Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Reread my post and you'll realize how ridiculous yours is. The Rolling Stone is not predominantly anything other than what it is. It's a magazine that has regular coverage of pop culture (including TV and movies) and current events. Attacking them for being a 'music' magazine is pointless and untrue because they've always published current events news.
Not when one studies the history of Das Schwarze Korps which Time magazine, despite having correspondents in Germany, somehow failed to do even though it was one of the most widely distributed (and criticized) news papers in Germany and contained mostly racist propaganda and calls for violence against Jews and non-ethnic Germans (and a really funny article damning Superman and Superman creator Jerry Seigel). There's plenty of room to criticize Time's decision when they made it (EDIT: And unsurprisingly people did, Hitler did just remilitarize the Rhineland and occupy the Czech Republic after all).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/07/18 22:30:48
LordofHats wrote: Not when one studies the history of Das Schwarze Korps which Time magazine, despite having correspondents in Germany, somehow failed to do even though it was one of the most widely distributed (and criticized) news papers in Germany and contained mostly racist propaganda and calls for violence against Jews and non-ethnic Germans (and a really funny article damning Superman and Superman creator Jerry Seigel). There's plenty of room to criticize Time's decision when they made it (EDIT: And unsurprisingly people did, Hitler did just remilitarize the Rhineland and occupy the Czech Republic after all).
So Hitler's cover getting approval two months before the Night of Broken Glass isn't an important fact? Pretty sure that many other contemporary figures also had some pretty unsavory views (such as Churchill)
So Hitler's cover getting approval two months before the Night of Broken Glass isn't an important fact? Pretty sure that many other contemporary figures also had some pretty unsavory views (such as Churchill)
Important in so far as 1938 wasn't a quiet year for Hitler in the slightest. I concede of course that I put down the first thing to pop into my mind. The Annexation of Austria would have been a better examples (EDIT: Being widely criticized and both happening months prior to Time's POY issue).
EDIT: Nope. Got my date for the occupation wrong. Just Austria then
EDIT EDIT: Now I'm totally off XD. Okay let me get this straight then:
Annexation of Austria: 11, March 1938
Occupation of Czechoslovakia: 21 September, 1938
Night of Broken Glass: 9 November, 1938
I've gotten my timeline for that series of events horribly wrong. Talk about stepping on my own feet
EDIT: Oh wow. Apparently, Time used to be a lot more cynical than it is now XD How the hell does this article keep getting referenced as a criticism of Time?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/18 23:09:49
Nah, I'm pretty confused right now XD I've read books that act like Time's pick was a bad thing, but the article is pretty scathing (the cover is kind of a give away too). Apparently I've stumbled either onto something I've horribly misread, or one of those things that just pops up and never gets checked XD
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/07/18 23:24:15
Alfndrate wrote: DC, Rolling stone is a "political and pop culture magazine". While it deals with music and film (as that is what makes up pop culture), rolling Stone has done politics since its inception.
Yeah, they've always had politics, but that just isn't what they're famous for and there's point pretending otherwise. But I mean, when people sing about being 'on the cover of Rolling Stone' they're singing about being rockstars, not about being prominent political figures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The Rolling Stone is a current events magazine. Claiming the Rolling Stone is a music magazine that never writes about anything else shows little more than that you've never ever read the Rolling Stone:
No-one has claimed Rolling Stone is a music magazine that never writes about anything else. They have said that Rolling Stone is a music magazine that writes about other things... which is very different to a current events magazine.
It means when something is put on the cover of Rolling Stone, it is seen in a very different light to someone who's put on the cover of an actual current affairs magazine.
I mean, just look at the last half dozen covers Johnny Depp James Franco/Jonah Hill/Danny McBride/Seth Rogan Daft Punk The Rolling Stones Bruno Mars Louis C.K.
That list should make it pretty clear where The Rolling Stone exists in the media world. And so it should be pretty clear how people are getting the idea that putting a terrorist on the cover is going to give the appearance of placing that terrorist among the ranks of the highest profile celebrities. And it should be pretty obvious that Rolling Stone knew that was going to be the perception, and wanted the contraversy. And they did it anyway, in a tacky, tacky move.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Important in so far as 1938 wasn't a quiet year for Hitler in the slightest. I concede of course that I put down the first thing to pop into my mind. The Annexation of Austria would have been a better examples (EDIT: Being widely criticized and both happening months prior to Time's POY issue).
Thing is, Hitler being made Time's Person of the Year in 1938 is weaseled out of by Time, as they argue that they pick the most influential person of the year, not necessarily requiring that person or their influence to have been good. But that was bs, because we all know that title's like Person of the Year come with an unstated 'and this person is awesome' element, because that's how recognition works.
