People are boycotting Chik-fil-a because the owners are against gay marriage. By boycotting them, and attempting to force them out of business, is that people endorsing censorship, or people standing up for what they think is decent and upright in our society?
There's a difference.
Think about it.
The difference is that your belief that Rolling Stone's use of the photo was not decent and upright is based on a pretty thin premise: that Rolling Stone either intentionally or inadvertently glamorized the suspect. Again, I just don't see how branding the guy "THE BOMBER" and calling him a "monster" on the cover of the magazine is glamorizing him. To the contrary, Rolling Stone has convicted him without a trial. In fact, Rolling Stone has gone even further, because it also judged him to be an evil person. Even in a criminal trial when a defendant is found guilty, the only question truly adjudicated is whether the person did the thing he or she is accused of doing-- not whether or not he or she is a good person or a "monster." Sometimes, good people do bad things and, if those bad things are illegal, they should and likely will be convicted if charged.
The Rolling Stone writer made a provocative piece of investigative journalism. It examines a question that has fascinated millions: how did this seemingly socialized, well-adjusted, scholarship student [apparently] commit these heinous crimes? Ironically, the article is somewhat underwhelming-- most of what it contains has been reported before, and it doesn't really offer much of a thesis in answer to the question posed. But it's still a good thing that Rolling Stone is doing this kind of journalism, and it would be a bad thing for our society and democracy if they had to walk on eggshells in their attempts to call attention to it.
You're arguing that the cover text has already convicted him. (I don't dispute your statement)
I'm arguing that they could have run the article without giving him the cover photo that was once upon a time a revered place for pop culture icons in our society. Despite your assertion that my argument is based on "a very thin premise", my opinion is no less valid than yours.
My argument is subjective, you don't see it my way, that's your prerogative.
I'm not interested in further defending my opinion, I've hijacked this thread enough; again, sorry to the OP.
You're arguing that the cover text has already convicted him. (I don't dispute your statement)
I'm arguing that they could have run the article without giving him the cover photo that was once upon a time a revered place for pop culture icons in our society. Despite your assertion that my argument is based on "a very thin premise", my opinion is no less valid than yours.
My argument is subjective, you don't see it my way, that's your prerogative.
I'm not interested in further defending my opinion, I've hijacked this thread enough; again, sorry to the OP.
The cover was making a serious point though, and one that is worth remembering. The crazy fuck who planted those bombs IS that normal looking kid. He looks western, like your next door neighbour, because he was that guy for many years before he was radicalised and warped by a sick ideology. It can happen to people you'd never think it can happen to.
I think if he had looked like Osama Bin Laden, fewer people would complain about him being on the cover, it's the fact that he looks glamorous that upsets people. But I believe if people dug down, many would realise that it upsets them because it is uncomfortable, because it challenges their preconceptions, not because it gives him publicity.
Mmj, black keys, and petty in front of the foos and pj is insane... (and I like those acts). Pj and foos arent in the same universe as anyone else currently
A ton of people hold springsteen to that level. I like the boss, saw them one time and actually felt bored. I wonder if I saw a bad show.
Havent seen tool, but from all the accounts I heard, they should be much higher
I have seen Tool - 1995, 2002, and most recently in 2012. PHENOMENAL. I paid $90 for about 20th row left. They played 46&2 and I looked at my buddy and said, "That song alone was worth $90."
Lists like this are just foolish. If you don't like the band's music, how can you compare?
Columbus (3-31-92), (5-6-10)
Cleveland (7-29-92)
VA Beach (8-3-00), (6-17-08)
DC (7-1-03), (6-22-08)
Camden (5-28-06)
Bristow (5-13-10)
Vancouver (9-25-11)
Wrigley (7-19-13)
Charlottesville (10-29-13) Seattle (12-6-13)
You're arguing that the cover text has already convicted him. (I don't dispute your statement)
That's part of what I'm arguing, but only part of it.
I'm arguing that they could have run the article without giving him the cover photo that was once upon a time a revered place for pop culture icons in our society.
They put Charles Manson on the cover in 1970. The "once upon a time" you postulate never existed.
Despite your assertion that my argument is based on "a very thin premise", my opinion is no less valid than yours. My argument is subjective, you don't see it my way, that's your prerogative.
