What did you do with my RWHN?

[AFK]

Dude, quote what the cover says about him.

The boy "was a bright, energetic young boy who had big dreams and high hopes for his future"

You do remember the difference between the present and the past imperfect tenses, do you not?

Yes.  That kid, in death, is way more deserving of being treated and depicted as a rock star.

[Left]

RHWN is under the impression that if the rest of us get tired of discussing this with him and go away, he wins?
He shows up and declaims until we all get really irritated with him and quit, and he then believes he's won?
I think that's why I don't like arguing with him, because he's not so much taking a point and flexibly turning it over, looking at it, asking questions, learning.

It's that certainty of a True Believer.

I think part of the upset about all of this is the reminder that anyone of us, despite any promise, popularity, or altruism can turn into an evil monster. Your own son may do something similar someday, and you might not have any warning signs.

And yes, Dzhokhar is an evil young man. But he wasn't always.

He was once as we were.  Makes him a whole lot scarier?

It certainly does. Anyone of us can go wrong at anytime. The odds are that you won't, since there's a lot of us. But it will happen to someone, regardless of who they once were.

to restate what I said a bit ago, fundamentalism(of religious AND political sorts) turns actual GOOD people into monsters.  And it starts when you stop questioning yourself.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Dude, quote what the cover says about him.

The boy "was a bright, energetic young boy who had big dreams and high hopes for his future"

You do remember the difference between the present and the past imperfect tenses, do you not?

Yes.  That kid, in death, is way more deserving of being treated and depicted as a rock star.

[AFK]

I think part of the upset about all of this is the reminder that anyone of us, despite any promise, popularity, or altruism can turn into an evil monster. Your own son may do something similar someday, and you might not have any warning signs.

And yes, Dzhokhar is an evil young man. But he wasn't always.

No.  And yes between all of the school shootings, college shootings, theater shootings, it's pretty obvious any kind of person can become evil and do evil shit.  But that isn't the issue, at least it isn't my issue.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

RHWN is under the impression that if the rest of us get tired of discussing this with him and go away, he wins?
He shows up and declaims until we all get really irritated with him and quit, and he then believes he's won?
I think that's why I don't like arguing with him, because he's not so much taking a point and flexibly turning it over, looking at it, asking questions, learning.

It's that certainty of a True Believer.

I think part of the upset about all of this is the reminder that anyone of us, despite any promise, popularity, or altruism can turn into an evil monster. Your own son may do something similar someday, and you might not have any warning signs.

And yes, Dzhokhar is an evil young man. But he wasn't always.

He was once as we were.  Makes him a whole lot scarier?

It certainly does. Anyone of us can go wrong at anytime. The odds are that you won't, since there's a lot of us. But it will happen to someone, regardless of who they once were.

to restate what I said a bit ago, fundamentalism(of religious AND political sorts) turns actual GOOD people into monsters.  And it starts when you stop questioning yourself.

It could be anything that does it. Doesn't even have to be a religious conviction. Some one gives you a uniform, you look at yourself in the mirror, and think "Could use some medals, it could."

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think part of the upset about all of this is the reminder that anyone of us, despite any promise, popularity, or altruism can turn into an evil monster. Your own son may do something similar someday, and you might not have any warning signs.

And yes, Dzhokhar is an evil young man. But he wasn't always.

No.  And yes between all of the school shootings, college shootings, theater shootings, it's pretty obvious any kind of person can become evil and do evil shit.  But that isn't the issue, at least it isn't my issue.

The issue is that you take exception to a magazine that illustrates that point, very ably.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

No one is glamorizing Tsarnaev here. It seems pretty clear to me what they meant. It also seems pretty clear to me that you have trouble with things that are pretty clear.

[AFK]

I don't believe for a second that is what motivated the cover.  $$$ is what motivated the cover.

[AFK]

No one is glamorizing Tsarnaev here. It seems pretty clear to me what they meant. It also seems pretty clear to me that you have trouble with things that are pretty clear.

Bullshit, it was glamorization to shock and move units. 

[Pæs]

I think part of the upset about all of this is the reminder that anyone of us, despite any promise, popularity, or altruism can turn into an evil monster. Your own son may do something similar someday, and you might not have any warning signs.

And yes, Dzhokhar is an evil young man. But he wasn't always.

No.  And yes between all of the school shootings, college shootings, theater shootings, it's pretty obvious any kind of person can become evil and do evil shit.  But that isn't the issue, at least it isn't my issue.

The issue is that you take exception to a magazine that illustrates that point, very ably.

The magazine cover should have had a picture of those who lost their lives rocking out in front of a cheering crowd on a stage made of money and chocolate and then a totally unrelated article trying to raise questions about enemy images and the nature of evil.

[Left]

I don't believe for a second that is what motivated the cover.  $$$ is what motivated the cover.

Good journalism takes money. 
They do have to have money coming in to produce good journalism. 

What you really ought to detest is freaking tabloids, who likely make more money and do bupkuss for journalism.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

But, but, but....that's different because.....

Oh, and to address this:

Martin wasn't a terrorist. He didn't blow anyone up. Neither did Zimmerman. They got into a scuffle for a stupid reason and Zimmerman survived.

Tsarnaev on the other hand, did in fact blow people up. And the fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant. Human life is human life, regardless of age (and honestly, that you would qualify the value of human life inversely proportionate to age disgusts me), and maimed hundreds.

And yet, Gojira and I seem to be ok with him being portrayed as good kid gone wrong. Because that's what the fuck happened.

[Pæs]

I don't believe for a second that is what motivated the cover.

That's because you've come to a Conclusion™.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think part of the upset about all of this is the reminder that anyone of us, despite any promise, popularity, or altruism can turn into an evil monster. Your own son may do something similar someday, and you might not have any warning signs.

And yes, Dzhokhar is an evil young man. But he wasn't always.

No.  And yes between all of the school shootings, college shootings, theater shootings, it's pretty obvious any kind of person can become evil and do evil shit.  But that isn't the issue, at least it isn't my issue.

The issue is that you take exception to a magazine that illustrates that point, very ably.

The magazine cover should have had a picture of those who lost their lives rocking out in front of a cheering crowd on a stage made of money and chocolate and then a totally unrelated article trying to raise questions about enemy images and the nature of evil.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I don't believe for a second that is what motivated the cover.  $$$ is what motivated the cover.

Good journalism takes money. 
They do have to have money coming in to produce good journalism. 

What you really ought to detest is freaking tabloids, who likely make more money and do bupkuss for journalism.

Look up the cover of today's Boston Herald, which is a sensationalist conservarag, which, nevertheless, is somehow accepted as a "newspaper"