And Time knew that too, of course. Truth is, we know Time was doing for the attention, looking to drum up a contraversy to sell magazine numbers. And Rolling Stone is doing the same thing, weaseling out of it by saying they've always covered politics, but ignoring what the magazine is known for, and what the cover is for.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/07/19 03:43:55
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
LuciusAR wrote: Not sure what all the fuss is about myself. Rolling Stone is well known for dealing with current events, so why not this one?
As for the photo, well that is an existing photo of Tsarnaev. It's not as if Rolling Stone brought him in for a makeover and professional photo shoot. Would it have been better if they had photoshopped a pair of horns onto his forehead or something?
If anything it illustrates a relevant point, that even handsome boys with bright futures are capable of being radicalised by Islamic fundamentalists. It’s not just life’s losers who are drawn into this sort of thing. That sounds like something worth discussing.
Speaking as someone who lives fairly near, has spent a lot of my life and has/had a lot of friends in Boston...
Exactly the above. The entire point of the photo is that it's a normal "selfie"; the kind of picture 90%+ of teenagers in America take of themselves for Facebook or whatever. The question posed by the article, and encapsulated by the photo, is how does a kid who outwardly seems normal turn into a "monster" and a "bomber"? I'm using those quotes, of course, because those are what the magazine's cover also calls him. His friends, teachers, coach, and everyone around him saw an attractive, normal-seeming kid. That's the photo. But he did a horrible thing. That's the caption. The contrast is the point.
Rolling Stone has also done politics and current events for quite a few decades now (since its inception?); that's how Hunter S. Thompson got famous, of course. Charles Manson was on the cover too, as was also pointed out. Putting a controversial figure on the cover is something pretty much every news publication does to help with sales. RS also happened to have researched and be publishing a long story on him, and their cover does often relate to a long feature article in the mag.
This controversy is ridiculous.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Listen, we all need our kneejerk Two Minutes Hate. Stop being reasonable!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Rolling Stone could have better covered themselves by including the picture of Tsarnaev as a dartboard or range target included free with the rest of the magazine.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
LuciusAR wrote: Not sure what all the fuss is about myself. Rolling Stone is well known for dealing with current events, so why not this one?
As for the photo, well that is an existing photo of Tsarnaev. It's not as if Rolling Stone brought him in for a makeover and professional photo shoot. Would it have been better if they had photoshopped a pair of horns onto his forehead or something?
If anything it illustrates a relevant point, that even handsome boys with bright futures are capable of being radicalised by Islamic fundamentalists. It’s not just life’s losers who are drawn into this sort of thing. That sounds like something worth discussing.
Speaking as someone who lives fairly near, has spent a lot of my life and has/had a lot of friends in Boston...
Exactly the above. The entire point of the photo is that it's a normal "selfie"; the kind of picture 90%+ of teenagers in America take of themselves for Facebook or whatever. The question posed by the article, and encapsulated by the photo, is how does a kid who outwardly seems normal turn into a "monster" and a "bomber"? I'm using those quotes, of course, because those are what the magazine's cover also calls him. His friends, teachers, coach, and everyone around him saw an attractive, normal-seeming kid. That's the photo. But he did a horrible thing. That's the caption. The contrast is the point.
Rolling Stone has also done politics and current events for quite a few decades now (since its inception?); that's how Hunter S. Thompson got famous, of course. Charles Manson was on the cover too, as was also pointed out. Putting a controversial figure on the cover is something pretty much every news publication does to help with sales. RS also happened to have researched and be publishing a long story on him, and their cover does often relate to a long feature article in the mag.
This controversy is ridiculous.
Exactly this right here. The whole point of the article is "isn't it weird how normal this kid seemed?" so of COURSE you pick a photo that illustrates that. Why wouldn't you?
I do like Orlanth's suggestion to an extent (I always need targets for the shooting range ), but I could see how that might get construed for "promoting vigilante justice"
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Explaining the Rolling Stone Cover, by a Boston Native
By MATT TAIBBI
POSTED: July 19, 2:50 PM ET
I grew up in the Boston area, spent my whole early life there. To this day I'm a maniacal fan of Boston sports teams – in fact, I was moved to write this column when (to my great distress) I heard my employers being bashed on the Mut & Merloni show on WEEI, one of Boston's two main sports talk stations, one of the places I turn to not think about the news.
