|
Its not "gently caress america" its "america, gently caress yeah!"
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
e: nvm
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
I wonder if Tamerlan had a little of the ol' CTE, having been a boxer and all. Exacerbated his latent issues with his poor upbringing? e: \/ Well, gently caress.  If only he'd been able to walk into a clinic and get treatment despite being not-rich.
FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Tamerlan had confided in a friend he felt like there were "Two people inside him." said friend recommended his mother send him to doctor. She decided she could fix him with healthy dose of Islam and exorcism. We can see how well that turned out. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if boxing injuries took their toll as well. Dude really did need some serious help, he got his mother instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I wonder if Tamerlan had a little of the ol' CTE, having been a boxer and all. Exacerbated his latent issues with his poor upbringing? This is the dumbest theory I've ever seen. No offense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
enbot posted:Really? That Charlie brooker school shooting video gets posted all the time and that's what people are talking about. It's tough where to draw the line between reporting and creating copycats by glamorizing what happened. "Describing" what happened isn't "glamorizing" what happened, and the info on what happened is largely already in the public consciousness. I'm not sure why you think one article would create copycats. Has that happened before/is there some sort of precedent? Or is worrying about copycats baseless speculative fear mongering?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 12:18
|
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:Have you ever actually read Rolling Stone magazine? It's had a strong focus on current social and political issues since its inception. And how often does their cover have someone who's not an actor/celebrity?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
Quasimango posted:And how often does their cover have someone who's not an actor/celebrity? I guess Charles Manson counts as a celebrity? Are politicians also celebrities?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:"Describing" what happened isn't "glamorizing" what happened, and the info on what happened is largely already in the public consciousness. I'm not sure why you think one article would create copycats. Has that happened before/is there some sort of precedent? Or is worrying about copycats baseless speculative fear mongering? There have been studies showing a connection between suicides and coverage iirc, I guess it's the same theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I guess Charles Manson counts as a celebrity? Are politicians also celebrities? So over 40 years ago then? Why, that's no time at all. Here look, you can go through and find how many are not actors/musicians/Obama in 'cool mode'. Yes, Rolling Stone does do political/social coverage, but their cover has almost universally been "rock stars". That's why this cover has had such a negative response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
Quasimango posted:So over 40 years ago then? Why, that's no time at all. This cover has a negative response because people love to be outraged over unimportant things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
Somebody went and stepped in front of a commuter rail train at JFK. Probably couldn't take the heat anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:This cover has a negative response because people love to be outraged over unimportant things. People were outraged when the Roman Stone magazine published a front page picture of Nero on the cover of the June 64 issue after he set fire to Rome. They thought they could change things in future issues by banning pictures of Nero but We Forgot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:This cover has a negative response because people love to be outraged over unimportant things. "Here is the ultimate failure of politics translated. Go to your room, alone. Immerse yourself in ephemera, alone. Meet others just like yourselves so you can talk endlessly about this or that loose end discovered in your hours of isolation in front of a screen." - JoAnn Wypijewski “Denial is an integral part of atrocity, and it’s a natural part after a society has committed genocide. First you kill, and then the memory of killing is killed.” – Iris Chang "The undeserving maintain power by promoting hysteria." - Frank Herbert
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Neutrino posted:People were outraged when the Roman Stone magazine published a front page picture of Nero on the cover of the June 64 issue after he set fire to Rome. They thought they could change things in future issues by banning pictures of Nero but We Forgot. Going within the past century, how much outrage was there when Hitler won Time's Man of the Year  To be fair, they knew he was a monster when they announced it. Or how about the Ayatollah in 1979.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:Going within the past century, how much outrage was there when Hitler won Time's Man of the Year I was outraged when it was me. Link
