You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 06:39:20 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover  (Read 2600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #75 on: July 19, 2013, 04:29:27 AM »
I hardly need point out that there are no LOLCOCKERELS.  Man, I'm oppressed by the patriarchy.

Tragically underrepresented, it's true, but not entirely unheard of:



I think we can build on this...

Online Neysha

Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #76 on: July 19, 2013, 06:15:43 AM »
AAAAAAND SUPLEX!
Funny thing: People can click on the quote tags above the text to be taken to the post and see that you were not even mentioning the victims in those posts. At all.



Yes I am and have repeatedly:

Quote from: Neysha
And I find the idea that using most any other picture of Tsarnaev would somehow be considered dubious reporting. I'm fairly certain there are other pictures of him they couldve chosen that werent as thoughtless. But they went with the most glamorous one so they can sell more magazines, which is fine. I'm not going to blame a media company for cashing in on a tragedy but no reason not to point out their callousness.

Quote from: Neysha
Not a big deal... but id be irked that no regard was given to the victims.

Quote from: Neysha
Unless you find you're opinion more valid then other peoples opinion, like those of the victims.

Quote from: Neysha
I feel sorry for Rolling Stones and hope that they don't suffer too much from being unable to apparently glamorize the Boston Marathon bomber on the cover of their magazine at the expense of the victims then.

Quote from: Neysha
Why is your opinion more valid then the victims?

Quote from: Neysha
Why are you asking me? Unlike you, I'm not ignoring the victims here and simply making their POV heard.

Quote from: Neysha
I'm not a victim of the Boston Marathon's alleged bombing by an alleged pair of bombers and as I've stated repeatedly I'm not torn over (or angry) by this Rolling Stones cover. I merely wish to make known the POV of the victims that you and others have ignored.

And that's just from the first two pages. I've referenced the victims plenty.

Quote
So please educate me.

Educate you on what? I'm not here to change your opinions.

Quote
Um, no. You're the one who said that they shouldn't publish things which offend the victims. I've been arguing the opposite.



Quote
It must've been painful when you were shot and had your legs blown off.

Done in response to a callous attempt at downplaying either a gunshot victim whom Trieste stated was as much a victim as she was.

Quote from: Trieste
I didn't, and neither did three of the four people in the article you linked. So ... there's that.

See? Either the double amputee or the gunshot wound victim isn't a real victim either in her eyes, or at least no more then Trieste feels she is. Once again you ignore the context to score points in some pathetic manner.

Quote
Sure, outrage has happened. But outrage does not define glamorization, which is what you claimed.

I didn't claim outrage defines glamorization. You defined it as such. I'm merely stating there is outrage because the bomber has been apparently glamorized.

Quote
Your initial statement:Your response to someone actually looking at your Google reference, which was in no way presented as less valid than the Wikipedia link

Because the images were the same in both. Obviously.

Quote
Did you say you have no problem seeing him as guilty, or with public perception of guilt?



I never stated the public perception of him is guilty, that's beyond me to say or control.

Quote
Did you say that you know he is guilty, or that we do? Here's a hint:

Strawman since I cannot compel you to believe anything so stop with your whining. You already know that my beliefs on the issue will have no bearing on a fair trial, so stop with your useless obfuscations. They're petty, albeit amusing.

Quote
But very material to whether you are arguing honestly and in good faith. Why did you bring it up if it's irrelevant?

Because you brought it up and I replied to it even though it's irrelevant, like your silliness about how I am apparently in charge of giving him a fair trial.

Quote
You said you are okay with a presumption of guilt.

I am okay with myself possessing a belief he is guilty. That is not abnormal in this or any other case with any other person.

Quote
You said you wanted a fair trial. I'm not going to bother linking these a third time; instead I'll cut to the chase:

Irrelevant to the Rolling Stones issue.

Quote
For the record, note how when I accuse you of lying, it's once I've shown that you said something,

Yes you show something out of context which is dishonest and thus...



You didn't examine it. You shot it down.