I'm from Boston, but I also lived for almost 10 years in Moscow, Russia, where Chechen terrorist attacks were routine and a very real threat to the public on a daily basis. In fact, in the summer of 1999, I missed being blown up in a Chechen bombing of a Moscow subway station by just a few minutes. So I have no love for Chechen terrorists.
I also have tremendous sympathy and sadness for the victims in Boston of the recent attack, for the whole city in fact. Having spent such a long period of my life in the shadow of Chechen terrorism in Russia, I was mortified when it seemed that that war had arrived in my hometown.
Jahar's World: The Making of a Monster
I was particularly upset to learn that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had spent time at UMass-Dartmouth, a place where my friends and I would ride bikes as kids to shoot baskets or play touch football, back when it was called SMU, or Southern Massachusetts University – the school was right next to my home in Westport, Mass. I felt violated when I saw the TV images of the campus on TV after the attacks, and it's still hard for me to accept that Tsarnaev was ever anywhere near that part of the world, which is so special to me.
Anyway, I heard about the Rolling Stone cover controversy before I even saw the cover or read the magazine. I have to admit I was initially a little rattled when emailers told me my employers had "done a sexy photo shoot for Tsarnaev" and "posed him like Jim Morrison." I've known the editors of this magazine for over a decade now and didn't believe this could be true, but people get all kinds of surprises in life – you hear about people married for years before they find out the husband has a cache of Nazi paraphernalia in his basement, or the wife was previously a male state trooper from Oklahoma, or something – so I guess you can never really know.
Then I actually saw the Tsarnaev cover, and honestly, I was stunned. I think the controversy is very misplaced. Having had a few days to listen to all of the yelling, the basis of all of this criticism seems to come down to two points:
• Putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone automatically glamorizes him, because the cover of Rolling Stone is all by itself a piece of cultural iconography that confers fame and status.
• The photo used in the cover makes Tsarnaev out to be too handsome. He's not depicted with a big red X through his face a la Time magazine's treatment of bin Laden, or with his eyes whited out as in Newsweek's depiction of same, or with a big banner headline like "NOW KILL HIS DREAM" like the one employed by The Economist in its bin Laden cover. He is called a "Monster" in the headline, but the word is too subtle and the font used is too small, making this an unacceptably ambiguous depiction of a terrorist.
I think, on the whole, the people leveling these criticisms must not read the magazine, which is understandable. It would be beyond unreasonable to expect everyone in the country to be regularly familiar with the articles in Rolling Stone. On the other hand, pretty much everyone has heard of Rolling Stone, which is where the problem lay, in this gap between the popular image of the magazine and the reality of its reporting.
If indeed we were just a celebrity/gossip mag that covered nothing but rock stars and pop-culture icons, and we decided to boost sales and dabble in hard news by way of putting a Jim Morrison-esque depiction of a mass murderer on our cover, that really would suck and we would deserve all of this criticism.
But Rolling Stone has actually been in the hard news/investigative reporting business since its inception, from Hunter S. Thompson to Carl Bernstein to Bill Greider back in the day to Tim Dickinson, Michael Hastings, Mark Boal, Janet Reitman and myself in recent years.
One could even go so far as to say that in recent years, when investigative journalism has been so dramatically de-emphasized at the major newspapers and at the big television news networks, Rolling Stone's role as a source of hard-news reporting has been magnified. In other words, we're more than ever a hard news outlet in a business where long-form reporting is becoming more scarce.
Not everybody knows this, however, which, again, is understandable. But that's where the confusion comes in. It's extremely common for news outlets to put terrorists and other such villains on the covers of their publications, and this is rarely controversial – the issue is how it's done.
If the Rolling Stone editors had brought Tsarnaev in to its offices near Rockefeller center, wined and dined him, and then posed him for that Jim Morrison shot, then yes, that would be reprehensible.
But that's not what the magazine did. They used an existing photo, one already used by other organizations. The New York Times, in fact, used exactly the same photo on the cover of their May 5 issue.
But there was no backlash against the Times, because everyone knows the Times is a news organization. Not everyone knows that about Rolling Stone. So that's your entire controversy right there – it's OK for the Times, not OK for Rolling Stone, because many people out there understandably do not know that Rolling Stone is also a hard-news publication.
As to the question of why anyone would ever put a terrorist on a cover of a magazine for any reason beyond the opportunity to slash a red X through his face or depict him in crosshairs, there's an explanation for that. Terrorists are a fact of our modern lives and we need to understand them, because understanding is the key to stopping them.