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:Going within the past century, how much outrage was there when Hitler won Time's Man of the Year TIME died to me when they named Rudolph Giuliani Person of the Year 2001. Person of the Year is supposed to be the most influential person, good or bad. Whatever can be said of Giulianai, he certainly wasn’t more influential than Osama bin Laden.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:TIME died to me when they named Rudolph Giuliani Person of the Year 2001. Good lord could you have seen the uproar it would have been if OBL was person of the year? The right wing would have literally exploded. Even if they had put "Worst Person of the Year" people would have gone insane. inkblottime posted:You are contributing to the death of that word. Literally. Not really since I think some whackos would have bombed Time's offices. Errant Gin Monks fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
I don't really understand why people are upset. If you don't like the subject, then don't read it. More options for knowledge, good or bad, is better than restricting knowledge because a few people find it offensive.Errant Gin Monks posted:Good lord could you have seen the uproar it would have been if OBL was person of the year? The right wing would have literally exploded. Even if they had put "Worst Person of the Year" people would have gone insane. You are contributing to the death of that word. Literally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Context is everything in this discussion. I understand that people can be confused and mildly amused at the outrage people have shown over the cover. Certainly, some are angry for stupid reasons (his photo doesn't deserve to be shown, he's a gurdurned terrist! et cetera) I subscribe to rolling stone and I had somehow missed the entire controversy, but after seeing the cover, I was definitely taken aback. Basically, my reasoning is about what rolling stone covers represent - that the cover of rolling stone is for artists and pop culture icons. D. Tsarnaev is neither. Charles Manson has been brought up a few times as the other example of a 'monster' on the magazine cover. In my opinion that cover was also a mistake, but Manson remains a recognizable pop-culture icon from his era. RS wasn't the cause of that of course, the cover was more of a reaction to Manson's baffling pop culture icon status. With Tsarnaev it's different. While there are some bizarre teen-girl fandoms surrounding him, he isn't the symbol of macabre/insanity/etc that Manson was, he's literally just a home-grown terrorist with soft features that happened not to die on the night of the arrest. He isn't getting songs written about him or copycats or any of the other things Manson enjoyed. He hasn't had a cultural effect on Boston at all - people only care about the attack itself. It just isn't comparable at all. I'm not particularly angered by it, but I did find it pretty distasteful. It's obvious it's a play by RS for controversy, they want to remain current and 'edgy' by surprising people by putting Tsarnaev's doe-eyed selfie on the cover in the place of their usual artists - of course their right, and that's fine, whatever. But I actually considered unsubscribing because of it. The article isn't even particularly well written or interesting, and is hardly cover-worthy. krazysigmarite fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
It would be easy to demonize him considering the heinous act he participated in but the truth is he was a fairly average kid before all this. If they put a picture of an angry dude with a mask around his nose and mouth, it would be written off as "Yeah, he's evil" and probably ignored for the most part. I think RS was trying to take the admittedly controversial angle of "What happened to this nice kid?" I think it's a fair question to ask while showing him when he was "normal". But not everyone want's to see that and I can understand that. I just don't see why it should be removed from the public eye. It's kind of sad really because I don't truly believe he was completely converted to being a terrorist. He had a chance to live a regular life and now he has to live with what he and his brother have done. It's just terrible all around. It would be easier for me if he was troubled from the start like his brother. And I think that's what RS was trying to say with their cover.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Good lord could you have seen the uproar it would have been if OBL was person of the year? The right wing would have literally exploded. Even if they had put "Worst Person of the Year" people would have gone insane. You know Hitler got it one year, right? Stalin twice, Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 and probably a few others that may literally explode the right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
