• 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.

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?

Apparently, you do. Whether or not someone buys the magazine is immaterial to me. The issue for me is the fanatical need of some to beat down Rolling Stone with the heavy mallot of censorship. It's almost like I'm on a website originating in China or North Korea.
 
Apparently, you do. Whether or not someone buys the magazine is immaterial to me. The issue for me is the fanatical need of some to beat down Rolling Stone with the heavy mallot of censorship. It's almost like I'm on a website originating in China or North Korea.

Look buddy, I don't care if you buy the stupid magazine. Go ahead if that's what rocks your boat. I'm just here stating my opinion like everyone else. I think it's inappropriate. If you don't like that, too bad.
 
The world's smallest violin, and it's playing for you and the terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. :roll:

Yawn - you lost an argument and out comes the need to belittle the other person - sad. I continue to respect you, and your opinion, even though I strongly disagree with it.

Take care and have a good day.
 
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.

Free speech that attempts to take away the free speech of others is dangerous, in my view, and it is driven by the mob mentality swirling around social media.
 
Apparently, you do. Whether or not someone buys the magazine is immaterial to me. The issue for me is the fanatical need of some to beat down Rolling Stone with the heavy mallot of censorship. It's almost like I'm on a website originating in China or North Korea.

That's up to the sponsors. I don't even buy this magazine or read it. I'm simply stating that they could have come up with a better main topic than some confused little boy terrorist, who may incite other confused little boy terrorists to copy cat his crimes.
 
Look buddy, I don't care if you buy the stupid magazine. Go ahead if that's what rocks your boat. I'm just here stating my opinion like everyone else. I think it's inappropriate. If you don't like that, too bad.

Actually, this is somewhat a change in your position since you made it very clear from the beginning of your comments that no one should have access to this cover or this magazine because it glorifies the bomber and will turn him into a martyr and thus be dangerous. I appreciate you don't like the cover - fair enough.
 
Free speech that attempts to take away the free speech of others is dangerous, in my view, and it is driven by the mob mentality swirling around social media.

It does not take away free speech. Rolling Stone is still able to publish whatever they choose. However, free speech is not freedom from repercussions for that speech(except from the government). Just as Rolling Stone publishing the article and photo is an exercise in free speech, so is refusing to carry the magazine, and telling advertisers you will not buy from those who advertise in the magazine.
 
Free speech that attempts to take away the free speech of others is dangerous, in my view, and it is driven by the mob mentality swirling around social media.

Nobody is taking away anyone's free speech. Businesses ALSO have the right of free speech and the right to associate or disassociate themselves with particular view points that their customer may or may not agree with. Sorry if you don't understand THAT aspect of freedom that coincides with freedom of speech. You are free to speak. I am free to refuse to listen.
 
It does not take away free speech. Rolling Stone is still able to publish whatever they choose. However, free speech is not freedom from repercussions for that speech(except from the government). Just as Rolling Stone publishing the article and photo is an exercise in free speech, so is refusing to carry the magazine, and telling advertisers you will not buy from those who advertise in the magazine.

You misunderstand - I have no objection to individuals exercising their free speech by not purchasing an item they find offensive - I do it myself.

What I object to is the concerted efforts of a gang of social media jackals who start a twitter frenzie and all the mindless twitterites who jump on the bandwagon for no good reason other than they love to be part of a good beat-down. Even more, I object to spineless enterprises that weakly cave in to such tactics. It's the equivalent of yesteryear's lynch mob.
 
Free speech that attempts to take away the free speech of others is dangerous, in my view, and it is driven by the mob mentality swirling around social media.

never mind, I am idiot
 
You misunderstand - I have no objection to individuals exercising their free speech by not purchasing an item they find offensive - I do it myself.

What I object to is the concerted efforts of a gang of social media jackals who start a twitter frenzie and all the mindless twitterites who jump on the bandwagon for no good reason other than they love to be part of a good beat-down. Even more, I object to spineless enterprises that weakly cave in to such tactics. It's the equivalent of yesteryear's lynch mob.