But in trying to understand someone like a Tsarnaev, there is a delicate line between empathy and sympathy that any journalist has to be careful not to cross. You cannot understand someone without empathy, but you also have to remember at all times who this person is and what he or she did. I think author Janet Reitman did an excellent job of walking that line, but certainly this kind of approach is going to be inherently troubling to some, because it focuses on the criminal and his motivations and not his victims and their suffering.
Which brings us to point No. 2, the idea that the cover photo showed Tsarnaev to be too nice-looking, too much like a sweet little boy.
I can understand why this might upset some people. But the jarringly non-threatening image of Tsarnaev is exactly the point of the whole story. If any of those who are up in arms about this cover had read Janet's piece, they would see that the lesson of this story is that there are no warning signs for terrorism, that even nice, polite, sweet-looking young kids can end up packing pressure-cookers full of shrapnel and tossing them into crowds of strangers.
Thus the cover picture is not intended to glamorize Tsarnaev. Just the opposite, I believe it's supposed to frighten. It's Tsarnaev's very normalcy and niceness that is the most monstrous and terrifying thing about him. The story Janet wrote about the modern terrorist is that you can't see him coming. He's not walking down the street with a scary beard and a red X through his face. He looks just like any other kid.
I expect there will be boycotts, but I wonder about the media figures calling for them. Did they seek to boycott Time after its "Face of Buddhist Terror" cover? How about Newsweek after its "Children of bin Laden" cover?
Or the New York Times after it used exactly the same photo of Tsarnaev? What about all those times that people like Khomeini and Stalin made it to Time's "Man of the Year" cover? On the other hand, there will be critics who will say that Rolling Stone is making money off the despair of the Boston victims, and they will be right. But this will also be true of every media outlet that covered the story. (It's even true of the outlets whose pundits are chewing up airtime bashing this magazine this week). That aspect of journalism is always particularly hard to defend, so I won't try.
However, it's been suggested, by (among others) Boston Mayor Tom Menino, that Rolling Stone expected this controversy and planned to use the image and the notoriety as a way to gain free publicity. I can't speak for everyone at the magazine, but my belief is that this is not true in the slightest – I know people in the office this week are actually in shock and very freaked out. They didn't expect this at all.
It's impossible to become too self-righteous in the defense of something like a magazine when the bottom line of this story is, has been, and always will be that people were cruelly murdered or mutilated through Tsarnaev's horrible act. That truth supercedes all others and always will. So this is a defense of Rolling Stone that I'm not shouting at the top of my voice. What happens to the magazine and its reputation is really of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. But I do think this has mainly been a misunderstanding, one that hopefully will be cleared up in time.
I think the mistake made by both Mannahnin and Matt Tabibi is in assuming that because Rolling Stone does current affairs, that therefore it is a current affairs magazine and any cover it produces should be seen entirely as current affairs if that's the most appropriate way to view a particular cover.
But it doesn't work that way. When you spend most of your time covering celebrities and entertainment, then people are going to see your magazine in the context of celebrities and entertainment. Having guys like Tabibi on staff reporting the odd bit of serious journalism doesn't change that.
So that means that yeah, when a picture is used on the cover of the NYT it is seen in a different light to when its put on the cover of Rolling Stone.
And thing is, I'm sure the article inside is pretty good. Funnily enough, Rolling Stone in my experience has far better standards for its current affairs stuff than the likes of Time, but that doesn't mean we should stop pretending what the magazine primarily is, and how it's primarily seen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/24 07:38:08
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Evans appeared Saturday at Comic-Con to promote his new film "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." Asked about the tweet, he said he felt the magazine intentionally glamorized Tsarnaev. The 19-year-old is accused of setting off two bombs with his brother during the marathon in April. Three people died and more than 250 were injured in the attack.
"I just felt on that Rolling Stone cover he looked like Jim Morrison," Evans said. "He looked like a rock star. It glorified him.
"If you want to do a story, if you want to examine how a young kid can be turned, and if you want to examine innocence lost and all those things, it's fine. The problem is putting him on the cover in that picture in that light, it glorified him. There's no two ways about it. He looked great."
Rolling Stone should have used a different picture, Evans said. "Show his mug shot, show something else that kind of doesn't make it look so fantastic to do such a horrible thing."
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Are people seriously getting offended over this? What happens when they see a picture of Adolf Hitler, do they burst into flames?
They're doing an article on him, OF COURSE he's going to be on the cover.
Zip up your man suits and chill out. This easily offended bullcrap is getting ridiculous. Why does it matter that Rolling Stone has his face on it when his face was literally EVERYWHERE not a couple of months ago, on every tv, website, and newspaper?