How long is "before all of this" though? Like, planning a bomb attack isn't just a spur-of-the-moment thing. At any point that he didn't want to be in on it a simple call to the police in the tune of "Please help, my brother is plotting a terrorist attack and I have to go along or he'll kill me" (even if his brother wouldn't) may have proven his better moral. Months? Years maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:You know Hitler got it one year, right? Stalin twice, Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 and probably a few others that may literally explode the right. Hitler was in 1938 well before the war (and he had his fans in USA), Stalin in 1939 and 1942, especially the 1942 not many in USA would have objected to that year. More scandalously, in 1983 Ronald Reagan had to share the title with Soviet leader Yuri Andropov! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Green Puddin posted:How long is "before all of this" though? Like, planning a bomb attack isn't just a spur-of-the-moment thing. At any point that he didn't want to be in on it a simple call to the police in the tune of "Please help, my brother is plotting a terrorist attack and I have to go along or he'll kill me" (even if his brother wouldn't) may have proven his better moral. Months? Years maybe? There wasn't really much of a plot. I'm sure it was a bit longer, but the entire thing could have gone from inception to explosion in a week or two. This wasn't 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
xie posted:There wasn't really much of a plot. I'm sure it was a bit longer, but the entire thing could have gone from inception to explosion in a week or two. This wasn't 9/11. I remember there was some discussion about mysterious explosions that had occurred before the marathon bombings, did anything ever come of that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
jalopybrown posted:I remember there was some discussion about mysterious explosions that had occurred before the marathon bombings, did anything ever come of that? Pretty sure it turned out to be fireworks or gunshots - they were reported in multiple locations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Boston Magazine is running some photos taken by a Boston PD photographer in response to the rolling stone cover. I don't give a drat about why (I think the outrage is ridiculous), but they are good photos: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/  Yes that is a sniper's laser dot. Seems like their website is getting slammed right now, refresh a few times if it doesn't come up. Frinkahedron fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
There is definitely a goon somewhere with that hoodie
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:Boston Magazine is running some photos taken by a Boston PD photographer in response to the rolling stone cover. I don't give a drat about why (I think the outrage is ridiculous), but they are good photos: I wonder how long till all the fangirls are posting 4th from bottom on their tumblrs. Interesting pictures and I hope the others from the September issue of their magazine end up online too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
jalopybrown posted:I wonder how long till all the fangirls are posting 4th from bottom on their tumblrs. EEEEEEEE! It's like Botticelli's Birth of Venus! And she's the goddess of love! He looks even sadder than Justin did after Selena dumped him!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:Boston Magazine is running some photos taken by a Boston PD photographer in response to the rolling stone cover. I don't give a drat about why (I think the outrage is ridiculous), but they are good photos: Holy poo poo, the top comment on this article is actually... a good comment!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 22:58
|
|
hcreight posted:Holy poo poo, the top comment on this article is actually... a good comment! Holy crap that is pretty good.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:Boston Magazine is running some photos taken by a Boston PD photographer in response to the rolling stone cover. I don't give a drat about why (I think the outrage is ridiculous), but they are good photos: I didn't know snipers actually had those: they seem kind of self-defeating. Are they for situations where the cops want people to know that they're covered by snipers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I didn't know snipers actually had those: they seem kind of self-defeating. Are they for situations where the cops want people to know that they're covered by snipers? Well they were trying to get him to surrender. Laser dots and snipers are pretty engrained "Oh poo poo, I'm in trouble" signifiers engrained in the pop-culture consciousness that this fool was very much a part of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
press for porn posted:Well they were trying to get him to surrender. Laser dots and snipers are pretty engrained "Oh poo poo, I'm in trouble" signifiers engrained in the pop-culture consciousness that this fool was very much a part of. Yeah that is why people have laser scopes...
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
press for porn posted:Well they were trying to get him to surrender. Laser dots and snipers are pretty engrained "Oh poo poo, I'm in trouble" signifiers engrained in the pop-culture consciousness that this fool was very much a part of. Now I'm imagining cops blaring dubstep and pretending they can no scope the suspect a few years from now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
They should have used one of those courtroom artist depictions of the guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:
No kidding, I can barely get it to load at all. Can read text on Google cache but images won't load. Either these are some amazing pics, or Boston Magazine has almost no bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
The police officer who released the photos has been relieved of duty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:29
|
|