K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Totally agree. Just found the contrast in pictures interesting. The contrast is interesting. And neither are the "real" Tsarnaev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 The idea of the cop wanting to show what Tsarnaev really is like is ridiculous. We all know exactly what they did. We've seen countless pictures of the destruction and no one is going to forget most of that anytime soon, especially the initial shot of the kid in the wheel chair with both legs missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 I think you missed what I was saying. My point was that people have no idea of the content of the article but on just seeing a photograph are willing to draw their conclusions. This is typical of society these days. Rather than take an understanding and comprehensive approach to why something is the way it is they would rather just make a split second judgment. I'm not even sure what it would be based upon. I get the feeling that most of society wouldn't even formulate their own opinion on this if it weren't for some media types and a few others spewing out their opinions so strongly. There's no doubt Rolling Stone put the image on the cover to sell issues. That's marketing. I don't agree with him being on the cover. It's not that I think it glamorizes him, it's that our society is so weak minded that they think it does. You look at people in society today who idolize people like this. The amount of women throwing themselves at Aaron Hernandez as he's sitting in jail. The women who think this idiot is cute, etc. Take the idiot Pouncey brothers who were socializing around town with "Free Hernandez" hats on their heads. It's insane. Of course they have the right to do it, I don't question that. But to feel compelled to act in such a way towards people who have proven themselves unfit to inhabit this Earth with the rest of us is extremely disturbing to me. (Noted: Aaron Hernandez has not been convicted. Still, there's NO question he was involved and that alone puts him in this category for me.) So my original point.. society looks at the cover and determines that Rolling Stone is glamorizing this person. It calls him a Monster in the tagline and no one had yet read the article. However, to address your point. Yes, it's the people's fault and whether it's okay or not depends on your point of view. If you believe people need to be saved from themselves then you likely have a problem with it. If you believe people are responsible for their own lives and are free to choose their path then you might have less of a problem with it. If a hockey fan is willing to watch hockey even after the lockout then it sends a clear message to the NHL and NHLPA that their work stoppages are not going to kill the sport and they can continue to engage in such ridiculous practices. It's like people who bitch about the price of their cable bill and then continue paying it. We are defined by our actions, not our words. Do some corporations choose to live more in harmony with society? Sure. Do they have to? Not at all. Whether someone looks down on the corporations or institutions that choose to take advantage of people is a matter of personal preference. Okay.. enough for today. Because it doesn't matter what's in the article. At all. The cover is the only thing that a majority of people will see. I bet there are more people that see the cover of Rolling Stone than there are people that read the actual article. While I think that even the article is too much coverage for a killer the cover is the biggest issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Because it doesn't matter what's in the article. At all. The cover is the only thing that a majority of people will see. I bet there are more people that see the cover of Rolling Stone than there are people that read the actual article. While I think that even the article is too much coverage for a killer the cover is the biggest issue. There's a word for people that judge books by their covers. If people don't want to read the article, fine. But you are painting with a very broad brush when you assume that people will be so easily manipulated by the image alone. Is there a nutcase out there right now salivating at the idea of copycat bombings so he, too, can get his picture on the cover? Perhaps. But the nutcase precludes the cover of a magazine. The bigger issue is how these nutcases come to be and how we can lend ourselves to recognizing these things sooner. I haven't read the article yet, but the caption suggests the magazine tries to explore that idea. And that in no way glamorizes the suspect. At least to those that wouldn't be drawn to that type of glamorization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Because it doesn't matter what's in the article. At all. The cover is the only thing that a majority of people will see. I bet there are more people that see the cover of Rolling Stone than there are people that read the actual article. While I think that even the article is too much coverage for a killer the cover is the biggest issue. Last I checked, the cover had a few words on it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 If people don't want to read the article, fine. But you are painting with a very broad brush when you assume that people will be so easily manipulated by the image alone. Gee, I had no idea images mean nothing... Last I checked, the cover had a few words on it too. I think you R severely over-estimate the public at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Gee, I had no idea images mean nothing... I'm not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 I'm not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Predictable. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 is there a minimum age requirement to join this board? Seems like that might be a good policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 is there a minimum age requirement to join this board? Seems like that might be a good policy Wouldn't do any good. Most of the trolls are (presumably) over 21. It's more fun watching them embarrass themselves, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Horrible isn't it; dissent. Yuck, can't stand it when people simply don't conform and "go with it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Horrible isn't it; dissent. Yuck, can't stand it when people simply don't conform and "go with it". It's our Constitutional duty to dissent. But you're the last person here who should seek to advise people on conformity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Horrible isn't it; dissent. Yuck, can't stand it when people simply don't conform and "go with it". Dissent is different from going out of your way to be a D*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 But you're the last person here who should seek to advise people on conformity. O rly? Why's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 O rly? Why's that? Just the way you come across in threads dedicated to political and social issues. Like you're present in the room when Ailes hands out his talking points memo for the day and off you go on your merry, jack-booted, goosestepping way. So, do we get your explanation on the avatar now? Or are you still gonna turtle on that issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Just the way you come across in threads dedicated to political and social issues. Like you're present in the room when Ailes hands out his talking points memo for the day and off you go on your merry, jack-booted, goosestepping way. So, do we get your explanation on the avatar now? Or are you still gonna turtle on that issue? Wow. Lots of hate. Why R U a hater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Wow. Lots of hate. Why R U a hater? No hate at all. Not worth the emotional investment. Lack of respect is a better way of putting it. The "why" of it I stated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Wow. Lots of hate. Why R U a hater? Okay here is a crack at your Avatar although I bet we will never get a straight answer as to its meaning ever anyone.. You think Obama is a socialist pimp who wants to make everything state run and then take all the moneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Okay here is a crack at your Avatar although I bet we will never get a straight answer as to its meaning ever anyone.. You think Obama is a socialist pimp who wants to make everything state run and then take all the moneys. Close! Very good try. Don't worry...I will be happy to tell you all what the symbolism is to me. I just think it would be fun to see what others have to say about it first. If I reveal the (intended) symbolism, then that would spoil whatever commentary would follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 Does someone who has read the article want to be a dear and give cliff notes? :) It's a think-piece about a mid-level terrorist struggling with his limitations in the harsh face of stardom. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 It's a think-piece about a mid-level terrorist struggling with his limitations in the harsh face of stardom. :) Great...thanks Cameron Crowe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 Last I checked, the cover had a few words on it too. Yea, what's your point? When you're heading down an isle where there are magazines, do you see all of the fine print? Do you stop and read it all? Or is it the pictures that you see? Ya know, the giant things that cover 90% of the page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 Yea, what's your point? When you're heading down an isle where there are magazines, do you see all of the fine print? Do you stop and read it all? Or is it the pictures that you see? Ya know, the giant things that cover 90% of the page? My best guess is most people will read the headline accompanying a picture which catches their attention. The full article? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 When "people are lazy" is your main argument, it may be time to start looking somewhere else for the true problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.