You're entitled to the opinion, of course, but I think there are objective facts on which the subjective opinion is based (i.e., the text accompanying the photo, the text of the article itself, and the precedent for Rolling Stone doing this sort of thing before-- seriously, Google the Manson cover; he looks positively beatific in the photo, even as the text accompanying the photo calls him "the most dangerous man alive") that tend to militate against the criticism of Rolling Stone.
Peace.
Of course. It's merely a discussion of an interesting issue. Nothing personal.
Like Louis CK said, RS put the Boston Marathon Bomber on the cover, so I don't give a f*ck what they say.
What an overblown bunch of crap that is. Countless other magazines have put terrorists, murderers, dictators,etc etc on their cover and this is the first time I've ever heard it blow up like it has.
There's plenty of reasons to not give a shit about RS, but putting someone shocking on the cover really isn't one of them, unless you've been offended by every other magazine that's done it.
I Respectfully disagree, being on the cover of Rolling Stone equates to reaching a certain level of pop culture fame. It's not Newsweek or Time, it's a cover that artists aspire to make as it's akin to having become a pop culture icon in the eyes of many people. Do a google search of David Drayman's (sp?) letter to RS on the subject, he sums it up way better than I ever could. A lot of people feel this way
You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I would implore you to do a google image search of 8 year old Martin Richard, the youngest of that scumbag's 'alleged' victims, then tell me it's been overblown. I would think his family, as well as the families of the other 3 victims, as well as the hundreds of others who are still dealing with amputations and other injuries probably also disagree with you.
F*ck Rolling Stone. I hope they go out of business.
EDIT: Sorry if I hijacked this thread, it was not my intention.
The cover was making a serious point though, and one that is worth remembering. The crazy fuck who planted those bombs IS that normal looking kid. He looks western, like your next door neighbour, because he was that guy for many years before he was radicalised and warped by a sick ideology. It can happen to people you'd never think it can happen to.
This. Was the whole point.
Part of the problem with America is we just want to bury our heads in the sand on stuff like this, instead of confronting reality.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
The cover was making a serious point though, and one that is worth remembering. The crazy fuck who planted those bombs IS that normal looking kid. He looks western, like your next door neighbour, because he was that guy for many years before he was radicalised and warped by a sick ideology. It can happen to people you'd never think it can happen to.
This. Was the whole point.
Part of the problem with America is we just want to bury our heads in the sand on stuff like this, instead of confronting reality.
Agree. I thought it was a ballsy cover, and had the kind of impact it was supposed to. A controversial cover that evoked anger and emotion - nothing wrong with that. It's good to face reality and it's good to stir the pot.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You all realize that this is not Rolling Stone's list, right? It was compiled a long lost of show bookers and big-name musicians such as Lars Ulrich and Brittney Howard. Seems pretty legit, even if I don't agree with the list.
My top 10 would have been:
Springsteen
U2
Arcade Fire
Pearl Jam
The National
Radiohead
My Mornng Jacket
Neil Young
Wilco
Jack White
My Pearl Jam Road: 10/22/90 Seattle | 12/22/90 Seattle, Moore Theater | 9/29/92 Seattle, Magnusson Park, Drop in the Park | 9/5/93 The Gorge, with Neil Young and Blind Melon | 7/20/06 Portland, Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall with Sleater-Kinney | 7/22/06 The Gorge, 10/21/06 Mountain View, Shoreline Ampitheatre, Bridge School Benefit | 9/21/09 Seattle | 9/22/09 Seattle | 9/26/09 Portland, OR | 7/14/2011 Eddie Vedder, Portland, OR | 11/29/13 Portland, OR
You all realize that this is not Rolling Stone's list, right? It was compiled a long lost of show bookers and big-name musicians such as Lars Ulrich and Brittney Howard. Seems pretty legit, even if I don't agree with the list.