That is not taking away free speech. Until and unless some one says Rolling Stone cannot publish what they choose, there is no denial of free speech.
 
I support people's right to boycott, even when I disagree with their boycott. I get why people are bothered by this, but I also think it's being way overblown.

The description of the article explains the choice of pictures perfectly. He's not being turned into a rock star, people are simply making assumptions because he does look angelic and he does look like a normal kid. That is what he looks like, though. That's who he is. A seemingly "normal", innocent-looking teen who was capable of becoming a monster. What were they supposed to do, draw devil horns on him?
 
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.

Hey im not saying they should be shut down but if stores and advertisers want to distance themselves from this particular monthly issue then they have a right to do that.
 
Hey im not saying they should be shut down but if stores and advertisers want to distance themselves from this particular monthly issue then they have a right to do that.

True enough - but are they distancing themselves from the issue because they disagree with it, or because they are being threatened with loss of business if they sell it or advertise in it. Again, I believe mob rule is dangerous.
 
True enough - but are they distancing themselves from the issue because they disagree with it, or because they are being threatened with loss of business if they sell it or advertise in it. Again, I believe mob rule is dangerous.

Yeh I agree with that in parts, even though I disagree with the cover I did take the tiem to read the article inside which too be fair is worth a read.
 
Agreed. Like when Time gave Man of the Year with cover to Khomeini (or before that Stalin - twice!) or when the Nobel folks gave that Ringo Starr look-a-like the Peace Prize.

Just so you understand, Man of the Year, is not a prize. You don't get it for your good deeds.
 
original.jpg


parody-rolling-stone-cover.jpg
 
While RS Mag is loving and lapping up the press, the cop that took the pic of him being brought out of the boat is being fired.
 
While RS Mag is loving and lapping up the press, the cop that took the pic of him being brought out of the boat is being fired.

Yup, this has been all over the news. This has been all over my local news for the past couple of days. I really don't know what to think. While I understand why he's upset over the RS story, I don't think he made a very good decision by releasing pictures that may be considered to be "evidence."
 
Yup, this has been all over the news. This has been all over my local news for the past couple of days. I really don't know what to think. While I understand why he's upset over the RS story, I don't think he made a very good decision by releasing pictures that may be considered to be "evidence."

Police are supposed to set a good example!
 
BBC News - Rolling Stone's Boston bomb suspect cover sparks outrage


pretty disgraceful front cover in my opinion which glorifies Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, nothng like exploiting a tradegy isnt that right rolling stone?

Where is the glorification? he was on the front cover because he;s the subject of the story, Rolling Stone can't help it if he happens to be photogenic. I think people are just disturbed by the idea that he didn't have a beard and one tooth and wasn't laughing manically. Ultimately its the 'normalness' of these people that makes people uncomfortable but also fascinating and important. Hence the need to write about it.
 
Last edited:
Where is the glorification? he was on the front cover because he;s the subject of the story, Rolling Stone can't help it if he happens to be photogenic.

But they can help what material they use and how they present it
 
But they can help what material they use and how they present it

So they should have choosen an unphotogenic photo just to prove he's a bad person? maybe photoshop in a scar or two? Clearly Disney has a lot to answer for, people still expect the media to infantalize them as much as possible.

Also how is this different from all the films/books/documentaries/Broadway musicals about Hitler?
 
BBC News - Rolling Stone's Boston bomb suspect cover sparks outrage


pretty disgraceful front cover in my opinion which glorifies Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, nothng like exploiting a tradegy isnt that right rolling stone?

Compared to what, British tabloids?

From what I have seen, the entirety of the UK feeds of their disgusting tabloids.

You should not be throwing stones while living in that glass house.

Send one American seedy rock star to Britain, and the UK tabloid reporters go into a feeding frenzy.

Then the public feed like sharks buying the garbage.
 
Back
Top Bottom