Sorry but stupidity is highly offensive to me
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
Seriously offended? Not to many really, but many seem to think it was done in bad taste or just to generate sales, which is somewhat crass. You can recognize that something may be a bad idea without getting overly emotional about it, after all.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I'm more concerned with the people who are only mad that his face is on Rolling Stone, yet are perfectly fine with it being plastered all over the news, as if that's different somehow.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
MrMoustaffa wrote: Are people seriously getting offended over this? What happens when they see a picture of Adolf Hitler, do they burst into flames?
They're doing an article on him, OF COURSE he's going to be on the cover.
Zip up your man suits and chill out. This easily offended bullcrap is getting ridiculous. Why does it matter that Rolling Stone has his face on it when his face was literally EVERYWHERE not a couple of months ago, on every tv, website, and newspaper?
Sorry but stupidity is highly offensive to me
Hang on, what? You'll tell other people to put on man suits and chill out because you think they're offended, and then state how highly offended you are?
And as Ahtman says, I haven't seen anyone get too worried about this (other than the Facebook histrionics mentioned in the OP that you can expect on any issue no matter how trivial it is). No-one is protesting at the front of Rolling Stone or anything. It's more just a topic of conversation.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: And thing is, I'm sure the article inside is pretty good. Funnily enough, Rolling Stone in my experience has far better standards for its current affairs stuff than the likes of Time, but that doesn't mean we should stop pretending what the magazine primarily is, and how it's primarily seen.
I linked the article from inside the magazine earlier in the thread, you could go read it. It's a good article.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Evans appeared Saturday at Comic-Con to promote his new film "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." Asked about the tweet, he said he felt the magazine intentionally glamorized Tsarnaev. The 19-year-old is accused of setting off two bombs with his brother during the marathon in April. Three people died and more than 250 were injured in the attack.
"I just felt on that Rolling Stone cover he looked like Jim Morrison," Evans said. "He looked like a rock star. It glorified him.
"If you want to do a story, if you want to examine how a young kid can be turned, and if you want to examine innocence lost and all those things, it's fine. The problem is putting him on the cover in that picture in that light, it glorified him. There's no two ways about it. He looked great."
Rolling Stone should have used a different picture, Evans said. "Show his mug shot, show something else that kind of doesn't make it look so fantastic to do such a horrible thing."
Wow. that is pretty damning. There are very few people in this world I would actively dodge pissing off. Captain America is one of them.
Evans appeared Saturday at Comic-Con to promote his new film "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." Asked about the tweet, he said he felt the magazine intentionally glamorized Tsarnaev. The 19-year-old is accused of setting off two bombs with his brother during the marathon in April. Three people died and more than 250 were injured in the attack.
"I just felt on that Rolling Stone cover he looked like Jim Morrison," Evans said. "He looked like a rock star. It glorified him.
"If you want to do a story, if you want to examine how a young kid can be turned, and if you want to examine innocence lost and all those things, it's fine. The problem is putting him on the cover in that picture in that light, it glorified him. There's no two ways about it. He looked great."
Rolling Stone should have used a different picture, Evans said. "Show his mug shot, show something else that kind of doesn't make it look so fantastic to do such a horrible thing."
Wow. that is pretty damning. There are very few people in this world I would actively dodge pissing off. Captain America is one of them.
Captain America is a prissy little girly-man, come on, his enemy was all of the German army in WWII and Superman was the one to clock Hitler!
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Alfndrate wrote: Captain America is a prissy little girly-man, come on, his enemy was all of the German army in WWII and Superman was the one to clock Hitler!
Ahem
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Alfndrate wrote: Captain America is a prissy little girly-man, come on, his enemy was all of the German army in WWII and Superman was the one to clock Hitler!
Ahem
Your image is work blocked, I am vindicated (I googled superman punching Hitler... He just has him in a chokehold). Also Cap is still a punk.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
The Rolling Stone doesn't just post current affairs articles from time to time; they usually have quite lengthy pieces in the middle of their magazine.
The Tsarneav piece is no surprise, nor a deviation from their usual method of operation. Mannaheim mentioned this earlier, but a picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words:
Looking very Jesus-like there, Mr. Manson.
If people want to get offended, that's fine, but I contend that the only reason for their offence is an essential ignorance of the article, the picture's relation to it, and the actual nature of the magazine and that this, in turn, is fueled by vapid mob mentality enabled by social media.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
While that has merits... I think the bigger issue is that it's too soon and tacky. Last I've heard, there are still victims in the hospital recovering.
From my cursory google-fu... Manson was in prison for quite some time when that came out... right?
Fair play for admitting it though
(I googled superman punching Hitler... He just has him in a chokehold). Also Cap is still a punk.