My top 10 would have been:
Springsteen
U2
Arcade Fire
Pearl Jam
The National
Radiohead
My Mornng Jacket
Neil Young
Wilco
Jack White
Happy to see The National on your list. I just bought tix for this tiny outdoor show of theirs in Vancouver, Sept 22nd. So tiny it doesn't even have stands - it has GA pit and GA bleachers... like a little league game. It will be my first time seeing them. Now I'm more stoked. thanks!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
The difference is that your belief that Rolling Stone's use of the photo was not decent and upright is based on a pretty thin premise: that Rolling Stone either intentionally or inadvertently glamorized the suspect. Again, I just don't see how branding the guy "THE BOMBER" and calling him a "monster" on the cover of the magazine is glamorizing him. To the contrary, Rolling Stone has convicted him without a trial. In fact, Rolling Stone has gone even further, because it also judged him to be an evil person. Even in a criminal trial when a defendant is found guilty, the only question truly adjudicated is whether the person did the thing he or she is accused of doing-- not whether or not he or she is a good person or a "monster." Sometimes, good people do bad things and, if those bad things are illegal, they should and likely will be convicted if charged.
The Rolling Stone writer made a provocative piece of investigative journalism. It examines a question that has fascinated millions: how did this seemingly socialized, well-adjusted, scholarship student [apparently] commit these heinous crimes? Ironically, the article is somewhat underwhelming-- most of what it contains has been reported before, and it doesn't really offer much of a thesis in answer to the question posed. But it's still a good thing that Rolling Stone is doing this kind of journalism, and it would be a bad thing for our society and democracy if they had to walk on eggshells in their attempts to call attention to it.
I'm arguing that they could have run the article without giving him the cover photo that was once upon a time a revered place for pop culture icons in our society. Despite your assertion that my argument is based on "a very thin premise", my opinion is no less valid than yours.
My argument is subjective, you don't see it my way, that's your prerogative.
I'm not interested in further defending my opinion, I've hijacked this thread enough; again, sorry to the OP.
Peace.
I think if he had looked like Osama Bin Laden, fewer people would complain about him being on the cover, it's the fact that he looks glamorous that upsets people. But I believe if people dug down, many would realise that it upsets them because it is uncomfortable, because it challenges their preconceptions, not because it gives him publicity.
I have seen Tool - 1995, 2002, and most recently in 2012. PHENOMENAL. I paid $90 for about 20th row left. They played 46&2 and I looked at my buddy and said, "That song alone was worth $90."
Lists like this are just foolish. If you don't like the band's music, how can you compare?
Cleveland (7-29-92)
VA Beach (8-3-00), (6-17-08)
DC (7-1-03), (6-22-08)
Camden (5-28-06)
Bristow (5-13-10)
Vancouver (9-25-11)
Wrigley (7-19-13)
Charlottesville (10-29-13)
Seattle (12-6-13)
That's part of what I'm arguing, but only part of it.
They put Charles Manson on the cover in 1970. The "once upon a time" you postulate never existed.
You're entitled to the opinion, of course, but I think there are objective facts on which the subjective opinion is based (i.e., the text accompanying the photo, the text of the article itself, and the precedent for Rolling Stone doing this sort of thing before-- seriously, Google the Manson cover; he looks positively beatific in the photo, even as the text accompanying the photo calls him "the most dangerous man alive") that tend to militate against the criticism of Rolling Stone.
Of course. It's merely a discussion of an interesting issue. Nothing personal.
This guy knows what's up.
+1
1998 - MSG, NY / MD
2000 - MD
2003 - Spectrum / VA / NJ / MSG, NY
2005 - Philly
2006 - NJ / D.C. / NJ
2008 - W. Palm / Tampa
2009 - L.A. / San Diego
2011 - E.V. Long Beach
2012 - E.V. Phoenix
Please.
I was sleeping at Cohens show at the Barclays...
Bands that I have seen that kick ass?
PJ
The Weeks
Beck
The Allman Bothers
Wilco
AWOL Nation
LCD Soundsystem
Matt&Kim
Brian Jonestown Masacre
I'm hoping to add the Yeah Yeah Yeah's to that list soon too.
This. Was the whole point.
Part of the problem with America is we just want to bury our heads in the sand on stuff like this, instead of confronting reality.
for the least they could possibly do
Agree. I thought it was a ballsy cover, and had the kind of impact it was supposed to. A controversial cover that evoked anger and emotion - nothing wrong with that. It's good to face reality and it's good to stir the pot.
My top 10 would have been:
Springsteen
U2
Arcade Fire
Pearl Jam
The National
Radiohead
My Mornng Jacket
Neil Young
Wilco
Jack White
Happy to see The National on your list. I just bought tix for this tiny outdoor show of theirs in Vancouver, Sept 22nd. So tiny it doesn't even have stands - it has GA pit and GA bleachers... like a little league game.