What did you do with my RWHN?

[Doktor Howl]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star. 

We pointed out several other front covers, including Manson, Nixon, etc.  Also, Bin Laden on Time.

You didn't seem to have a problem with those.

Your problem is that you view ugly as evil and good looking as rock star.

[LMNO]

I'll admit, the first time I saw the cover, I was all, "WTF".  I was a little pissed that they used a pic that on the surface, made him look safe and cute and sympathetic.  In short, I felt slightly like RWHN, only with less outrage.

Then I read this thread, and came across variations of:

They're trying to make him look like a rock star has been possibly the most aggravating parroted statement of this whole thing.

That's a photo of the kid. It's what he looked like. If it doesn't fit everyone's general idea of what a monster is supposed to look like then maybe that's a good assumption to challenge.

And I thought, "That's a good point.  I didn't want my monster to look like someone in a boy band."

And that's when I caught myself thinking stupidly.  Dok had a post several pages back, that said (paraphrase), "Maybe we should be thinking about how a kid who looked like this became radicalized enough to bomb the fucking marathon."  I think this is the most useful way to direct our thinking.


Oh, also:

There is a militant wing of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome movement, for example. 

Really?  Do they like, plan attacks and then are too tired to do anything about it?

[Doktor Howl]

While talking to a male:

You know who else cashes in on tragedy? 

Doctors.  Evil fucks should be banned.  Making money off human misery and suffering, it's disgusting.

I am going to assume someone temporarily hacked your account, or maybe you bumped your head, because this is seriously one of the silliest things I've ever read on this site.

While talking to a female:

You're an idiot,

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch. 

If thine eye offend thee, die in a fire?

[Doktor Howl]

Dok had a post several pages back, that said (paraphrase), "Maybe we should be thinking about how a kid who looked like this became radicalized enough to bomb the fucking marathon."  I think this is the most useful way to direct our thinking.

And that's precisely what society doesn't want.  They want you accepting the packaged notion of a bad guy, that a bad guy started out bad, born wrong, etc.  They don't want you asking how they became that way, because then you might ask how other things got the way they are.

John Wayne Mentality.  Bad guys are bad because they're bad.  Not even human.

Which is why this cover is important.  How did the kid next door turn into a mad killer?  By what mechanism do you get Columbine and Boston and Oklahoma City?  And why hasn't it happened to one of us?  If it can happen to these guys, it could just as easily happen to us.  How can that sort of thing be prevented?

But then - again - there's the faction that says "I WISH TO DEMONSTRATE HOW MUCH I HATE THESE GUYS, SO I WILL GET STEAMIN' MAD WHENEVER ANYONE DRAGS IT OUT INTO THE DAYLIGHT."

[Doktor Howl]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch. 

If thine eye offend thee, die in a fire?

No, more like "Write about him, study him, but don't do it public, where people can see the process or the results." 

[Doktor Howl]

One other thing is that journalism is supposed to piss you off.

Also, it's kind of funny watching RWHN "carpet bag" indignation.

[Cain]

Really?  Do they like, plan attacks and then are too tired to do anything about it?

Hah, not quite.  Sadly, they do exist, but they believe the psychological-influenced explanations of CFS are a ploy by Big Pharma to exploit sufferers*.  It's the relatives of those with CFS who write death threats and have, in some cases, planted crude explosive devices in the offices of doctors and researchers.

*Which, incidentally, makes no sense at all.  Big Pharma would love for there to be a physiological cause for CFS, as it would then allow for the prescription of drugs to manage the symptoms.  While of course psychology and physiology are interlinked, the psychological approach seems to prefer the likes of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and lifestyle changes.

[P3nT4gR4m]

One other thing is that journalism is supposed to piss you off.

Also, it's kind of funny watching RWHN "carpet bag" indignation.

He's a scared, whiny little pussy who wants safety but is running out of freedom cents to buy it with and that scares him even more

Sooner or later he'll find out that the safety he was sold doesn't do what the commercials said it would but the fee is non-refundable. Would love to be a fly on the wall 

[AFK]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star. 

We pointed out several other front covers, including Manson, Nixon, etc.  Also, Bin Laden on Time.

You didn't seem to have a problem with those.

Your problem is that you view ugly as evil and good looking as rock star.

The context for Nixon is a bit different.  The cover of Bin Laden on TIME is a very different animal compared to the photo of the boston bomber on Rolling Stone.  Sensationalising Manson, however, I agree is in the same spirit as this asshat. 

[AFK]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch. 

If thine eye offend thee, die in a fire?

No, more like "Write about him, study him, but don't do it public, where people can see the process or the results."

No, do it in public but don't drop him on the cover of a rock magazine like he is a rock star.

[Doktor Howl]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star. 

We pointed out several other front covers, including Manson, Nixon, etc.  Also, Bin Laden on Time.

You didn't seem to have a problem with those.

Your problem is that you view ugly as evil and good looking as rock star.

The context for Nixon is a bit different.  The cover of Bin Laden on TIME is a very different animal compared to the photo of the boston bomber on Rolling Stone.  Sensationalising Manson, however, I agree is in the same spirit as this asshat.

You didn't state that opinion when it was posted ITT.  And Nixon killed way more people than the Boston bombers.

[Doktor Howl]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch. 

If thine eye offend thee, die in a fire?

No, more like "Write about him, study him, but don't do it public, where people can see the process or the results."

No, do it in public but don't drop him on the cover of a rock magazine like he is a rock star.

You are aware that Rolling Stone contains more than music, and has been political as hell since Jan Wenner founded it, right?

[Doktor Howl]

But, hell, we can't mix music and political events.  Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.

[AFK]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch. 

If thine eye offend thee, die in a fire?

No, more like "Write about him, study him, but don't do it public, where people can see the process or the results."

No, do it in public but don't drop him on the cover of a rock magazine like he is a rock star.

You are aware that Rolling Stone contains more than music, and has been political as hell since Jan Wenner founded it, right?

Of course, Mr. Obfuscation.