ideally the other should soon follow him to hell.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 19, 2013 1:07 AM GMT
    The bummer about all of this is that the ROLLING STONE cover story was actually really well done. I understand the glamorization of it via the cover photo was offensive to many, but it took away from an otherwise really good piece.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2013 1:09 AM GMT
    The only reason people are getting upset is because he's a beautiful beast. If he were as fugly as the other terrorists, nobody would give a damn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2013 1:15 AM GMT
    No, I wouldn't want to see him at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2013 1:56 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidThe only reason people are getting upset is because he's a beautiful beast. If he were as fugly as the other terrorists, nobody would give a damn.


    Back in the day when this happened, this look was considered sexy.

    1374076265000-XXX-manson-1970-rolling-st
  • The_Guruburu

    Posts: 895

    Jul 19, 2013 1:59 AM GMT
    HottJoe saidSociety pushes the boy/girl next door images down our throats, then wants to censor the image when they turn out to be evil terrorists. The pic on the cover is a self shot. That's what he saw when he looked in the mirror, and he was a monster. People want pretty models and ugly terrorists. Sorry, but beautiful people don't get the privilege of presumed morality, while everyone else gets accepted as potentially suspicious. Osama Bin Laden was on countless magazine covers. Rolling Stone did nothing wrong here. The people getting upset about it are being hypocrites.

    Thank you. It's not like Rolling Stone airbrushed a six pack on him or something. It's a picture he took of himself. If people want to get mad because he's attractive, they can make an appointment with their local plastic surgeon.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 20, 2013 4:40 AM GMT
    Well, I bought the magazine and read the article. It was very chilling and eye opening. It did not, as people have claimed, glamorize Jahar at all. If anything it showed how disturbed he was. I no longer think he was simply brainwashed by his brother. He seemed to turn to his brother and religion and embrace violence because of teenage angst, his parents divorce, a sense of entitlement, and lack of morals. He believed 9/11 was an inside job and hated America for being "fake."