Quote
No, it is self-evident that it does not appear to be neutral to some parties. I have asked one party who espoused this opinion why it appears non-neutral, and have been met with lies and evasion in return, and still no answer to the question.



The fact the outrage exists illustrates that it does not appear to be neutral to some parties.

Quote
This is a proof that my opinion conflicts with others' opinions, not that I consider mine more valid. I'll gladly change my opinion if I can be shown some factor I missed. I think you know what's coming next:



No its a proof that you feel your opinion is superior because you are arguing that it is right now.

Quote
Yet again, which of the four speakers in your link was speaking for themselves and?

Just one of the examples of victim outrage which you have ignored.

Quote
And journalists are the ones who decide what goes to print, right?

Isn't that how news media works?

Quote
First, I am not a victim. Do not speak for me again. Second, no. Per the rules of this forum, it is your responsibility to substantiate and defend your statements.




And I have.

Quote
Third, re the bolded part:It must've been painful when you were shot and had your legs blown off.

Done in response to this:

Quote from: Trieste
I didn't, and neither did three of the four people in the article you linked. So ... there's that.

Therefore you are a...



Quote
Whether or not a "more neutral" picture exists is absolutely relevant to the topic. By failing to define "more neutral", you have yet to make the case that one does.

Yes and I showed you a more neutral image. You disagree that it is more neutral. It's a matter of opinion and I doubt I'll be able to change your mind because it seems self evident and obvious why one picture is more neutral then the one used.

Quote
I'll stop calling attention to your lies the moment you stop lying. Once again, the exchange was: I will if Rolling Stones allowed me too, but accessing Google and Wikipedia and then putting it on the Rolling Stones magazine cover would be hard for me.[
Look at the statement you were responding to. Rolling Stone was not preventing you from finding a more "normal" picture.



Stop being facetious. My point was I personally couldn't change the Rolling Stones cover picture, not that I couldn't find the image in question, when I literally linked to two sources where a more neutral image could be found. You're harping on about nothing. Which is standard for you it seems.

Quote
Perhaps I misunderstood. So you think they should use this cover image if they so choose, regardless of what any third party might say about it? If so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I retract and repudiate any and all accusations that you are pro-censorship.

Misunderstood? It's bloody obvious what my point was if you bothered reading my posts. But you haven't.

Quote
I am not ignorant of the outrage; I do not see the justification for the outrage.



Quote
Again, my opinion is not more valid than others', which is why I will change it if I can see a way that this picture is "glamorous".

If you don't see a difference between the two pictures, one used on the Rolling Stones magazine, the other being the image already the most widely disseminated by the media, then I don't know what else to say. It's a matter of opinion. I just wish Rolling Stones used more sensitivity in choosing the most common image as opposed to the one that is being interpreted as glamorous.

Quote
Not ignoring them, just not letting their influence dictate the terms of the conversation. There's a difference.

Yes ignoring them.

Quote
Not being in the entertainment or sales industry, I don't care about selling shit; my position is and always has been "This doesn't look particularly glamorous. What makes it so, in dissenting opinions? What better alternatives are there that remain neutral, and why are they better?"

I already showed a link to a widely disseminated picture, the most common image of him, which would probably be better then what the Rolling Stones cover used.

Quote
Hardly a miscarriage of justice - we knew who the perpetrators were because numerous survivors saw them with guns in hand, shooting people.

Allegedly.

Quote
Further, they were kinda too dead to care, so failing to maintain the presumption of innocence no longer violated their right to a fair trial.

So because one Tsarnaev brother is dead, we're allowed to say he's guilty right?

Quote
Is there an eyewitness account or any footage of the Tsarnaev brothers actually planting bombs? If so, I am unaware of it.

You don't need actual footage in lieu of other evidence. Most crimes don't have that luxury.

Quote
Any and all authorities who stand in an adversarial position to the confessor and would profit from a confession, and any and all forms of coercion as the term is commonly defined in the English language.

So Osama Bin Laden was coerced and compelled to confess, I understand.

Quote
Are either one of them going to stand trial, and thus in need of a presumption of innocence, lest their right to a fair trial be breached? No? Are they around to sue media sources for libel or slander? No? Is there evidence pointing toward their guilt, far above and beyond that of any other possible culprit? Yes? Well, then, "alleged" is unnecessary.

Stop being ignorant of the victims families.

Quote
EDIT: At this point, I've seen pretty clearly and demonstrated pretty thoroughly to the audience that you have shown no interest in good faith or honesty. Unless this changes significantly, I'm done with making new statements to you. I will, however, continue to provide documentary evidence of your lies accompanied by the Princess Bride gif should you continue to lie, because lies should not stand unchallenged and because Princess Bride rocks my world.

Oh no!

« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 06:19:01 AM by Neysha »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #77 on: July 19, 2013, 06:59:17 AM »
Tragically underrepresented, it's true, but not entirely unheard of:



I think we can build on this...

I don't find him all that intimidating, to be honest.

Online Neysha

Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #78 on: July 19, 2013, 07:25:16 AM »
I don't find him all that intimidating, to be honest.

How about now?


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #79 on: July 19, 2013, 10:00:22 AM »
If the thread has come down to slinging 'Liar' gifs, I think it's time for people to move on.  Twenty-four hour cool down.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #80 on: July 20, 2013, 02:12:34 PM »
Having put some thought into the matter, I believe I'll leave the discussion at this.

Offline violet girl

Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #81 on: July 22, 2013, 06:32:09 PM »
So, I am at Barnes & Noble the other day, and I am in the magazine section. I am in the music section and remember the Rolling Stone issue, so I start looking for it. I don't see it, and I start to wonder if they aren't carrying it. I see a stack of magazines turned around with their back covers facing forward. I turn them around, and, sure enough, it is Rolling Stone. I scoffed to myself that someone would, for all intents and purposes, try to 'censor' things, so, I made sure the magazine was left with the covers facing out. I do see how some can take offense to Dzhokar Tsarnaev being on the cover, but it is a First Amendment issue in my opinion. As others have said, Time has picked controversial people for their Persons of the Year issues. I think people need to stop getting so offended about everything. I am not insensitive to the victims or their suffering. I was horrified by the bombing, just like everyone else. However, if we agree that this is America, we agree that the First Amendment exists. I took my little act as a way to stand up for freedom of speech. People don't always say what we want to hear, but we need to honor people's right to do so. That is just my two cents worth. *Note: I realize everyone on this site does not reside in the U.S., but my point is Rolling Stone is an American publication. Therefore, the First Amendment applies.*
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 07:00:20 PM by violet girl »

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #82 on: July 22, 2013, 08:30:06 PM »
I didn't realise companies benefitted from the First Amendment.  Been a-googlin' and see there's a bit about freedom of the press in there.  So that's my thing learnt for today.  Now I don't have to listen to anyone else for the next 22 hours.  Not risking learning two new things.

So thanks, violet girl.

Offline violet girl

Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #83 on: July 22, 2013, 10:54:29 PM »
I didn't realise companies benefitted from the First Amendment.  Been a-googlin' and see there's a bit about freedom of the press in there.  So that's my thing learnt for today.  Now I don't have to listen to anyone else for the next 22 hours.  Not risking learning two new things.

So thanks, violet girl.

(Sarcastic much, Kythia?)

Everyone in America benefits from the First Amendment, Darling. Don't be naive.

You're welcome...just doing my civic duty. I am a teacher by trade, so I am glad I do my job well.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 10:56:21 PM by violet girl »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #84 on: July 22, 2013, 10:58:41 PM »
Actually, I don't think that was sarcasm. Kythia isn't a US citizen or resident and, from what I can gather, has never lived here. The more publicized part of the First Amendment is "freedom of speech" so it's not that far-fetched that someone not-from-here would not also realize that it includes explicit freedoms of press, religion, assembly, etc.

@Kythia: The infamous ruling of the US Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission specifically extended First Amendment rights to several entities, corporations among them. So while it's not written into the US Constitution specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also protects the freedom of speech of more than just citizens.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 11:02:11 PM by Trieste »

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #85 on: July 23, 2013, 12:49:45 AM »
Yes, it wasn't meant as sarcasm.  I had just thought 1st Amendment = Free Speech, didn't realise there was other stuff in there as well (actually, I may have known about freedom of religion from another PROC thread now I properly think about it).  Sorry for not coming across well.

@Trieste - the logic presumably being that there's nothing there that limited it to citizens?  I see e.g. the 14th and 5th do talk specifically in terms of people.

EDIT:  Just found the Wikipedia page and apparently a bit more complex than that.  Serves me right for pretending to be a lawyer
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 12:59:41 AM by Kythia »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #86 on: July 23, 2013, 12:59:54 AM »
Yeah, don't ask me what they were thinking because I don't know. I didn't go read the full decision because I like my laptop and I prefer not to smash it.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #87 on: July 23, 2013, 01:03:01 AM »
Really?!

Doesn't seem overly controversial to me.  What's the...yeah, this is probably getting off topic isn't it.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #88 on: July 23, 2013, 01:08:16 AM »
You could make a thread if you want Elliquiy opinions on it, or use the googlemachine to find many of the (myriad) blog posts on it. I'd be surprised if Daily Kos didn't have a fairly detailed post (or thirty) explaining what's wrong with it. It would take me a while to go into the details (and, yeah, would be quite a bit off-topic) but suffice to say that it is considered by quite a few Americans as being the polar opposite of campaign finance reform. >.>

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #89 on: July 23, 2013, 01:13:40 AM »
It'll have to wait until tomorrow.  Already way over quota in learning new things today. Thanks for the point though, looks interesting.

Offline violet girl

Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #90 on: July 23, 2013, 05:34:54 AM »
Yes, it wasn't meant as sarcasm.  I had just thought 1st Amendment = Free Speech


Sorry for taking it the wrong way. I read the comment a couple of times and thought it was sarcastic. *hugs Kythia*

I was thinking more about this though. Again, I do not necessarily agree with Rolling Stone's decision to put him on the cover, but I get the gist of what they are trying to convey. With the 'Monster' analogy, they are asking how close many of us may be to crossing the line from 'normalcy' to psychopathy. This kid (and yes, he is an adult, but still quite young) was popular in school and seemed to hold a promising future, but instead, either coerced by his radicalized brother, or of his own volition, decided to perpetrate a horrendous act of violence. Why? Perhaps it is too soon to ask this question, but the magazine has the right to ask it. Of course they put his picture on the cover to generate all the sentiments they have received. This sells magazines, or at least keeps the magazine in the forefront of public conversation. It is a win for Rolling Stone regardless.

If you look at other forms of media, we see the same shock value generated for publicity as well. Howard Stern has made a living out of shocking others. The First Amendment protects his right to do so. The First Amendment does not protect libel or slander of another person, but you can say almost anything and be protected under the Constitution.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 05:41:25 AM by violet girl »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover
« Reply #91 on: July 23, 2013, 06:00:26 AM »
It would have been more definitely offensive if they had, let's say, superimposed this image of him on the American flag, the way you might show a heroic athlete or someone who has won a resounding political victory for his country. And with the same kind of lighting and styling. And I don't imagine for a minute that Rolling Stone would have done that!

I'm trying to think of analogies from my own country to consider how I'd feel about those, but thankfully there's nothing quite like the Boston bombing (or the Columbine or Newtown school shootings) to compare with - not in the scale of the carnage achieved. Of course there's Breivik's massacre two years ago, in Norway which is just next door and a brother nation in every way - if he had been shown in a way that seemed glamourizing on the cover of a newspaper or a magazine, that would have been certain to provoke angry reactions...Or if some local multiple killers from here had been shown that way, such as the guys who, twenty years ago, machine-gunned down several people at a Stockholm nightclub because they had been refused entry by the bouncer. - Still, both with those young men and around Breivik there were questions posed afterwards, in the media and at the trials: why did this happen and who are these guys? Just as you're pointing out, Violet, they can't be dismissed as _only_ monstrous psychos.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 03:28:23 PM by gaggedLouise »