I would expect people who are offended by something to be passionate about it. I wouldn’t expect the shruggers to care at all.
I knew all about the Charles Manson murders, but never knew until now that he’d been on the cover of Rolling Stone.
That’s the impression I got. Especially from people who live in or near Boston.
You know while I understand to some degree where the outrage comes from it really is annoying. It’s like we are all required to follow 3 scripts: “Boo villains!” “Yay heroes!” Or “oh noz victims!”
Rolling Stone: how did a normal looking kid end up doing this?
Everyone: stfu and say “boo villian”!
And I see andiethewestie’s face book link for “stfu and say o noz victims.”
For what it’s worth: I have little investment in this argument. I am not offended by the cover but I understand why others might be.
But in reading through this thread, the majority of the angry, emotional posts are coming from those who are not offended and seem furious at those who are. It’s fine if he cover doesn’t bother you - as I said, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. But it also doesn’t piss me off that it does bother some people.
I agree. What makes it look “flattering” is the context. We are conditioned to see popular artists on the cover of Rolling Stone who wear similar expressions on their face (brooding, intense, cool), and so people are seeing the bomber through the same lens. That’s why they see glamour, promise, and normalcy.
But if this pic was shown in another context–like a magazine that regularly features high profile criminals–more people would likely see the disturbed, loner, depressed look in this face. Instead of calling him a heart throb, people would likely be saying he looks like a proto-killer. It would not be out of place as a mug shot.
I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that the context doesn’t matter and that we should take the pic at face value. At face value, the pic is just a pic. It’s not objectively flattering because that is a purely subjective determination, but even that aside, most people see the guy as attractive so he can’t help that he takes good shots.
Glorifying any these bottom feeding POS’s in this way offends the character of everyone else that SHOULD be on the cover of a magazine instead. :mad:
I understand why some people might be offended. It’s because there are short-sighted people, uninformed people, narrow-minded people, hysterical people, self-centered people, and all kinds of other undesirable human traits.
People should only take offense to things that are justifiably offensive. Offense is a powerful weapon and it shouldn’t be based on faulty reasoning or unexamined emotions.
I agree with this.
And disagree with this. I’ve been reading along on the whole thing and I’ve seen people pretty much passionately defending their viewpoint on both sides. Except for one person who can’t understand why people are offended who has been condescending and sarcastic, but they haven’t posted a great deal in this thread. And one other person who is offended and they’ve been all over the place, posting a lot and come across as enraged. I can almost feel the spittle through their monitor. So, I’d say that person’s opinion is the one that’s tilting the lean of the thread. YMMV
I Just don’t understand how you can call using a decent picture of the guy “glorifying”. It really is kind of ridiculous.
I can understand why this doesn’t sit right with people, but the two sides here are ‘this doesn’t bother me, but you can refuse to buy the magazine if it bothers you’ vs. ‘this shouldn’t exist at all because it’s offensive or might cause tiny numbers of bad people to do bad things.’ One is a hands-off approach, and the idea that something shouldn’t be for this kind of reason tends to provoke more irritation.
Furious might be a little strong, but I do think there’s a reaction to people who want to find outrage at everyday events like the publishing of a magazine with a suspect’s photo. The stupidity of thinking this cover is “disrespectful” to the victims of the bombing does piss people off. A story about who would do such a terrible thing is the right thing to do after such an event. We should be having a conversation about why this kid went bad. Putting his photo on the cover is a traditional way to alert people that there’s a story about him in this issue. People who pretend not to up understand that and assume a position of “outrage” are annoying.
The bomber is a piece of shit, I doubt he’s high-fiving his cell mates about making the cover of Rolling Stone. His life is seriously fucked up at this point.
This has got to be the downright stupidest post in this thread. Writing an in-depth article about someone is not glorifying. Putting someone’s picture on a magazine cover is not glorifying. It’s informing. And “everyone else that SHOULD be on the cover of a magazine”? Seriously? No one “should” be on the cover of a magazine except whomever a magazine publisher wants to put on that cover.
Rolling Stone: “Hey we have an in-depth article about the surviving Boston Bomber, his upbringing, his family, his religion, his motives, and how society failed him and he turned against society. What should we put on the cover?”
The obvious answer is Justin Bieber, of course.
Might be too controversial. Let’s go with Charlie Manson instead.
Precisely! As I said earlier, most of my “friends” live in MA and are losing their shit over the cover.
I agree totally! If the magazine in question were Time or Newsweek, nobody would bat an eyelash. But because it’s RS, a magazine most people don’t think of for serious journalism, they see it through that lense.
Would you all understand if New Yorkers lost their shit if OBL was on a magazine cover after 9/11?
Not true, because people do sometimes object to prominent news coverage for killers. You can find examples in this thread and others.
In other words, they’re reacting based on their own assumptions.
I am a New Yorker, he was, it would have been pretty stupid to lose my shit over it. And when Time went out of their way to avoid naming him Person of the Year that year, I did roll my eyes because it was such a craven attempt to avoid a negative reaction.
I doubt he’s got cell mates. Or much of anything.
Marley:
1)You don’t think the fact it’s a relatively soft news magazine is effecting people’s reaction?
2)Yes, see above
3)Thanks for the link. Should’ve assumed he was on the cover. I agree he was a better choice than Rudy.