• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rolling Stones and the Boston Bomber cover.

ChrisL said:
Um, yes. I believe they are martyrs to those with similar mind sets. Did you know some serial killers and other horrible people actually get love letters while in prison, and even get married sometimes? There will always be those who admire these kind of people, obviously.
Click to expand...

So why don't you shut down all media and any mention of evil in the world. Can't show what happened on 9/11 because someone else may try to fly a plane into a building - can't show the Zimmerman trial, because it will breed hundreds of Zimmermans roaming the streets murdering innocent black kids, etc. etc.

You really have a very poor opinion of your fellow Americans if you think they are so weak of will and self-respect that masses of them instantly become criminal minds because they see a picture of an evil person on the cover of a magazine.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's hard to understand or credit because it's simply nonsense. People like Tsarnaev have been gracing the cover of magazines for decades - Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVey, Saddam Hussien, Jeffrey Daumer, etc. etc. etc. Did they all become martyrs with huge followings?

A little less drama and a lot more reason and sanity would be welcomed.
Click to expand...

But its rolling stone magazine and that is the reason people r reacting. If it had of been time magazine it would not of provoked the same reaction.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Your point is perfect - people need to see that not all terrorists have beards to their bellies and turbans round their heads - some look like one of your kid's friends in school.
Click to expand...

That can all be accomplished without sensationalizing him on the cover. All this does is extend his 15 minutes of fame. All the media has done, and continues to do, is elevate him to celebrity status and that's exaclty what he wants. The fact that he wants it is the reason why I and others wish to deny him that and I will not purchase the magazine.

No, my boycotting of the magazine won't stop others from reading it, but I will have the satisfaction of knowing I don't support his elevation.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So why don't you shut down all media and any mention of evil in the world. Can't show what happened on 9/11 because someone else may try to fly a plane into a building - can't show the Zimmerman trial, because it will breed hundreds of Zimmermans roaming the streets murdering innocent black kids, etc. etc.

You really have a very poor opinion of your fellow Americans if you think they are so weak of will and self-respect that masses of them instantly become criminal minds because they see a picture of an evil person on the cover of a magazine.
Click to expand...

Lol! MASSIVE hyperbole.
 
I notice that all the usual right wing sites are playing this up big time. I wonder how much of this attack on Rolling Stone is simply right wing payback for their brutal exposure of right wing icons like the NRA, ALEC, the Koch Brothers and other right wing gods?
 
1101360413_400.jpg

Did good Americans boycot Time magazine in 1936?
 
haymarket said:
I notice that all the usual right wing sites are playing this up big time. I wonder how much of this attack on Rolling Stone is simply right wing payback for their brutal exposure of right wing icons like the NRA, ALEC, the Koch Brothers and other right wing gods?
Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with left and right on this one. I know people on all sides that are boycotting Rolling Stones for this, including me. Continung the celebrity elevation is exactly what this scum bag wants. Why people want to accomodate a terrorist I have no idea.
 
Higgins86 said:
But its rolling stone magazine and that is the reason people r reacting. If it had of been time magazine it would not of provoked the same reaction.
Click to expand...

That just proves the reaction is asinine, not the use of the pic.
 
TheNextEra said:
That can all be accomplished without sensationalizing him on the cover. All this does is extend his 15 minutes of fame. All the media has done, and continues to do, is elevate him to celebrity status and that's exaclty what he wants. The fact that he wants it is the reason why I and others wish to deny him that and I will not purchase the magazine.

No, my boycotting of the magazine won't stop others from reading it, but I will have the satisfaction of knowing I don't support his elevation.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that - at least you're not trying to force your opinion, your views on other members of society by trying to force stores from displaying and selling the magazine - It's perfectly reasonable to exercise your own censorship on a product you disagree with, but not reasonable for you to exercise your own level of censorship on other's free right to purchase.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That just proves the reaction is asinine, not the use of the pic.
Click to expand...

no its proves that their is a time and a place to approach the subject and using that image on a magazine like Rolling stone is not the place to do it.
 
haymarket said:
I notice that all the usual right wing sites are playing this up big time. I wonder how much of this attack on Rolling Stone is simply right wing payback for their brutal exposure of right wing icons like the NRA, ALEC, the Koch Brothers and other right wing gods?
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with right wing/left wing nonsense. I'm a conservative, considered by you to be a right winger - I strongly object to the gang/mob attempts to dictate what I read or don't read and what I purchase or don't purchase.
 
Higgins86 said:
well man of the year is just a reflection on the most news worthy person of that year.
Click to expand...

As are the Boston bombers -- perhaps not the year, but certainly news worthy.

If his actions were actually glorified in some way in the actual text -- say, by calling him a martyr as does al Jazeera towards various terrorists in their Arabic editions -- then I would have serious issues with it. For just writing the article and having his picture on the cover, not so much.
 
Higgins86 said:
no its proves that their is a time and a place to approach the subject and using that image on a magazine like Rolling stone is not the place to do it.
Click to expand...

In your view - and you're perfectly entitled to it - what you're not entitled to, in my view, is to shout down and try to ban things you don't agree with.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good point - equally important to the discussion above, did a whole slue of Americans suddenly become Hitler wannabees when they saw the photo?
Click to expand...

I think it all depends on HOW a picture and article are used. Is it glorifying or is it cautionary? It is the spin rather than the inclusion of the pic that counts.

I haven't read the article to know, but if it acts as apologetics, then I would be extremely critical. If it is honest about ideology and how it can motivate to do horrible things, then I would see it as illustrative rather than glorifying.
 
Higgins86 said:
The issue is not the article itself its how they have presented it! That's why shops are boycotting the magazine and prominent politicians, journalists, celebrities have voiced their disgust at the front cover.


Rolling Stone's Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Cover Slammed By Boston Mayor
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I understand that. Being he is basically an evil person, motivated by emotion and religious divisiveness and youthful stupidity. I get the same feeling when they put the Prince of Kenya's picture on Time magazine. A feeling of utter disgust.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Has nothing to do with right wing/left wing nonsense. I'm a conservative, considered by you to be a right winger - I strongly object to the gang/mob attempts to dictate what I read or don't read and what I purchase or don't purchase.
Click to expand...

Who is telling you what to read or not read?
 
haymarket said:
Who is telling you what to read or not read?
Click to expand...

Those people who insist on banning the magazine from sales in various stores and who insist on advertisers and sponsors of the magazine pull their support or suffer similar gang/mob protests of their products.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Those people who insist on banning the magazine from sales in various stores and who insist on advertisers and sponsors of the magazine pull their support or suffer similar gang/mob protests of their products.
Click to expand...

thank you for clarifying that.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Glad you're finally admitting you overreacted.
Click to expand...

No, that would be you who is overreacting. Practically throwing a temper tantrum because some of us think it is tasteless, inappropriate and wouldn't buy it. Go buy it, by all means, knock yourself out. Who cares?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Those people who insist on banning the magazine from sales in various stores and who insist on advertisers and sponsors of the magazine pull their support or suffer similar gang/mob protests of their products.
Click to expand...

The world's smallest violin, and it's playing for you and the terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. :roll:
 
CanadaJohn said:
Those people who insist on banning the magazine from sales in various stores and who insist on advertisers and sponsors of the magazine pull their support or suffer similar gang/mob protests of their products.
Click to expand...

Not selling the magazine, and pulling sponsorship, or pressuring businesses to do both, is not telling people what to read or not read. In fact, boycotts and the threat of boycotts is an american tradition. I think this is a silly one, but there is nothing wrong with it, just another extension of free speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom