http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19523421-rolling-stone-boston-bomber-suspect-photo-stirs-online-controversy-cvs-walgreens-drop-the-issue?lite
Magazine sales must have been slumping badly. I suppose the nut-wits at Rolling Stone think this is "edgy journalism".
Sure, let's make the human sack of shit a rock star. Fuck dead and maimed and delimbed people. There are units to move!
This is hardly new.
This guy killed way more people, and he was on the cover, way back in the day:
(http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/music/2004/galleries/1974-rolling-stone-covers/rs169-nixon-the-quitter-213/500x595/22624_lg.jpg)
But, shit, let's make journalism all about puppies and flowers and unicorn poop.
False equivalency.
It isn't journalism. It's fucking sensationalism to move units. It's jabbing a knife into open wounds. It's pretty sick.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 12:56:59 AM
False equivalency.
It isn't journalism. It's fucking sensationalism to move units. It's jabbing a knife into open wounds. It's pretty sick.
You don't like it, so it isn't journalism. :lulz:
I think they chose the fuzzy almost cute pic deliberately.
it's all too easy to think of the action that got them infamy than the path that led them there. It's too easy to de-humanise than take a look at the fucked up shit we do. you other someone of that criminal status/ chaos caused and you stop thinking.
Irony of fucking Ironies, the Dropkick Murphys pitched a hissy fit about this...
Ah enjoy it while it lasts. Savor that feeling of being annoyed by the cover of something. People are only going to be talking about print magazines for another few years.
You'll be nostalgic about this one day! "Hey remember when blogs were on paper? and people would get tweaked out if they printed something controversial on the cover?"
for scale - rolling stone has 1.4 million copies in circulation and assumes 8 different people read every issue.
buzzfeed has 60 million unique viewers per month.
people are talking about rolling stone for some reason
mission accomplished
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:00:09 AM
I think they chose the fuzzy almost cute pic deliberately.
it's all too easy to think of the action that got them infamy than the path that led them there. It's too easy to de-humanise than take a look at the fucked up shit we do. you other someone of that criminal status/ chaos caused and you stop thinking.
Irony of fucking Ironies, the Dropkick Murphys pitched a hissy fit about this...
Yep. The bad guy isn't always the Nazi skinhead or the turbaned fanatic. Sometimes it's the kid next door.
Pleasant? No. The truth sometimes isn't.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:00:26 AM
.
for scale - rolling stone has 1.4 million copies in circulation and assumes 8 different people read every issue.
buzzfeed has 60 million unique viewers per month.
.
This makes me sad. I prefer to read in dead tree format.
You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary. The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?
Blow up kids.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:02:11 AM
You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary. The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?
Blow up kids.
Oh, and we're back to doin' it for the children. I had hoped for something different. I'm dumb that way, sometimes.
The whole POINT was to show him as the kid next door.
(http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/music/2004/galleries/1974-rolling-stone-covers/rs169-nixon-the-quitter-213/500x595/22624_lg.jpg)
Wannabe a rock star? Get elected president and blow up Cambodia!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:00:09 AM
I think they chose the fuzzy almost cute pic deliberately.
it's all too easy to think of the action that got them infamy than the path that led them there. It's too easy to de-humanise than take a look at the fucked up shit we do. you other someone of that criminal status/ chaos caused and you stop thinking.
Irony of fucking Ironies, the Dropkick Murphys pitched a hissy fit about this...
Yep. The bad guy isn't always the Nazi skinhead or the turbaned fanatic. Sometimes it's the kid next door.
Pleasant? No. The truth sometimes isn't.
Indeed.
the othering process also removes any social analyses of the world around that kid. the world that includes us.
Because, as we all know, Rolling Stone has never covered anything other than rock stars. Ever.
:lulz:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:02:11 AM
You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary. The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?
Blow up kids.
you really think kids are fucking empathy devoid idiots?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:04:32 AM
Because, as we all know, Rolling Stone has never covered anything other than rock stars. Ever.
:lulz:
:coughs: Hunter S Thompson
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:04:11 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:00:09 AM
I think they chose the fuzzy almost cute pic deliberately.
it's all too easy to think of the action that got them infamy than the path that led them there. It's too easy to de-humanise than take a look at the fucked up shit we do. you other someone of that criminal status/ chaos caused and you stop thinking.
Irony of fucking Ironies, the Dropkick Murphys pitched a hissy fit about this...
Yep. The bad guy isn't always the Nazi skinhead or the turbaned fanatic. Sometimes it's the kid next door.
Pleasant? No. The truth sometimes isn't.
Indeed.
the othering process also removes any social analyses of the world around that kid. the world that includes us.
Yep. But why examine that, when you can be all outraged and self-righteous. For the children.
Thing is, an intelligent people would be saying "how did this kid go from THAT PIC to BLOWING UP THE MARATHON?"
But this is America, and as my fine fellow American RWHN has demonstrated, that's a little beyond us.
found this in a google image search
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/0c9109c71ea0524d9fe840f91fabd67bb94a26a9/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/test/2013/07/17/1374076265000-XXX-manson-1970-rolling-stone-1307171152_3_4.jpg)
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:05:34 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:04:32 AM
Because, as we all know, Rolling Stone has never covered anything other than rock stars. Ever.
:lulz:
:coughs: Hunter S Thompson
Yep. Inside Rolling Stone, Thompson wrote the definitive manual on primary elections, covered the Foreman/Ali fight in Zaire when nobody else would (because Ali had refused the draft), and went to Vietnam to interview the losers in 75 AND the winners.
But ROCK STAR!
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:07:10 AM
found this in a google image search
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/0c9109c71ea0524d9fe840f91fabd67bb94a26a9/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/test/2013/07/17/1374076265000-XXX-manson-1970-rolling-stone-1307171152_3_4.jpg)
Want to be a rock star, kids? STAB SHARON TATE!
If a kid wants to emulate Charlie frikkin Manson, their wiring is fucked already.
I'm going to borrow one of Nigel's lines.
Did you even read the article?
QuoteOur hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone's long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. –THE EDITORS
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717#ixzz2ZLpaEhal
They're really deifying that bastard, aren't they? The callous shit-mongers.
Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.
Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:09:59 AM
I'm going to borrow one of Nigel's lines.
Did you even read the article?
QuoteOur hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone's long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. –THE EDITORS
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717#ixzz2ZLpaEhal
They're really deifying that bastard, aren't they? The callous shit-mongers.
Ah, but that's not the POINT, my friend! It's all about OUTRAGE for the CHILDREN, who obviously will run right out and BLOW SHIT UP upon seeing this cover.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:00:09 AM
I think they chose the fuzzy almost cute pic deliberately.
it's all too easy to think of the action that got them infamy than the path that led them there. It's too easy to de-humanise than take a look at the fucked up shit we do. you other someone of that criminal status/ chaos caused and you stop thinking.
Irony of fucking Ironies, the Dropkick Murphys pitched a hissy fit about this...
Another reason to love the Murphys
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:11:44 AM
Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.
Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.
In RWHN's world, kids can't think for themselves.
So journalism must be outlawed, to protect them.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:12:34 AM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:00:09 AM
I think they chose the fuzzy almost cute pic deliberately.
it's all too easy to think of the action that got them infamy than the path that led them there. It's too easy to de-humanise than take a look at the fucked up shit we do. you other someone of that criminal status/ chaos caused and you stop thinking.
Irony of fucking Ironies, the Dropkick Murphys pitched a hissy fit about this...
Another reason to love the Murphys
the hypocricy of the Dropkicks and their vaguely pro-IRA sentiments actually makes me sick.
Aw shit. My daughter just saw that cover, and now she's rooting around the kitchen looking for a pressure cooker! :cry:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:03:11 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:02:11 AM
You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary. The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?
Blow up kids.
Oh, and we're back to doin' it for the children. I had hoped for something different. I'm dumb that way, sometimes.
The whole POINT was to show him as the kid next door.
Bullshit. The whole point was to use controversy to move units.
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:14:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:03:11 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:02:11 AM
You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary. The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?
Blow up kids.
Oh, and we're back to doin' it for the children. I had hoped for something different. I'm dumb that way, sometimes.
The whole POINT was to show him as the kid next door.
Bullshit. The whole point was to use controversy to move units.
And this is different from THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF JOURNALISM SINCE FOREVER...How, exactly? The two are by no means mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
Everything, EVERYTHING, is too dangerous for people to be trusted with.
Just watch, you'll see what I mean.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:11:44 AM
Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.
Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.
Sure, think all you want in the article. But why put the fuzzy selfie on the cover? To stir it up and move units.
What's dangerous, though, seriously?
When I was a teenager, I lived in some rich-ass town by the name of Naperville, Illinois. It was just becoming rich, and it still had this tiny little paper called the Naperville Sun, which only showed happy shiny things.
Then we had a murder/suicide. Very nasty, very tragic.
The front page of the paper? A little girl feeding a duck, down at the riverwalk. Because only NICE and SAFE things happened in Naperville, you see. So we obviously can't show a NORMAL LOOKING KID who turned into a monster, because that's not NICE or SAFE.
ETA: Naw, ducks move units.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
I just think it is in very poor taste given the horror that people have gone through and continue to go through. I'm glad to see some places like CVS, Walgreens, and Shaw's are refusing to carry this edition.
So tell me, RWHN...What's your solution to this outrage?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:11:44 AM
Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.
Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.
Sure, think all you want in the article. But why put the fuzzy selfie on the cover? To stir it up and move units.
maybe to get people to think about "monsters" and why othering them does no good?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:20:55 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
I just think it is in very poor taste given the horror that people have gone through and continue to go through. I'm glad to see some places like CVS, Walgreens, and Shaw's are refusing to carry this edition.
Certainly. The people themselves can't be allowed to decide.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:21:27 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:11:44 AM
Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.
Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.
Sure, think all you want in the article. But why put the fuzzy selfie on the cover? To stir it up and move units.
maybe to get people to think about "monsters" and why othering them does no good?
NO NO NO!
Monsters are MONSTERS! They aren't and weren't PEOPLE! They were BORN MONSTERS, and they should ONLY be shown that way! Fangs and drool and hunched backs, muhaha-ing their way to the next atrocity.
Because examining how they got that way might make people uneasy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:13:00 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:11:44 AM
Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.
Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.
In RWHN's world, kids can't think for themselves.
So journalism must be outlawed, to protect them.
I haven't said anything about outlawing it. They have every right to publish piles of horseshit. I just think it's really poor taste and pretty fucking insensitive, and is clearly milking the cash cow of controversy.
Today's rolling stone is next weeks kitty litter liner.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:21:17 AM
So tell me, RWHN...What's your solution to this outrage?
There is nothing to solve really. It's coming out. I'm here just calling the pile of shit for what it is. More places refusing to carry it will be cool too.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:21:27 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:11:44 AM
Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.
Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.
Sure, think all you want in the article. But why put the fuzzy selfie on the cover? To stir it up and move units.
maybe to get people to think about "monsters" and why othering them does no good?
Horseshit
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:25:48 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:21:17 AM
So tell me, RWHN...What's your solution to this outrage?
There is nothing to solve really. It's coming out. I'm here just calling the pile of shit for what it is. More places refusing to carry it will be cool too.
Of course. As I said, we can't let the people themselves decide, if there's potential irresponsibility being published, eh?
Because people, as you've already said, can't do their thinking for themselves.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:20:55 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
I just think it is in very poor taste given the horror that people have gone through and continue to go through. I'm glad to see some places like CVS, Walgreens, and Shaw's are refusing to carry this edition.
Certainly. The people themselves can't be allowed to decide.
They can choose to go find a store that does carry it.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:26:33 AM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:21:27 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:11:44 AM
Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.
Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.
Sure, think all you want in the article. But why put the fuzzy selfie on the cover? To stir it up and move units.
maybe to get people to think about "monsters" and why othering them does no good?
Horseshit
BRILLIANT! It's well thought out rebuttals like this that make a great debate.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:27:26 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:20:55 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
I just think it is in very poor taste given the horror that people have gone through and continue to go through. I'm glad to see some places like CVS, Walgreens, and Shaw's are refusing to carry this edition.
Certainly. The people themselves can't be allowed to decide.
They can choose to go find a store that does carry it.
Yep. I guess I won't be buying at Walgreens, anymore. Censors piss me off.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:27:13 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:25:48 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:21:17 AM
So tell me, RWHN...What's your solution to this outrage?
There is nothing to solve really. It's coming out. I'm here just calling the pile of shit for what it is. More places refusing to carry it will be cool too.
Of course. As I said, we can't let the people themselves decide, if there's potential irresponsibility being published, eh?
Because people, as you've already said, can't do their thinking for themselves.
Businesses can sell or not sell whatever they wish.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:29:03 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:27:13 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:25:48 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:21:17 AM
So tell me, RWHN...What's your solution to this outrage?
There is nothing to solve really. It's coming out. I'm here just calling the pile of shit for what it is. More places refusing to carry it will be cool too.
Of course. As I said, we can't let the people themselves decide, if there's potential irresponsibility being published, eh?
Because people, as you've already said, can't do their thinking for themselves.
Businesses can sell or not sell whatever they wish.
Sure. And when they decide what's best for me, I go elsewhere. Just checked...Our grocery store, which also has a pharmacy, IS in fact carrying the magazine without interruption.
So, you know, no more spending money at Walgreens.
And thanks for the list of the guilty there, RWHN.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:28:36 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:27:26 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:20:55 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
I just think it is in very poor taste given the horror that people have gone through and continue to go through. I'm glad to see some places like CVS, Walgreens, and Shaw's are refusing to carry this edition.
Certainly. The people themselves can't be allowed to decide.
They can choose to go find a store that does carry it.
Yep. I guess I won't be buying at Walgreens, anymore. Censors piss me off.
And I like businesses that are sensitive and respecful to their customer base. These chains have heavy presences in New England. I wouldn't want that shit in my stores either.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:32:04 AM
.
And I like businesses that are sensitive and respecful to their customer base. These chains have heavy presences in New England. I wouldn't want that shit in my stores either.
Yeah, how did they know what their customers' wishes were, RWHN?
Oh, that's right, they didn't. They decided for them.
ETA: And you didn't have to say you didn't want people being able to make up their own mind. That sort of went without saying.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:04:32 AM
Because, as we all know, Rolling Stone has never covered anything other than rock stars. Ever.
:lulz:
Fuckin' A. Matt Taibbi tried that shit, talking about banking regulations and financial misconduct and stuff. His editors begged him to find a musical angle to the whole thing - what sort of music does Lloyd Blankfein like to listen to as he commits fraud on his clients? - but Matt was having none of it.
And that's why in the end, they had to get rid of him.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 01:34:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:04:32 AM
Because, as we all know, Rolling Stone has never covered anything other than rock stars. Ever.
:lulz:
Fuckin' A. Matt Taibbi tried that shit, talking about banking regulations and financial misconduct and stuff. His editors begged him to find a musical angle to the whole thing - what sort of music does Lloyd Blankfein like to listen to as he commits fraud on his clients? - but Matt was having none of it.
And that's why in the end, they had to get rid of him.
It's also why they totally rejected HST and every other writer that couldn't make it peppy and upbeat.
From the Murphys: A post on their social networking blog on Wednesday morning (17Jul13) reads: "Rolling Stone you should be ashamed. How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!"
Couldn't agree more.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:35:40 AM
From the Murphys: A post on their social networking blog on Wednesday morning (17Jul13) reads: "Rolling Stone you should be ashamed. How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!"
Couldn't agree more.
Couldn't agree more...with IRA terrorist supporters.
The irony here is staggering. :lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
It doesn't really. At all.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:37:06 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
It doesn't really. At all.
Of course it doesn't. That's not really what this thread is about. This thread is about RWHN's rage concerning people being allowed to make up their own minds.
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
I think what saddens me the most about this is that the concept of fame, of publicity in itself, has become so valued that the mere act of publishing a photograph on the cover of a magazine, something that once would have been considered an act of journalism, and that, in the case of a crime, would once have been considered an act of public shaming, is now being perceived as an accolade and a reward.
How dare Rolling Stone reward this killer with fame?
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:36:23 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:35:40 AM
From the Murphys: A post on their social networking blog on Wednesday morning (17Jul13) reads: "Rolling Stone you should be ashamed. How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!"
Couldn't agree more.
Couldn't agree more...with IRA terrorist supporters.
The irony here is staggering. :lulz:
seriously RWHN, fuck you.
fucking hypocrite.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
So what you're really saying is that you've made up your mind and nothing is going to change it and anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is bad and you're going to condemn it.
Gotcha.
Hahaha.
Turns out the image on the front of Rolling Stone was originally published in the Washington Post and New York Times. OUTRAGE. Obviously, terrorists should be depicted with blacked out faces, to remind everyone how scary and inhuman they are. Anything less is letting the terrorists win and direspecting the victims of nineleven.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 01:40:30 AM
I think what saddens me the most about this is that the concept of fame has become so valued that the mere act of publishing a photograph on the cover of a magazine, something that once would have been considered an act of journalism, and that, in the case of a crime, would once have been considered an act of public shaming, is now being perceived as an accolade and a reward.
How dare Rolling Stone reward this killer with fame?
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
We can't have a Bright New Tomorrow when people run around being rock stars...um...with pressure cookers. And then get made into drug store heroes, because they aren't wearing a turban and aren't old enough and brown enough to be a proper cover-story bad guy.
You know this.
If they had age-progressed him, shooped a beard on him and maybe tinted his skin a bit, THEN it would be journalism.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:41:49 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
So what you're really saying is that you've made up your mind and nothing is going to change it and anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is bad and you're going to condemn it.
Gotcha.
Hello. To whom are you speaking, again?
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:40:56 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:36:23 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:35:40 AM
From the Murphys: A post on their social networking blog on Wednesday morning (17Jul13) reads: "Rolling Stone you should be ashamed. How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!"
Couldn't agree more.
Couldn't agree more...with IRA terrorist supporters.
The irony here is staggering. :lulz:
seriously RWHN, fuck you.
fucking hypocrite.
See above post to CPD.
What's next, demanding the the Sex Offenders Registry be taken offline because it rewards those sick fucks by making their names public? It's a type of FAME, after all, and everybody wants FAME. At any price. It is the principal motivator.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 01:44:45 AM
What's next, demanding the the Sex Offenders Registry be taken offline because it rewards those sick fucks by making their names public? It's a type of FAME, after all, and everybody wants FAME. At any price. It is the principal motivator.
I for one am outraged that an original piece of reporting, including multiple interviews with people who knew the Boston Bomber and have not been interviewed before, have a picture of said bomber. An entirely unaltered picture, previously published by other media. And I am very outraged that they had the audacity to put it on the front page, and only call him a "monster".
He's an
existential risk. C'mon people.
This isn't controversial, though, because it looks like the bad guy we expect.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2001/1101011001_400.jpg)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 01:47:43 AM
This isn't controversial, though, because it looks like the bad guy we expect.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2001/1101011001_400.jpg)
Beard. Check.
Turban. Check.
Brown. Check.
Acceptable for public consumption.
terrorism- all misty and romantic till it happens in your own back yard.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:41:49 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
So what you're really saying is that you've made up your mind and nothing is going to change it and anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is bad and you're going to condemn it.
Gotcha.
Uhh, yeah sure.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
I don't think they should have to. I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A) I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:43:22 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:41:49 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
So what you're really saying is that you've made up your mind and nothing is going to change it and anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is bad and you're going to condemn it.
Gotcha.
Hello. To whom are you speaking, again?
I shouldn't be disappointed, I know.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:49:29 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 01:41:49 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
So what you're really saying is that you've made up your mind and nothing is going to change it and anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is bad and you're going to condemn it.
Gotcha.
Uhh, yeah sure.
Yeah, we can't base this sort of thing on 4 years of established behavior or anything. :lulz:
"I'm just giving PD what it wants" in 3...2...1...
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 01:47:15 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 01:44:45 AM
What's next, demanding the the Sex Offenders Registry be taken offline because it rewards those sick fucks by making their names public? It's a type of FAME, after all, and everybody wants FAME. At any price. It is the principal motivator.
I for one am outraged that an original piece of reporting, including multiple interviews with people who knew the Boston Bomber and have not been interviewed before, have a picture of said bomber. An entirely unaltered picture, previously published by other media. And I am very outraged that they had the audacity to put it on the front page, and only call him a "monster".
He's an existential risk. C'mon people.
Yes, they should have shoveled it under the carpet, like decent folks.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 01:44:45 AM
What's next, demanding the the Sex Offenders Registry be taken offline because it rewards those sick fucks by making their names public? It's a type of FAME, after all, and everybody wants FAME. At any price. It is the principal motivator.
These two things aren't even in the same zipcode fer crissakes.
RWHN- like a horticulturist that cuts off diseased branches but never thinks to take a look at the roots.
Y'know the absolute best part about the image?
This is the one favoured by the "Dzhokhar is Innocent" groupies and conspiracy theorists, for obvious reasons. Yet, in using it, while calling him a "monster" and detailing how he ended up turning to terrorism and murder, they're entirely negating the positive associations that said groups are going for.
I realise this may be far too subtle for the MY OUTRAGE MEANS THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS brigade, but so is practically everything.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 01:54:17 AM
Y'know the absolute best part about the image?
This is the one favoured by the "Dzhokhar is Innocent" groupies and conspiracy theorists, for obvious reasons. Yet, in using it, while calling him a "monster" and detailing how he ended up turning to terrorism and murder, they're entirely negating the positive associations that said groups are going for.
I realise this may be far too subtle for the MY OUTRAGE MEANS THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS brigade, but so is practically everything.
You just don't understand America, Cain. You're using the front part of your brain too much.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
I don't think they should have to. I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A) I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.
And the problem with this is?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:55:43 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
I don't think they should have to. I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A) I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.
And the problem with this is?
Gutlessness pisses me off.
It's revolting. Stomach-turning.
And it's what you're selling. Can someone take this off the shelves, please? It offends me.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 01:54:17 AM
Y'know the absolute best part about the image?
This is the one favoured by the "Dzhokhar is Innocent" groupies and conspiracy theorists, for obvious reasons. Yet, in using it, while calling him a "monster" and detailing how he ended up turning to terrorism and murder, they're entirely negating the positive associations that said groups are going for.
I realise this may be far too subtle for the MY OUTRAGE MEANS THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS brigade, but so is practically everything.
Pretty well-played, all things considered.
How dare Rolling Stone exploit this story for commercial gain. Exploiting all events for commercial gain is not the job of magazine!
QuoteNortheastern University criminologist Jack Levin told MyFoxBoston.com that the cover could send a dangerous message to others who might be minded to carry out violence: "If they want to become famous, kill somebody."
Whereas, 24 hour rolling coverage of the bombings, followed by a city-wide lockdown, presumably does not send the message that fame comes from violence.
It's different when
respectable media does it. :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:02:56 AM
QuoteNortheastern University criminologist Jack Levin told MyFoxBoston.com that the cover could send a dangerous message to others who might be minded to carry out violence: "If they want to become famous, kill somebody."
Whereas, 24 hour rolling coverage of the bombings, followed by a city-wide lockdown, presumably does not send the message that fame comes from violence.
It's different when respectable media does it. :lulz:
No, it's shitty when they do it too.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:56:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:55:43 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
I don't think they should have to. I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A) I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.
And the problem with this is?
Gutlessness pisses me off.
It's revolting. Stomach-turning.
And it's what you're selling. Can someone take this off the shelves, please? It offends me.
I'm not selling anything. My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone. I support people boycotting them because of it. Are you against boycotts?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:13:25 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:02:56 AM
QuoteNortheastern University criminologist Jack Levin told MyFoxBoston.com that the cover could send a dangerous message to others who might be minded to carry out violence: "If they want to become famous, kill somebody."
Whereas, 24 hour rolling coverage of the bombings, followed by a city-wide lockdown, presumably does not send the message that fame comes from violence.
It's different when respectable media does it. :lulz:
No, it's shitty when they do it too.
Media should only report on little girls feeding ducks. Or at least make the bad guys brown and bearded.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:56:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:55:43 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
I don't think they should have to. I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A) I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.
And the problem with this is?
Gutlessness pisses me off.
It's revolting. Stomach-turning.
And it's what you're selling. Can someone take this off the shelves, please? It offends me.
I'm not selling anything. My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone. I support people boycotting them because of it. Are you against boycotts?
Of course you're selling something. You're supporting boycotting the 1st amendment, because you don't believe anyone can think for themselves, other than yourself of course.
There is a certain point where the media stops covering the news and transitions into just spewing horrormirth pornography to get eyes in front of the screen, and you know damn well that's the case.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:18:23 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:56:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:55:43 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
I don't think they should have to. I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A) I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.
And the problem with this is?
Gutlessness pisses me off.
It's revolting. Stomach-turning.
And it's what you're selling. Can someone take this off the shelves, please? It offends me.
I'm not selling anything. My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone. I support people boycotting them because of it. Are you against boycotts?
Of course you're selling something. You're supporting boycotting the 1st amendment, because you don't believe anyone can think for themselves, other than yourself of course.
The First Amendment doesn't mandate stores sell product they don't want to sell.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:56:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:55:43 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
I don't think they should have to. I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A) I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.
And the problem with this is?
Gutlessness pisses me off.
It's revolting. Stomach-turning.
And it's what you're selling. Can someone take this off the shelves, please? It offends me.
I'm not selling anything. My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone. I support people boycotting them because of it. Are you against boycotts?
You're basing your entire opinion on the fact that putting the bomber's face on the cover is somehow an endorsement of his actions and/or only a gimmick for making a buck. That isn't the case. Any thinking person would understand it isn't.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:22:04 AM
There is a certain point where the media stops covering the news and transitions into just spewing horrormirth pornography to get eyes in front of the screen, and you know damn well that's the case.
Yeah, I hear teabaggers hollering about "abused freedoms" all the time.
If you can't abuse it, it isn't a freedom. In this case, it has been abused by showing an actual picture of the kid. Maybe if they'd thrown a turban on him or something, eh?
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 02:24:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:56:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:55:43 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.
No, this is about your control issues. Just like always.
Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?
I don't think they should have to. I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A) I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.
And the problem with this is?
Gutlessness pisses me off.
It's revolting. Stomach-turning.
And it's what you're selling. Can someone take this off the shelves, please? It offends me.
I'm not selling anything. My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone. I support people boycotting them because of it. Are you against boycotts?
You're basing your entire opinion on the fact that putting the bomber's face on the cover is somehow an endorsement of his actions and/or only a gimmick for making a buck. That isn't the case. Any thinking person would understand it isn't.
Like I said, not brown enough, no beard, no turban.
I can be proven wrong, of course, by RWHN linking to his ringing denouncement - at the time - of Time Magazine putting Bin Ladin on it's cover.
But seeing as he agrees with and supports IRA murderers and/or their supporters, I doubt this will be the case.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 02:24:32 AM
You're basing your entire opinion on the fact that putting the bomber's face on the cover is somehow an endorsement of his actions and/or only a gimmick for making a buck. That isn't the case. Any thinking person would understand it isn't.
You're an idiot, I said nothing about Rolling Stone endorsing his actions. However putting that kind of image of him on the cover IS very clearly about being "edgy" in an attempt to create controversy and move units.
It's insulting to the victims, who have come out against the cover if you read the article in the OP. It's completely classless.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:27:06 AM
Like I said, not brown enough, no beard, no turban.
I can be proven wrong, of course, by RWHN linking to his ringing denouncement - at the time - of Time Magazine putting Bin Ladin on it's cover.
Your comparison would make sense if TIME posted a photo of a young Bin Laden with toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot.
Saying it again, then going to bed.
RWHN's objection is the kid's appearance. Not monstrous enough.
Meaning, not brown enough, not bearded enough, not turbaned enough to be acceptable as a monster.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:37:17 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:27:06 AM
Like I said, not brown enough, no beard, no turban.
I can be proven wrong, of course, by RWHN linking to his ringing denouncement - at the time - of Time Magazine putting Bin Ladin on it's cover.
Your comparison would make sense if TIME posted a photo of a young Bin Laden with toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot.
How old was the kid when he died? :lulz:
This is pretty blatant racism, RWHN. You don't think he's monstrous enough because he doesn't fit the image of a monster in your mind.
Your itty bitty racist mind.
I am still not getting how this particular killer on the cover of a magazine rates a completely different response from all the other killers on the cover of a magazine. Can you explain the difference to me, RWHN? Is there a difference, or is it your opinion that no criminals faces should ever be published on the covers of magazines?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:37:27 AM
Saying it again, then going to bed.
RWHN's objection is the kid's appearance. Not monstrous enough.
Meaning, not brown enough, not bearded enough, not turbaned enough to be acceptable as a monster.
Don't put the asshat on the cover at all. He doesn't deserve that kind of notoriety.
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:38:39 AM
I am still not getting how this particular killer on the cover of a magazine rates a completely different response from all the other killers on the cover of a magazine. Can you explain the difference to me, RWHN? Is there a difference, or is it your opinion that no criminals faces should ever be published on the covers of magazines?
The kid is young and white.
Not the image of a monster, in RWHN's mind.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:39:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:37:27 AM
Saying it again, then going to bed.
RWHN's objection is the kid's appearance. Not monstrous enough.
Meaning, not brown enough, not bearded enough, not turbaned enough to be acceptable as a monster.
Don't put the asshat on the cover at all. He doesn't deserve that kind of notoriety.
Unlike Bin Ladin. Who was a monster, on account of brown and bearded.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:38:58 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:37:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:31:03 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:28:33 AM
You're an idiot,
And you're a hair shirt control freak. :lulz:
I wasn't talking to you there skippy.
Imagine how horny that makes me.
I'd rather not
, thanks anyway.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:41:05 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:38:58 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:37:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:31:03 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:28:33 AM
You're an idiot,
And you're a hair shirt control freak. :lulz:
I wasn't talking to you there skippy.
Imagine how horny that makes me.
I'd rather not, thanks anyway.
Too late.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:38:36 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:37:17 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:27:06 AM
Like I said, not brown enough, no beard, no turban.
I can be proven wrong, of course, by RWHN linking to his ringing denouncement - at the time - of Time Magazine putting Bin Ladin on it's cover.
Your comparison would make sense if TIME posted a photo of a young Bin Laden with toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot.
How old was the kid when he died? :lulz:
This is pretty blatant racism, RWHN. You don't think he's monstrous enough because he doesn't fit the image of a monster in your mind.
Your itty bitty racist mind.
You suck at reading. And reading between the lines. This has nothing to do with his race, it's all about how they are imaging this coward and making him a spectacle. To move units. They didn't have to put him on the cover at all.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:38:39 AM
I am still not getting how this particular killer on the cover of a magazine rates a completely different response from all the other killers on the cover of a magazine. Can you explain the difference to me, RWHN? Is there a difference, or is it your opinion that no criminals faces should ever be published on the covers of magazines?
He has identified the issue as being "toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot".
Which means it's badwrong because WHN finds the guy attractive.
Let's recap.
Acceptable villain (publication-wise):
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/gty_osama_bin_laden_jef_111209_wg.jpg)
Brown, bearded, turban, more or less middle aged.
Unacceptable villain (publication-wise):
(http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Boston-bomber.jpg)
Young, White.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:28:33 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 02:24:32 AM
You're basing your entire opinion on the fact that putting the bomber's face on the cover is somehow an endorsement of his actions and/or only a gimmick for making a buck. That isn't the case. Any thinking person would understand it isn't.
You're an idiot, I said nothing about Rolling Stone endorsing his actions. However putting that kind of image of him on the cover IS very clearly about being "edgy" in an attempt to create controversy and move units.
It's insulting to the victims, who have come out against the cover if you read the article in the OP. It's completely classless.
Ah, well then.
When you said
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:02:11 AM
You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary. The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?
Blow up kids.
It sounded like you were suggesting Rolling Stone was endorsing or encouraging that sort of action. "If you can't rock and roll, just kill some people and we'll give you a cover." Clearly, I misunderstood you.
What the guy did was horrific. It was something that shouldn't even be thought of doing to another human being. But it wasn't done by some crazy unknowable mysterious being. It was done by a person. Which is what they put on the cover.
Had they really been going for edgy they'd have photoshopped some tattoos and muscles and guns and scantily-clad women draped all over him. They'd have showed his body and the blood and the gore.
What they did was present a face. A normal enough face that does nothing to distance people from the fact he's just like everyone else, except for his horrible mistakes. Which makes it harder to assure one another that this won't happen again and only evil wrong deviant bad CREATURES do things like this.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:39:18 AM
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Quote from: Pæs on July 18, 2013, 02:46:38 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:38:39 AM
I am still not getting how this particular killer on the cover of a magazine rates a completely different response from all the other killers on the cover of a magazine. Can you explain the difference to me, RWHN? Is there a difference, or is it your opinion that no criminals faces should ever be published on the covers of magazines?
He has identified the issue as being "toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot".
Which means it's badwrong because WHN finds the guy attractive.
What were they supposed to do, digitally age him 30 years and give him a beard? That's what the kid looked like.
So this picture probably shouldn't be on any magazines either.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/5/2/1304330337902/1971-Osama-bin-Laden-on-a-009.jpg)
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:49:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:39:18 AM
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.
Quote from: The article you linkedOthers pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.
You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1 (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1)"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Quote from: Pæs on July 18, 2013, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:49:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:39:18 AM
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.
Quote from: The article you linkedOthers pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.
You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?
Let's not be
unreasonable, now.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:56:06 AM
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1 (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1)
"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Yeah, we heard. White, young, attractive. Not an acceptable villain.
Quote from: Pæs on July 18, 2013, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:49:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:39:18 AM
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.
Quote from: The article you linkedOthers pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.
You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?
Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged. Sorry, I'll get right on that.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:58:59 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 18, 2013, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:49:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:39:18 AM
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.
Quote from: The article you linkedOthers pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.
You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?
Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged. Sorry, I'll get right on that.
No, genius, I think he was talking about the Rolling Stone article.
But his mistake was forgetting that you're a puritanical asshat, and actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is unnecessary for your rage.
Good thing this is a serious, relevant issue that RWHN actually cares about and not just an effort to fuck around PD's mad, mad flow because of Ewige Butthurt.
Then again, how would anyone know?
Quote from: Alty on July 18, 2013, 03:02:46 AM
Good thing this is a serious, relevant issue that RWHN actually cares about and not just an effort to fuck around PD's mad, mad flow because of Ewige Butthurt.
Then again, how would anyone know?
Of course it was designed to fuck up the flow.
The moment LMNO comments, RWHN will say how he doesn't really care about it, and how he's just giving PD what it wants.
Called it pages ago.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:00:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:58:59 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 18, 2013, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:49:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:39:18 AM
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.
Quote from: The article you linkedOthers pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.
You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?
Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged. Sorry, I'll get right on that.
No, genius, I think he was talking about the Rolling Stone article.
But his mistake was forgetting that you're a puritanical asshat, and actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is unnecessary for your rage.
Cain's question was why I wasn't upset when NYT and WaPo used the image. It is because I didn't see their usage of the image. I can read now that they used the image, but it will not change the fact that I didn't see the original usage, thus, I still will not have had a reaction, less I now go back in time and see those articles when they were published.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:06:01 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:00:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:58:59 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 18, 2013, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:49:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:39:18 AM
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.
Quote from: The article you linkedOthers pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.
You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?
Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged. Sorry, I'll get right on that.
No, genius, I think he was talking about the Rolling Stone article.
But his mistake was forgetting that you're a puritanical asshat, and actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is unnecessary for your rage.
Cain's question was why I wasn't upset when NYT and WaPo used the image. It is because I didn't see their usage of the image. I can read now that they used the image, but it will not change the fact that I didn't see the original usage, thus, I still will not have had a reaction, less I now go back in time and see those articles when they were published.
He was pointing out that the Rolling Stone issue mentions the other pics, dumbass. :lol:
You're a dense one, sometimes.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:56:06 AM
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1 (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1)
"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Yeah, Baader and Meinhof never got that treatment:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01726/Baader-Meinhof_1726431c.jpg)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2007/2587514207_88f7a93d1d.jpg)
Nor did Leila Khaled:
(http://www.thenational.ae/deployedfiles/Assets/Richmedia/Image/SaxoPress/AD20130216287753-1-Leila_Khaled_re.jpg)
Definitely not Che Guevara:
(http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/che-guevara.jpeg)
Or the depiction of Carlos Illich Rameriz Sanchez in the Olivier Assayas trilogy:
(http://www.avforums.com/movies/images/media/10294/capture3.jpg)
I don't know who is more retarded here, Kathleen Hall Jamieson for the original comment, or RWHN for blindly accepting it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:07:15 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:06:01 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:00:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:58:59 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 18, 2013, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:49:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 02:39:18 AM
So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?
I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.
Quote from: The article you linkedOthers pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.
You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?
Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged. Sorry, I'll get right on that.
No, genius, I think he was talking about the Rolling Stone article.
But his mistake was forgetting that you're a puritanical asshat, and actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is unnecessary for your rage.
Cain's question was why I wasn't upset when NYT and WaPo used the image. It is because I didn't see their usage of the image. I can read now that they used the image, but it will not change the fact that I didn't see the original usage, thus, I still will not have had a reaction, less I now go back in time and see those articles when they were published.
He was pointing out that the Rolling Stone issue mentions the other pics, dumbass. :lol:
You're a dense one, sometimes.
No, he is quoting "the article you linked" which was the article I read at NBCnews.com, and linked here, about the Rolling Stone article.
Too much funny tonight.
Going to bed.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:07:28 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:56:06 AM
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1 (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1)
"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Yeah, Baader and Meinhof never got that treatment:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01726/Baader-Meinhof_1726431c.jpg)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2007/2587514207_88f7a93d1d.jpg)
Nor did Leila Khaled:
(http://www.thenational.ae/deployedfiles/Assets/Richmedia/Image/SaxoPress/AD20130216287753-1-Leila_Khaled_re.jpg)
Definitely not Che Guevara:
(http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/che-guevara.jpeg)
Or the depiction of Carlos Illich Rameriz Sanchez in the Olivier Assayas trilogy:
(http://www.avforums.com/movies/images/media/10294/capture3.jpg)
I don't know who is more retarded here, Kathleen Hall Jamieson for the original comment, or RWHN for blindly accepting it.
Bbbbbuuut, Che Guavera was a Freedom Fighter for Justice!
:vom:
Quote from: Alty on July 18, 2013, 03:13:24 AM
Bbbbbuuut, Che Guavera was a Freedom Fighter for Justice!
:vom:
Fuck, I think I just snorted coffee through my nose.
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 03:20:45 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
Roger called it. :roll:
I don't get the whole argument, TBH.
I get up from a nap to find this pissing match going on...*Yawn*
Depressing.
Imma go back to bed, carry on.
Who cares? Everyone got to discuss a controversial topic. Big whoop.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 18, 2013, 03:25:55 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 03:20:45 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
Roger called it. :roll:
I don't get the whole argument, TBH.
I get up from a nap to find this pissing match going on...*Yawn*
Depressing.
Imma go back to bed, carry on.
:spag:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:26:34 AM
Who cares? Everyone got to discuss a controversial topic. Big whoop.
That's not what most people call a "discussion". That was you trolling, because you're an attention whore and can't tolerate it when the board is collaborating and doing interesting things instead of paying attention to you.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 18, 2013, 03:25:55 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 03:20:45 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
Roger called it. :roll:
I don't get the whole argument, TBH.
I get up from a nap to find this pissing match going on...*Yawn*
Depressing.
Imma go back to bed, carry on.
Really? Pissing match. *yawn*
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:26:34 AM
Who cares? Everyone got to discuss a controversial topic. Big whoop.
That's not what most people call a "discussion". That was you trolling, because you're an attention whore and can't tolerate it when the board is collaborating and doing interesting things instead of paying attention to you.
Someday Imma learn.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:26:34 AM
Who cares? Everyone got to discuss a controversial topic. Big whoop.
That's not what most people call a "discussion". That was you trolling, because you're an attention whore and can't tolerate it when the board is collaborating and doing interesting things instead of paying attention to you.
No, that was me posting my opinion.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:44:30 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:26:34 AM
Who cares? Everyone got to discuss a controversial topic. Big whoop.
That's not what most people call a "discussion". That was you trolling, because you're an attention whore and can't tolerate it when the board is collaborating and doing interesting things instead of paying attention to you.
No, that was me posting my opinion.
(http://i.imgur.com/HesY88K.jpg)
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 18, 2013, 03:47:39 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:44:30 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:26:34 AM
Who cares? Everyone got to discuss a controversial topic. Big whoop.
That's not what most people call a "discussion". That was you trolling, because you're an attention whore and can't tolerate it when the board is collaborating and doing interesting things instead of paying attention to you.
No, that was me posting my opinion.
(http://i.imgur.com/HesY88K.jpg)
HEY.
Thats not fair.
Those people are funny.
Did the new list of approved discussion topics get handed out again while I was out of the room? I always seem to miss it. :lol:
Why the outrage WHN? This is Rolling Stone. You shouldn't be reading it. It's a magazine, predominantly about rock music which you are vehemently against. Or will be once your stupid fucking brain joins up the dots. :lulz:
I actually explained my outrage in this thread, so that is a rather silly question to ask.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 12:47:54 AM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19523421-rolling-stone-boston-bomber-suspect-photo-stirs-online-controversy-cvs-walgreens-drop-the-issue?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19523421-rolling-stone-boston-bomber-suspect-photo-stirs-online-controversy-cvs-walgreens-drop-the-issue?lite)
Magazine sales must have been slumping badly. I suppose the nut-wits at Rolling Stone think this is "edgy journalism".
Sure, let's make the human sack of shit a rock star. Fuck dead and maimed and delimbed people. There are units to move!
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 12:56:59 AM
False equivalency.
It isn't journalism. It's fucking sensationalism to move units. It's jabbing a knife into open wounds. It's pretty sick.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:02:11 AM
You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary. The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?
Blow up kids.
There's the Reader's Digest edition for you Pent.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 12:56:59 AM
False equivalency.
It isn't journalism. It's fucking sensationalism to move units. It's jabbing a knife into open wounds. It's pretty sick.
Have you actually seen any mainstream media in the past say, 20 years?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 10:59:10 AM
I actually explained my outrage in this thread, so that is a rather silly question to ask.
Your "Outrage" is rather silly as you seem to be mainly upset at a photo that has already been widely used. This is not a rational position.
This whole thread is like getting pissed off at Fox for being "Fair and Balanced".
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 11:01:39 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:02:11 AM
You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary. The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?
Blow up kids.
Once again, you're missing the point. You also seem to have totally ignored all the surrounding conversations on this topic regarding international terrorism and various interactions with numerous less than honourable organisations.
I'd swear your posts weren't always this retarded. Are you suffering withdrawal from drug threads?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 11:02:12 AM
There's the Reader's Digest edition for you Pent.
My Point
... your dumb fucking head :lulz:
Quote from: Alty on July 18, 2013, 03:13:24 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:07:28 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:56:06 AM
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1 (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1)
"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Yeah, Baader and Meinhof never got that treatment:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01726/Baader-Meinhof_1726431c.jpg)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2007/2587514207_88f7a93d1d.jpg)
Nor did Leila Khaled:
(http://www.thenational.ae/deployedfiles/Assets/Richmedia/Image/SaxoPress/AD20130216287753-1-Leila_Khaled_re.jpg)
Definitely not Che Guevara:
(http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/che-guevara.jpeg)
Or the depiction of Carlos Illich Rameriz Sanchez in the Olivier Assayas trilogy:
(http://www.avforums.com/movies/images/media/10294/capture3.jpg)
I don't know who is more retarded here, Kathleen Hall Jamieson for the original comment, or RWHN for blindly accepting it.
Bbbbbuuut, Che Guavera was a Freedom Fighter for Justice!
:vom:
fredom fighter/terrorist. it's all in the narrative of the person's beliefs.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
the misogyny is strong in him since the ol marital breakdown.
I feel sorry for his daughter.
and what about musicians that glorify terrorists?
Ever heard of a kid named Tim Parry? Or the kids that got kneecapped by paramilitaries last summer in Ulster?
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
the misogyny is strong in him since the ol marital breakdown.
I feel sorry for his daughter.
and what about musicians that glorify teoorits?
Ever heard of a kid named Tim Parry?
They should be censorshipped, obviously. Likewise the ones who glorify drugs or irresponsible sexual practices or any form of thoughtcrime really. Y'know, in case the children
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 01:17:24 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
the misogyny is strong in him since the ol marital breakdown.
I feel sorry for his daughter.
and what about musicians that glorify teoorits?
Ever heard of a kid named Tim Parry?
They should be censorshipped, obviously. Likewise the ones who glorify drugs or irresponsible sexual practices or any form of thoughtcrime really. Y'know, in case the children
I'm sayin he's gettin a hard on for the fuckin' dropkicks throwin their toys out of the pram.
LOL HYPOCRITE.
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.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:19:38 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 01:17:24 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
the misogyny is strong in him since the ol marital breakdown.
I feel sorry for his daughter.
and what about musicians that glorify teoorits?
Ever heard of a kid named Tim Parry?
They should be censorshipped, obviously. Likewise the ones who glorify drugs or irresponsible sexual practices or any form of thoughtcrime really. Y'know, in case the children
I'm sayin he's gettin a hard on for the fuckin' dropkicks throwin their toys out of the pram.
LOL HYPOCRITE.
Heh. Hypocrisy is kind of part and parcel really. Protecting children by ruining their lives and all that. Stands to reason that anyone who supports any of his positions will be kind of a retarded asshole. Birds of a feather, as they say.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
the misogyny is strong in him since the ol marital breakdown.
I feel sorry for his daughter.
and what about musicians that glorify terrorists?
Ever heard of a kid named Tim Parry? Or the kids that got kneecapped by paramilitaries last summer in Ulster?
No, I haven't. I'm not a hardcore fan of the Murphys by any means. I like a few of their songs, but my point in this thread is simply I agree with their published statement on the Rolling Stone cover. I really don't have any considerable depth of knowledge of their politics.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 18, 2013, 01:22:46 PM
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.
See, you're thinking. And thinking is BAD. Your reactions have been carefully packaged for you, and you just run off and do whatever. Look at RWHN. HE at least has the DECENCY to use the opinions that he has been given.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
the misogyny is strong in him since the ol marital breakdown.
I feel sorry for his daughter.
and what about musicians that glorify terrorists?
Ever heard of a kid named Tim Parry? Or the kids that got kneecapped by paramilitaries last summer in Ulster?
No, I haven't. I'm not a hardcore fan of the Murphys by any means. I like a few of their songs, but my point in this thread is simply I agree with their published statement on the Rolling Stone cover. I really don't have any considerable depth of knowledge of their politics.
FYI: They have dumfuck opinions like supporting the IRA and condemning Magazines for not photoshopping the terrorists on their covers to conform with boogeyman standards
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
the misogyny is strong in him since the ol marital breakdown.
I feel sorry for his daughter.
and what about musicians that glorify terrorists?
Ever heard of a kid named Tim Parry? Or the kids that got kneecapped by paramilitaries last summer in Ulster?
No, I haven't. I'm not a hardcore fan of the Murphys by any means. I like a few of their songs, but my point in this thread is simply I agree with their published statement on the Rolling Stone cover. I really don't have any considerable depth of knowledge of their politics.
FYI: They have dumfuck opinions like supporting the IRA and condemning Magazines for not photoshopping the terrorists on their covers to conform with boogeyman standards
ANY PORT IN A STORM.
AGREE WITH TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS OVER THE PROPER MANNER IN WHICH TO DEPICT TERRORISTS.
:winner:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
CALLED IT.
What? That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts? Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
But CPD, you're a woman. Ergo an idiot.
Dok,
Has noticed another trend.
Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.
the misogyny is strong in him since the ol marital breakdown.
I feel sorry for his daughter.
and what about musicians that glorify terrorists?
Ever heard of a kid named Tim Parry? Or the kids that got kneecapped by paramilitaries last summer in Ulster?
No, I haven't. I'm not a hardcore fan of the Murphys by any means. I like a few of their songs, but my point in this thread is simply I agree with their published statement on the Rolling Stone cover. I really don't have any considerable depth of knowledge of their politics.
FYI: They have dumfuck opinions like supporting the IRA and condemning Magazines for not photoshopping the terrorists on their covers to conform with boogeyman standards
How do they support the IRA?
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
CALLED IT.
What? That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts? Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?
:lulz:
Why yes, the purpose of a conversation is to make the most possible posts in a 2 hour period.
Then we all take a break and eat the menu.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Examples?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
true.
Read it in a book on the Irish Diaspora called the Road To McCarthy.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Examples?
Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Examples?
Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.
This is awesome. I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.
LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority :kingmeh:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
CALLED IT.
What? That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts? Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?
:lulz:
Why yes, the purpose of a conversation is to make the most possible posts in a 2 hour period.
Then we all take a break and eat the menu.
The top poster in this thread has made 63 posts accounting for over 1/3 rd of all the posts.
The second-most poster has made 47 posts accounting for 27% of all the posts.
I'm number 2. Any guesses as to who is #1?
Any guesses who give a flying fuck?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:14:19 PM
LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority :kingmeh:
I've found some interesting links. I'm just waiting for him to dig himself a hole doing his misogynist bit on Pixie.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:15:41 PM
Any guesses who give a flying fuck?
The person griping about the thread maybe?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:14:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
CALLED IT.
What? That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts? Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?
:lulz:
Why yes, the purpose of a conversation is to make the most possible posts in a 2 hour period.
Then we all take a break and eat the menu.
The top poster in this thread has made 63 posts accounting for over 1/3 rd of all the posts.
The second-most poster has made 47 posts accounting for 27% of all the posts.
I'm number 2. Any guesses as to who is #1?
Getting horny again.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:17:03 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:15:41 PM
Any guesses who give a flying fuck?
The person griping about the thread maybe?
Who's that? I made fun of you. I didn't gripe about the thread. You have me confused with another poster.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:14:19 PM
LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority :kingmeh:
Actually not bullshitting
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Examples?
Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.
This is awesome. I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.
Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:14:19 PM
LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority :kingmeh:
Actually not bullshitting
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Examples?
Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.
This is awesome. I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.
Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.
Took me about 2 minutes to google.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
CALLED IT.
What? That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts? Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?
:lulz:
Why yes, the purpose of a conversation is to make the most possible posts in a 2 hour period.
Then we all take a break and eat the menu.
You fulfilled this purpose by making over 1/3 rd of those posts.
Great job sir!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:19:07 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:14:19 PM
LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority :kingmeh:
Actually not bullshitting
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Examples?
Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.
This is awesome. I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.
Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.
Took me about 2 minutes to google.
i'm eating lunch.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:15:45 AM
10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.
CALLED IT.
What? That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts? Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?
:lulz:
Why yes, the purpose of a conversation is to make the most possible posts in a 2 hour period.
Then we all take a break and eat the menu.
And the griping part is where? Please to highlight for those of us that are slow.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:14:19 PM
LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority :kingmeh:
Actually not bullshitting
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Examples?
Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.
This is awesome. I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.
Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.
Why? He wouldn't understand it anyway.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:26:20 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:14:19 PM
LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority :kingmeh:
Actually not bullshitting
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:03:45 PM
shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"
Examples?
Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.
This is awesome. I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.
Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.
Why? He wouldn't understand it anyway.
Because I don't actually want to behave like the jackass.
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
I think we need to understand the darker side of people and wonder where we as institutions, nations, and individuals have fucked up.
Quote from: http://partialobjects.com/2012/12/february-13-2013-the-school-shooting-pivot-date/Well here's what both sides of the debate can agree on: "The media should stop publicizing the killer's name! It makes killers think they can be famous, getting their fifteen minutes of fame." Tip: If you find yourself in total agreement with people you wanted to murder in the last election, you're wrong.
It's interesting that we think spree killers are motivated by fame, an idea so entrenched it is immune to critical examination, we assume that that must be what drives people, crazy people doubly so. That would be an example of projection. Or perception. Whatever. This guy left no manifesto and obliterated his computer on his way out. Fame? Sounds like his problem was he felt overscrutinized, but I'm no shrink. Unless he thought he was playing Candyland he did it out of rage. You know what's even more interesting? That you don't think "rage" is a satisfying explanation, but "fame" is.
An interesting article about a different massacre, but very relevant to this thread:
http://partialobjects.com/2012/12/february-13-2013-the-school-shooting-pivot-date/
What's this? A RWHN thread without that picture?
I'll fix that for you all right now.
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/988714_614437708589936_1549393573_n.jpg)
I'm Outraged. My anger at that picture is indescribable.
Despite having seen it many times before, it normalises RWHN and makes him look like a rock star. What kind of messages does this send to kids? Get fisted and become a rock star?
Disgusting.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents. And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it. To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends. I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
What we're discussing is censorship. My answer is no.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents. And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it. To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends. I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.
I took the pic and its significance completely differently.
YMMV.
I think the reasoning behind it being irresponsible to publish certain types of stories has already been pushed too far. It has reached the logical conclusion of it being irresponsible to, say, cover the riots in Brooklyn a few months back, resulting in a media blackout.
In fact, I think it's responsible to publish things like the Unibomber's manifesto (though from what I understand it was long and incoherent) so that the public is aware of what dangerous types are thinking and are thus better able to refute such arguments. At this point, people who are intentionally seeking them out can read them online whether or not the media wants them to. With wider coverage, the thoughts are actually made less dangerous.
I also completely reject the idea of journalists determining what the public is ready for and able to handle. It's condescending on top of being outright morally wrong.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:38:27 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents. And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it. To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends. I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.
I took the pic and its significance completely differently.
YMMV.
Read the article in the OP again and focus on the reaction of the victims to that cover, and try to put yourself in their shoes, and look at it again.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents. And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it. To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends. I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.
There is something really wrong with a culture that doesn't realize that NOT talking about this stuff would be even more... cheapening?
Of course the people affected will feel bad about other people discussing it, but it's for the best.
Also, see the paragraph I quoted one page ago.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 18, 2013, 03:39:59 PM
I think the reasoning behind it being irresponsible to publish certain types of stories has already been pushed too far. It has reached the logical conclusion of it being irresponsible to, say, cover the riots in Brooklyn a few months back, resulting in a media blackout.
In fact, I think it's responsible to publish things like the Unibomber's manifesto (though from what I understand it was long and incoherent) so that the public is aware of what dangerous types are thinking and are thus better able to refute such arguments. At this point, people who are intentionally seeking them out can read them online whether or not the media wants them to. With wider coverage, the thoughts are actually made less dangerous.
I also completely reject the idea of journalists determining what the public is ready for and able to handle. It's condescending on top of being outright morally wrong.
Not to mention satanically fucking dangerous
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on July 18, 2013, 03:40:42 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents. And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it. To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends. I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.
There is something really wrong with a culture that doesn't realize that NOT talking about this stuff would be even more... cheapening?
Of course the people affected will feel bad about other people discussing it, but it's for the best.
Also, see the paragraph I quoted one page ago.
There is discussion, and then there is cashing in on tragedy.
It's hard enough to study terrorism and political violence without censors making things worse. And such censorship would, as you know, invoke the Streiseand Effect, perversely making them more popular and interesting. It would also give a tinge of truth to the frequent claims of oppression and hypocrisy which terrorists make frequent use of.
And here's the other thing: almost anything can be an incentive or inspiration to violence. There is a militant wing of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome movement, for example. Anything one can have a strong opinion on can be a spur to violence, and even if censorship were only invokved to cover literature definitively linked to acts of violence (manifestos by convicted terrorists, for example), it would result in a vast cull of available knowledge and information.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:38:27 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents. And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it. To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends. I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.
I took the pic and its significance completely differently.
YMMV.
Read the article in the OP again and focus on the reaction of the victims to that cover, and try to put yourself in their shoes, and look at it again.
Oh I understand WHY they are upset and there is outrage.
I want to know what it is about the culture all these school shooters, bombers and such are raised in, (which is the culture we are all raised in) makes these (mostly) men do this shit.
How would we feel if he was considered ugly on a physical level?
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:44:11 PM
It's hard enough to study terrorism and political violence without censors making things worse. And such censorship would, as you know, invoke the Streiseand Effect, perversely making them more popular and interesting. It would also give a tinge of truth to the frequent claims of oppression and hypocrisy which terrorists make frequent use of.
And here's the other thing: almost anything can be an incentive or inspiration to violence. There is a militant wing of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome movement, for example. Anything one can have a strong opinion on can be a spur to violence, and even if censorship were only invokved to cover literature definitively linked to acts of violence (manifestos by convicted terrorists, for example), it would result in a vast cull of available knowledge and information.
that which is verboten becomes sexier.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:42:01 PM
There is discussion, and then there is cashing in on tragedy.
That is the media's job. Someone has to do it.
Even if they didn't, someone on the Internet would do it for free (and to a much greater audience, as Cram rightfully pointed out).
I also hope that I don't need a prescription filled anytime this month, because I'm not okay with shopping at a store that promotes censorship and that's, oh, ALL OF THEM IN NEW ENGLAND.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:42:01 PM
There is discussion, and then there is cashing in on tragedy.
Still haven't explained how using an entirely unaltered picture of the suspect and reporting on his background is different from what any other media organization has done.
Hey, the NYT and WaPo and Guardian and Telegraph all charge for their services, and they all reported extensively on the Boston Bombings. Are they not also cashing in? Does not the entire idea of a for-profit press involve cashing in on tragedy on a daily basis?
OP is a shining example. A spineless, whiny little fuck begging for censorship. The same spineless, whiny little fuck attitude that embraced your patriot act or retarded drug prohibition laws, for the sake of safety. Only it's not safety, is it? It gets more dangerous as your liberty is eaten away. More draconian punishment. More terrorism. More people going batshit insane and running into a high school with a sawn-off. And still The spineless whiny little fucks don't get it and they scream an clamour for tighter controls on every little crack where danger might seep in and kill their children. And the bad guys tighten the noose and still the spineless whiny little fucks don't feel it around their scrawny, floppy necks.
Or maybe, to them, that feeling is safe and comforting?
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 18, 2013, 03:47:14 PM
I also hope that I don't need a prescription filled anytime this month, because I'm not okay with shopping at a store that promotes censorship and that's, oh, ALL OF THEM IN NEW ENGLAND.
Word. They could have brown-paper bagged the issue and still sold it. (if you are worried about people experiencing trauma from the pic)
no YOU CAN'T BUY THIS HERE censorship, no people puking and panic attacks in the store.
You know who else cashes in on tragedy?
Doctors. Evil fucks should be banned. Making money off human misery and suffering, it's disgusting.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:45:33 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:38:27 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?
I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.
I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.
As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?
I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents. And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it. To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends. I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.
I took the pic and its significance completely differently.
YMMV.
Read the article in the OP again and focus on the reaction of the victims to that cover, and try to put yourself in their shoes, and look at it again.
Oh I understand WHY they are upset and there is outrage.
I want to know what it is about the culture all these school shooters, bombers and such are raised in, (which is the culture we are all raised in) makes these (mostly) men do this shit.
How would we feel if he was considered ugly on a physical level?
No different. Don't give the fucker that limelight. Write articles about him, do the in depth-journalism. Don't put him on a cover like he's a terrorist rock-star.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:52:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
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.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=993 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=993)
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:50:11 PM
Don't give the fucker that limelight. Write articles about him, do the in depth-journalism. Don't put him on a cover like he's a terrorist rock-star.
Why not? Do you really think he was motivated by fame? That he would have liked to appear in Rolling Stone?
He probably didn't even read that kind of magazine.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:37:40 PM
What we're discussing is censorship. My answer is no.
I'm not talking about censorship so much as asking if the media has a responsibility to discourage copycat crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime). Because their reporting definitely plays a role in it. Or does it just not matter because all killers are psychopaths?
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 18, 2013, 03:39:59 PM
I also completely reject the idea of journalists determining what the public is ready for and able to handle. It's condescending on top of being outright morally wrong.
I fully agree. I think it's a tougher issue than just whether or not to report on a tragedy - I think there is a fine line I think they should walk in
how they discuss it.
to be clear though, I don't think that line was crossed by printing the guy's face on rolling stone
I DO think that line was crossed in the columbine reporting--but it's hard to say how to explain their motivations and address systemic bullying without in some ways apologizing for their behavior
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:44:11 PM
And such censorship would, as you know, invoke the Streiseand Effect, perversely making them more popular and interesting.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:44:11 PM
Anything one can have a strong opinion on can be a spur to violence, and even if censorship were only invokved to cover literature definitively linked to acts of violence (manifestos by convicted terrorists, for example), it would result in a vast cull of available knowledge and information.
yeah, well said -- there's no way to say definitively what's going to make somebody think it's okay to kill - and those types of people are already unhinged and probably don't need a great excuse to flip out.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:48:05 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:42:01 PM
There is discussion, and then there is cashing in on tragedy.
Still haven't explained how using an entirely unaltered picture of the suspect and reporting on his background is different from what any other media organization has done.
Hey, the NYT and WaPo and Guardian and Telegraph all charge for their services, and they all reported extensively on the Boston Bombings. Are they not also cashing in? Does not the entire idea of a for-profit press involve cashing in on tragedy on a daily basis?
Actually from what I've read Rolling Stone has yet to confirm or deny whether or not they altered or doctored the photo in any way. I'm guessing there is probably a good reason for that silence.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on July 18, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:50:11 PM
Don't give the fucker that limelight. Write articles about him, do the in depth-journalism. Don't put him on a cover like he's a terrorist rock-star.
Why not? Do you really think he was motivated by fame? That he would have liked to appear in Rolling Stone?
He probably didn't even read that kind of magazine.
I said it already, it also insults and minimizes the tragedy and pain endured (and still being endured) by the victims.
I think we can agree that they crossed a line here:
(http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/justin-bieber-talks-sex-politics-music-and-puberty-in-new-rolling-stone-cover-story-20110216/1000x306/main.jpg)
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:56:27 PM
I think we can agree that they crossed a line here:
(http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/justin-bieber-talks-sex-politics-music-and-puberty-in-new-rolling-stone-cover-story-20110216/1000x306/main.jpg)
JESUS H CHRIST!
That magazine has no morals.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 18, 2013, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Bingo.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 04:22:18 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 18, 2013, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Bingo.
...People don't like to admit evil is a banal thing.
It makes life a lot easier for evil people.
Quote from: Pixie on July 18, 2013, 03:45:33 PM
Oh I understand WHY they are upset and there is outrage.
I want to know what it is about the culture all these school shooters, bombers and such are raised in, (which is the culture we are all raised in) makes these (mostly) men do this shit.
How would we feel if he was considered ugly on a physical level?
I think this last question is an incredibly important one, because it speaks directly to the American Cult of Beauty (as well as to the elevation of fame under any circumstances to a coveted status) and to our latent Disneyfied belief in beauty=virtue and ugly=evil.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 03:37:40 PM
What we're discussing is censorship. My answer is no.
I'm not talking about censorship so much as asking if the media has a responsibility to discourage copycat crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime). Because their reporting definitely plays a role in it. Or does it just not matter because all killers are psychopaths?
The media - journalists, rather - have the responsibility to print the news. They do not have the responsibility and/or the moral authority to decide what news we're ready for.
The principle objection here is that the kid doesn't fit the preconceived, pre-packaged notion of a terrorist. If he'd been ugly or brown & bearded, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
But he's the kid next door, so RWHN associates him with "rock star".
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:56:20 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on July 18, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:50:11 PM
Don't give the fucker that limelight. Write articles about him, do the in depth-journalism. Don't put him on a cover like he's a terrorist rock-star.
Why not? Do you really think he was motivated by fame? That he would have liked to appear in Rolling Stone?
He probably didn't even read that kind of magazine.
I said it already, it also insults and minimizes the tragedy and pain endured (and still being endured) by the victims.
Because he's a handsome kid and not brown and bearded. Gotcha.
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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
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:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 18, 2013, 01:22:46 PM
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:
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:44:11 PM
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?
While talking to a male:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 03:52:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
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:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 02:28:33 AM
You're an idiot,
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2013, 04:47:36 PM
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."
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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."
One other thing is that journalism is supposed to piss you off.
Also, it's kind of funny watching RWHN "carpet bag" indignation.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2013, 04:47:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:54:26 PM
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 :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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?
But, hell, we can't mix music and political events. Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:11 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:06:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:11 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
How is that Obfuscation, you dishonest little twerp? :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:04:25 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
So?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:04:25 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
So?
SO?
\
:backpedal:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:45 PM
But, hell, we can't mix music and political events. Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.
Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong
From now on, we should only use the correct, prepackaged images when dealing with various subjects.
Monsters: Brown people with beards.
Music: Boy band kid next door.
Garden gnomes: RWHN.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:45 PM
But, hell, we can't mix music and political events. Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.
Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong
It's a decline in morals. Why, after 911, they never showed OBL on ANTHING. So he wouldn't be a rock star.
Precisely!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 05:11:39 PM
Precisely!
:lulz:
Seriously, though, the root of the objection here is this: There are preset images for any occurance, and that allows you to process that occurance without thinking or questioning. RWHN opposes this, because his entire philosophy is based on control of a population by any means - from psychological methods to tossing folks in prison - so naturally he got mad at this pic. It strays out of the SAFE, ESTABLISHED image set, and doesn't show the bad guy in the correct manner.
And that might make people think and ask questions. And that makes them harder to "lead" (control), which is automatically bad in its own right.
"Think for yourself...IN THESE EXCITING NEW APPROVED MANNERS!"
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:06:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:11 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
How is that Obfuscation, you dishonest little twerp? :lulz:
The context of the Rolling Stone cover has been pretty clear during its lifetime. It isn't just some random choice they make as to who goes on the cover, and the nature of how they are portrayed on that cover. Whenever they put Kurt Cobain on the cover, they didn't just snap some random photo and put it on the cover. There was a deliberate process that went into how that cover would end up looking. Someone in a meeting somewhere said, "it should look like x", and there was a thought process behind that decision.
To me, this comes off as a cynical ploy to move units, on the ashes of very real and continuing tragedy that impacts hundreds of lives. But, to move units, Rolling Stone decides to pour a big ole vat of salt into those still fresh wounds.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:45 PM
But, hell, we can't mix music and political events. Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.
Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong
Piss off parents all you want. There is no need to fuck with the victims of tragedy.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
The context of the Rolling Stone cover has been pretty clear during its lifetime. It isn't just some random choice they make as to who goes on the cover, and the nature of how they are portrayed on that cover.
So, you mean like every other print and televised media organization ever?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:18:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:45 PM
But, hell, we can't mix music and political events. Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.
Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong
Piss off parents all you want. There is no need to fuck with the victims of tragedy.
So, the media should not report on a tragedy in Boston because it might piss someone off in Bumfuck, Maine? Is that what you're saying?
Or are you the advocate of the people in Boston?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:06:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:11 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
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.
How is that Obfuscation, you dishonest little twerp? :lulz:
The context of the Rolling Stone cover has been pretty clear during its lifetime. It isn't just some random choice they make as to who goes on the cover, and the nature of how they are portrayed on that cover. Whenever they put Kurt Cobain on the cover, they didn't just snap some random photo and put it on the cover. There was a deliberate process that went into how that cover would end up looking. Someone in a meeting somewhere said, "it should look like x", and there was a thought process behind that decision.
To me, this comes off as a cynical ploy to move units, on the ashes of very real and continuing tragedy that impacts hundreds of lives. But, to move units, Rolling Stone decides to pour a big ole vat of salt into those still fresh wounds.
I agree with this. You are right about their decision process. You are right about their sinister motives.
I just don't think they are doing anything wrong.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:18:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:05:45 PM
But, hell, we can't mix music and political events. Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.
Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong
Piss off parents all you want. There is no need to fuck with the victims of tragedy.
So, the media should not report on a tragedy in Boston because it might piss someone off in Bumfuck, Maine? Is that what you're saying?
Or are you the advocate of the people in Boston?
You should read the articles I've posted again and rethink that question.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 12:47:54 AM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19523421-rolling-stone-boston-bomber-suspect-photo-stirs-online-controversy-cvs-walgreens-drop-the-issue?lite
Magazine sales must have been slumping badly. I suppose the nut-wits at Rolling Stone think this is "edgy journalism".
Sure, let's make the human sack of shit a rock star. Fuck dead and maimed and delimbed people. There are units to move!
(http://i.imgur.com/x8qbv1K.jpg)
The fact that some stores are not carrying it revives the old saying "banned in Boston", which was sort of a badge of pride once, because it was at one time almost impossible to get something banned in Boston.
So the gigglefucks at CVS and Walgreens are basically advertising for Rolling Stone, which I find hilarious.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on July 18, 2013, 05:21:06 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
The context of the Rolling Stone cover has been pretty clear during its lifetime. It isn't just some random choice they make as to who goes on the cover, and the nature of how they are portrayed on that cover. Whenever they put Kurt Cobain on the cover, they didn't just snap some random photo and put it on the cover. There was a deliberate process that went into how that cover would end up looking. Someone in a meeting somewhere said, "it should look like x", and there was a thought process behind that decision.
To me, this comes off as a cynical ploy to move units, on the ashes of very real and continuing tragedy that impacts hundreds of lives. But, to move units, Rolling Stone decides to pour a big ole vat of salt into those still fresh wounds.
I agree with this. You are right about their decision process. You are right about their sinister motives.
I just don't think they are doing anything wrong.
How are you defining "wrong"?
There is wrong, legally. Obviously Rolling Stone are well within their rights to put any dumbfuck on their cover that they want. That isn't even a point of debate.
But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent. I think the cover is wrong on that level. And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 05:11:39 PM
Precisely!
:lulz:
Seriously, though, the root of the objection here is this: There are preset images for any occurance, and that allows you to process that occurance without thinking or questioning. RWHN opposes this, because his entire philosophy is based on control of a population by any means - from psychological methods to tossing folks in prison - so naturally he got mad at this pic. It strays out of the SAFE, ESTABLISHED image set, and doesn't show the bad guy in the correct manner.
And that might make people think and ask questions. And that makes them harder to "lead" (control), which is automatically bad in its own right.
Slaves demand thicker chains. Perhaps related to Stockholm Syndrome?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent. I think the cover is wrong on that level. And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.
So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice". Little girls feeding ducks.
And I am certain that Rolling Stone is all in favor of the boycott, too, just for the Striesand Effect on their sales.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 05:33:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 18, 2013, 05:11:39 PM
Precisely!
:lulz:
Seriously, though, the root of the objection here is this: There are preset images for any occurance, and that allows you to process that occurance without thinking or questioning. RWHN opposes this, because his entire philosophy is based on control of a population by any means - from psychological methods to tossing folks in prison - so naturally he got mad at this pic. It strays out of the SAFE, ESTABLISHED image set, and doesn't show the bad guy in the correct manner.
And that might make people think and ask questions. And that makes them harder to "lead" (control), which is automatically bad in its own right.
Slaves demand thicker chains. Perhaps related to Stockholm Syndrome?
Well, policy wonks demand them. Keep people safe from dangerous ideas, etc, etc.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:35:10 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent. I think the cover is wrong on that level. And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.
So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice". Little girls feeding ducks.
It's about respect, not being "nice".
I know I'm just a dumb old hippie, but my old-fashioned ass says both Rolling Stone & RWHN are wrong here.
Djohar Tsarnaev has entered a plea of not guilty and the trial has yet to determine his guilt or innocence. Just an observation
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2013, 04:47:36 PM
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:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 18, 2013, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Absolutely. There is so much more going on here that we need to think about than the fact that they put him on the front cover. We do need to think about copycat crimes; but we need to consider that copycat crimes (and even copycat illnesses and copycat delusions) have been around for as long as we have had societies. We cannot eliminate them without eliminating communication.
A more serious issue to question is our relatively modern glorification of notoriety; whether created by or reflected in "reality" TV, people have become thrilled by what would once have been thought of as public shaming. It wasn't that long ago that having your name and picture in the newspaper because you did something wrong was horribly shameful, embarrassing, a terrible thing for your family. Now, it's widely thought of as a reward. Why is that? How have we gotten to this point?
And most serious of all, and I think the question Rolling Stone really poses with their "Boy Next Door" headline, is the one Roger asked: "How did a kid (who looked like this) become radicalized enough to bomb the marathon?"
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:44:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:35:10 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent. I think the cover is wrong on that level. And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.
So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice". Little girls feeding ducks.
It's about respect, not being "nice".
So, journalism should be respectful? Is that what you're trying to say?
Quote from: MMIX on July 18, 2013, 05:45:27 PM
I know I'm just a dumb old hippie, but my old-fashioned ass says both Rolling Stone & RWHN are wrong here.
Djohar Tsarnaev has entered a plea of not guilty and the trial has yet to determine his guilt or innocence. Just an observation
Also an excellent point.
ETA: A point which Rolling Stone may have cause to consider, should Djohar be found innocent.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:44:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:35:10 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent. I think the cover is wrong on that level. And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.
So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice". Little girls feeding ducks.
It's about respect, not being "nice".
So, journalism should be respectful? Is that what you're trying to say?
I think Spider Jerusalem just shit himself. Again.
Quote from: MMIX on July 18, 2013, 05:45:27 PM
I know I'm just a dumb old hippie, but my old-fashioned ass says both Rolling Stone & RWHN are wrong here.
Djohar Tsarnaev has entered a plea of not guilty and the trial has yet to determine his guilt or innocence. Just an observation
THIS.
I could give a fuck about decency in comparison to their declaration of the suspect being THE BOMBER before a trial.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2013, 05:51:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:44:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:35:10 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent. I think the cover is wrong on that level. And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.
So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice". Little girls feeding ducks.
It's about respect, not being "nice".
So, journalism should be respectful? Is that what you're trying to say?
I think Spider Jerusalem just shit himself. Again.
Also, all copies of
All The President's Men should be collected and burned by the Committee for Public Decency.
But the objective of this thread has been achieved.
Quote from: MMIX on July 18, 2013, 05:45:27 PM
I know I'm just a dumb old hippie, but my old-fashioned ass says both Rolling Stone & RWHN are wrong here.
Djohar Tsarnaev has entered a plea of not guilty and the trial has yet to determine his guilt or innocence. Just an observation
This is a REALLY great point, and one that has previously been completely missing from this conversation.
PREDICTION: At some point soon, RWHN will start a thread defending anti-abortion legislation.
Well, I'm done here. Going off to write some, because I've had enough of RWHN.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:44:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 05:35:10 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent. I think the cover is wrong on that level. And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.
So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice". Little girls feeding ducks.
It's about respect, not being "nice".
So, journalism should be respectful? Is that what you're trying to say?
I am not ascribing a "should" because that implies some entity to police that. Rolling Stone and any other magazine should be able to publish whatever they want. But they then subject themselves to the courts of public opinion and public scrutiny. And just as a matter of decency it would be great if the question of, "gee I wonder if this might offend the still suffering victims?" would pop into someone's head. In this case a segment of the public has decided this is a fucked up decision on their part, and I agree. But nowhere have I suggested, nor am I suggesting now, someone should make them be decent or respectful. They just should because it is the right thing to do.
But I know, money.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 06:00:14 PM
But I know, money.
Sort of like "putting kids in prison is wrong", but I know, funding.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 18, 2013, 05:58:09 PM
PREDICTION: At some point soon, RWHN will start a thread defending anti-abortion legislation.
If you knew something about my personal life you would not say that.
It's the same thing, really. You NEED to tell people what they can and cannot do.
The cover did what it was supposed to: It got me pissed, it got RWHN pissed. It got millions of people on the internet pissed and talking about it. Well done, Rolling Stone.
I just finished the article. I enjoyed it, it is extremely well done and gives a good perspective. It does not glamorize the suspected bomber or his actions, but it definitely makes the reader THINK. This is worth reading, IMO. Like I was just debating with ECH, I personally don't agree with putting terrorists on the covers of magazines, because hey, that's what they want, right? But, the attention grab WORKS, that's the whole point. If you haven't read it yet, check it out.
edited because MMIX made a really valid point.
Like I said, it was all about getting eyeballs and moving units. To me, in the wake of what happened to so many people, it is ugly and repugnant. But that's just me.
And like I said, then it's doing what it's supposed to do. I was ticked off at first too and reposted the image yesterday morning at 6am without even coffee to have it make sense to me.
ECH made a really fucking valid point on my Facebook page when we were discussing it. Were you mad when Bin Laden was on TIME? And clearly Manson and Nixon made Rolling Stone as previously posted in this thread, so clearly it's not JUST for rockstars. Do they deserve the "rockstar" treatment? Of course not, but, Rolling Stone has a staff of pretty damn talented writers. They want you to read their article. I strongly encourage you to check it out.
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
Now, now. YOUR misery and heartache is HIS outrage porn.
Be reasonable about this.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
And what about the other victims who were there and are outraged by the cover? Do they count less somehow?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
And what about the other victims who were there and are outraged by the cover? Do they count less somehow?
Nope. Just you.
Somebody's outrage isn't a legitimate reason not to report news, because there's always going to be someone, somewhere,outraged by something.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
And what about the other victims who were there and are outraged by the cover? Do they count less somehow?
Let's try again.
YOU
DO NOT
GET
TO
BE
OUTRAGED
FOR
US.They can be mad if they want to, but YOU DON'T GET ANY, YOU RUBBERNECKING ASSHAT.
Being in the vicinity of a splodey does not automatically make you a non-idiot.
Empathy? How does it work?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:42:32 PM
Empathy? How does it work?
You seem to be trying to use it as a battering ram of some kind. Maybe you want to check the user's manual.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:42:32 PM
Empathy? How does it work?
You seem to be trying to use it as a battering ram of some kind. Maybe you want to check the user's manual.
How so? By voicing my opinion?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
And what about the other victims who were there and are outraged by the cover? Do they count less somehow?
And RWHN is here to speak for them. :lol:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
And what about the other victims who were there and are outraged by the cover? Do they count less somehow?
Are you one of them? Then shut the fuck up, fer chrissake.
"Mister!" he said with a sawdusty sneeze,
"I am RWHN. I speak for the people.
I speak for the people, for the people have no minds.
And I'm asking you, sir, as I sit on my behind"-
he was very upset as he shouted and screamed-
"What's that THING you've made out of my utopian dream?"
I've been married to my wife for two years, and been together five years. Probability of me turning into RWHN once I have kids is? I don't want to live in a world where I turn in RWHN.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:13:49 PM
I've been married to my wife for two years, and been together five years. Probability of me turning into RWHN once I have kids is? I don't want to live in a world where I turn in RWHN.
Probability is very low.
It just depends on your FEAR level. Are you prone to shitting yourself in panic when an internet rumor starts concerning kids "butt chugging" drugs? Or do you laugh?
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 18, 2013, 08:39:30 PM
Somebody's outrage isn't a legitimate reason not to report news, because there's always going to be someone, somewhere,outraged by something.
This.
Which is why I snarfed when I saw the issues were being taken off the market. Just because I don't like something in the news doesn't mean it's going to be removed. Shit just doesn't work that way.
I laugh, and then google the butt chugging trend so I can laugh even harder!
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:41:19 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
And what about the other victims who were there and are outraged by the cover? Do they count less somehow?
Let's try again.
YOU
DO NOT
GET
TO
BE
OUTRAGED
FOR
US.
They can be mad if they want to, but YOU DON'T GET ANY, YOU RUBBERNECKING ASSHAT.
:mittens:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/colbert-rolling-stone-boston-bomber-cover-video_n_3618174.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:16:55 PM
I laugh, and then google the butt chugging trend so I can laugh even harder!
Also, "Pharming".
You know, all the kids are doing it. They empty all the pills in the house into a big bowl, and randomly eat handfulls while they watch old Bugs Bunny reruns.
Then there's the ones "inhaling alcohol".
For the best laugh, google "Jenkem" or "Butt Hash".
Also, you must be against ANYTHING that allows people to make their own decisions, because only YOU are smart enough to make decisions. If you can manage that level of arrogance (and then BRAG about how arrogant you are), then you can be RWHN.
Last thing is, are children humans or slightly stunned housepets? If you think they're the latter, then you are well on your way to being a RWHN.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:13:49 PM
I've been married to my wife for two years, and been together five years. Probability of me turning into RWHN once I have kids is? I don't want to live in a world where I turn in RWHN.
Being RWHN requires wearing more shirts, so you probably should avoid at all costs. ;)
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:23:19 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:13:49 PM
I've been married to my wife for two years, and been together five years. Probability of me turning into RWHN once I have kids is? I don't want to live in a world where I turn in RWHN.
Being RWHN requires wearing more shirts, so you probably should avoid at all costs. ;)
Oh, yeah, he's right. You must also dress like a muppet.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:22:24 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:16:55 PM
I laugh, and then google the butt chugging trend so I can laugh even harder!
Also, "Pharming".
You know, all the kids are doing it. They empty all the pills in the house into a big bowl, and randomly eat handfulls while they watch old Bugs Bunny reruns.
Then there's the ones "inhaling alcohol".
For the best laugh, google "Jenkem" or "Butt Hash".
Also, you must be against ANYTHING that allows people to make their own decisions, because only YOU are smart enough to make decisions. If you can manage that level of arrogance (and then BRAG about how arrogant you are), then you can be RWHN.
Last thing is, are children humans or slightly stunned housepets? If you think they're the latter, then you are well on your way to being a RWHN.
This thread has nothing to do with drugs but you're pretty hard up to make it one aren't you?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:23:19 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:13:49 PM
I've been married to my wife for two years, and been together five years. Probability of me turning into RWHN once I have kids is? I don't want to live in a world where I turn in RWHN.
Being RWHN requires wearing more shirts, so you probably should avoid at all costs. ;)
Oh, yeah, he's right. You must also dress.
Fixed
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 08:53:16 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story (http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story)
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
And what about the other victims who were there and are outraged by the cover? Do they count less somehow?
And RWHN is here to speak for them. :lol:
No, I'm here voicing my opinion on the matter, but I believe before people get all "it doesn't hurt anyone" they should ponder the voracity of that idea.
I broke binks' legs so she never leaves me!
I'm currently wearing a wife beater under my K.I.S.S shirt.
I'm RWHNally confused save me yellow man!
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:22:24 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:16:55 PM
I laugh, and then google the butt chugging trend so I can laugh even harder!
Also, "Pharming".
You know, all the kids are doing it. They empty all the pills in the house into a big bowl, and randomly eat handfulls while they watch old Bugs Bunny reruns.
Then there's the ones "inhaling alcohol".
For the best laugh, google "Jenkem" or "Butt Hash".
Also, you must be against ANYTHING that allows people to make their own decisions, because only YOU are smart enough to make decisions. If you can manage that level of arrogance (and then BRAG about how arrogant you are), then you can be RWHN.
Last thing is, are children humans or slightly stunned housepets? If you think they're the latter, then you are well on your way to being a RWHN.
This thread has nothing to do with drugs but you're pretty hard up to make it one aren't you?
Naw, thread's about you and your ridiculous bullshit. We can also go over your insistence that privately owned "assault weapons" are basically the same as household nuclear weapons, while we're at it.
Because it's all about you, man.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:28:17 PM
I broke binks' legs so she never leaves me!
I'm currently wearing a wife beater under my K.I.S.S shirt.
I'm RWHNally confused save me yellow man!
QUICK! BE OUTRAGED ABOUT SOMETHING!
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:27:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 08:53:16 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 08:14:19 PM
DEAR RWHN,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story (http://www.policymic.com/articles/35749/i-was-at-the-boston-marathon-bombing-this-is-my-story)
That's a good friend of mine. She comes over for dinner when she's not insanely busy with work. In the weeks afterwards, I got to check up on the parents at the playground, some of whom had friends who were severely injured. I had to talk to my kids about what happened at a park they love to spend time at. We were at Copley just a couple weeks ago, in fact.
You don't get to be offended on my behalf. EVER. You do not have the right to be offended on behalf of anyone in Boston. Get your righteous moral indignation somewhere else, because you can not take it from here.
And what about the other victims who were there and are outraged by the cover? Do they count less somehow?
And RWHN is here to speak for them. :lol:
No, I'm here voicing my opinion on the matter, but I believe before people get all "it doesn't hurt anyone" they should ponder the voracity of that idea.
"Voracity"?
Did you mean "veracity"?
Are you on the jenkem again, dude?
BAN BEATLES MUSIC! BECAUSE IT'S SO SHITTY YOU HAVE TO GET HIGH TO ENJOY IT!!
FOR THE CHILDREN!
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:30:25 PM
BAN BEATLES MUSIC! BECAUSE IT'S SO SHITTY YOU HAVE TO GET HIGH TO ENJOY IT!!
FOR THE CHILDREN!
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/ears/soundz/06HOLE.html
Click on bottom link of second group.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:22:24 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:16:55 PM
I laugh, and then google the butt chugging trend so I can laugh even harder!
Also, "Pharming".
You know, all the kids are doing it. They empty all the pills in the house into a big bowl, and randomly eat handfulls while they watch old Bugs Bunny reruns.
Then there's the ones "inhaling alcohol".
For the best laugh, google "Jenkem" or "Butt Hash".
Also, you must be against ANYTHING that allows people to make their own decisions, because only YOU are smart enough to make decisions. If you can manage that level of arrogance (and then BRAG about how arrogant you are), then you can be RWHN.
Last thing is, are children humans or slightly stunned housepets? If you think they're the latter, then you are well on your way to being a RWHN.
This thread has nothing to do with drugs but you're pretty hard up to make it one aren't you?
Naw, thread's about you and your ridiculous bullshit. We can also go over your insistence that privately owned "assault weapons" are basically the same as household nuclear weapons, while we're at it.
Because it's all about you, man.
Yes, because YOU made it about me.
:butthurt2:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:35:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:22:24 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:16:55 PM
I laugh, and then google the butt chugging trend so I can laugh even harder!
Also, "Pharming".
You know, all the kids are doing it. They empty all the pills in the house into a big bowl, and randomly eat handfulls while they watch old Bugs Bunny reruns.
Then there's the ones "inhaling alcohol".
For the best laugh, google "Jenkem" or "Butt Hash".
Also, you must be against ANYTHING that allows people to make their own decisions, because only YOU are smart enough to make decisions. If you can manage that level of arrogance (and then BRAG about how arrogant you are), then you can be RWHN.
Last thing is, are children humans or slightly stunned housepets? If you think they're the latter, then you are well on your way to being a RWHN.
This thread has nothing to do with drugs but you're pretty hard up to make it one aren't you?
Naw, thread's about you and your ridiculous bullshit. We can also go over your insistence that privately owned "assault weapons" are basically the same as household nuclear weapons, while we're at it.
Because it's all about you, man.
Yes, because YOU made it about me.
:butthurt2:
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE, which had to be expressed as a proxy for all the people in Boston who are too dumb to speak for themselves.
HEY, EVERYONE! LOOK AT RWHN! HE'S WAY MORE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE THAN YOU!
And after 200 pages, you can climb onto your tallbike and ride off into the sunset.
RWHN, Trolling is not supposed to just make you look stupid.
You seem to be forgetting this.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:23:19 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:13:49 PM
I've been married to my wife for two years, and been together five years. Probability of me turning into RWHN once I have kids is? I don't want to live in a world where I turn in RWHN.
Being RWHN requires wearing more shirts, so you probably should avoid at all costs. ;)
Oh, yeah, he's right. You must also dress like a muppet.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/Beaker_muppet.jpg/250px-Beaker_muppet.jpg)
Crisis averted for now. Jewcat is going to teach Binks how to make fishcakes.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:41:10 PM
Crisis averted for now. Jewcat is going to teach Binks how to make fishcakes.
Go click on that link. Seriously.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
I did I was going to whip the HFT's out of Texas, but then I saw Pergamos fisting me in my own reflection. So I stopped.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 18, 2013, 09:38:25 PM
RWHN, Trolling is not supposed to just make you look stupid.
You seem to be forgetting this.
But I'm not trolling.
You seem to be missing this.
Also....
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:46:24 PM
I did I was going to whip the HFT's out of Texas, but then I saw Pergamos fisting me in my own reflection. So I stopped.
:?
Are we talking about the same link? The preacher screeching about the Beatles?
Yes, he wanted to whip them for listening to the music hold on.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
No, my outrage is from Rolling Stone saddling up to the teat of the Cash Cow of Tragedy and latching on harder than a starving calf.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
SOMEONE GET CRAM IN HERE, THIS IS A MONSTER THAT NEEDS TO EXIST IN A GAME.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
No, my outrage is from Rolling Stone saddling up to the teat of the Cash Cow of Tragedy and latching on harder than a starving calf.
Your outrage is a joke, RWHN. I am convinced you've just been taking the piss for the last 4 years. Nobody could actually be as phony as you.
You'll never know. ;)
I'm the preacher whipping the hippies out of Houston then Pregamos appeared and fisted me so I stopped.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:50:43 PM
You'll never know. ;)
That's the beauty of it. If I'm right, which is actually the least likely scenario, I'll never know. If I'm wrong, and you really ARE that phony, well, you DO know.
But either way, you're a bit of a ghoul. The modern day equivalent of a grave robber.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:51:02 PM
I'm the preacher whipping the hippies out of Houston then Pregamos appeared and fisted me so I stopped.
There should be some sort of committee to stop random fistings.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:52:46 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:51:02 PM
I'm the preacher whipping the hippies out of Houston then Pregamos appeared and fisted me so I stopped.
There should be some sort of committee to stop random fistings.
There is one in Palm Beach.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:46:47 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 18, 2013, 09:38:25 PM
RWHN, Trolling is not supposed to just make you look stupid.
You seem to be forgetting this.
But I'm not trolling.
You seem to be missing this.
Also....
Of course you're trolling. Braindead people aren't as fucking dumb as you're making yourself out to be.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:46:47 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 18, 2013, 09:38:25 PM
RWHN, Trolling is not supposed to just make you look stupid.
You seem to be forgetting this.
But I'm not trolling.
You seem to be missing this.
Also....
So if you're not trolling, you're just voicing a stupid opinion? That seems to be what you are saying and doing. Again.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:52:21 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:50:43 PM
You'll never know. ;)
That's the beauty of it. If I'm right, which is actually the least likely scenario, I'll never know. If I'm wrong, and you really ARE that phony, well, you DO know.
But either way, you're a bit of a ghoul. The modern day equivalent of a grave robber.
Uhh, because I have opinions? That's kind of a weird thing to say.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:52:21 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:50:43 PM
You'll never know. ;)
That's the beauty of it. If I'm right, which is actually the least likely scenario, I'll never know. If I'm wrong, and you really ARE that phony, well, you DO know.
But either way, you're a bit of a ghoul. The modern day equivalent of a grave robber.
Uhh, because I have opinions? That's kind of a weird thing to say.
Nope. Because every thread you post is pumping someone else's misery for your hipsterism.
Well will you at least let us know if this offends you or not?
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/988714_614437708589936_1549393573_n.jpg)
Because you still haven't given an answer to your butthurt and this is what it will lead to anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:52:21 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:50:43 PM
You'll never know. ;)
That's the beauty of it. If I'm right, which is actually the least likely scenario, I'll never know. If I'm wrong, and you really ARE that phony, well, you DO know.
But either way, you're a bit of a ghoul. The modern day equivalent of a grave robber.
Uhh, because I have opinions? That's kind of a weird thing to say.
Nope. Because every thread you post is pumping someone else's misery for your hipsterism.
Hipsterism? Dude, have you been out in the sun too long?
Wait. I wasn't being exactly accurate. Some of RWHN's threads are hippie loveburger shit one forum up, that he posted to show how us how we're Discordianing wrong. He said as much, so there's no murky guesses at motivation.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:58:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:52:21 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:50:43 PM
You'll never know. ;)
That's the beauty of it. If I'm right, which is actually the least likely scenario, I'll never know. If I'm wrong, and you really ARE that phony, well, you DO know.
But either way, you're a bit of a ghoul. The modern day equivalent of a grave robber.
Uhh, because I have opinions? That's kind of a weird thing to say.
Nope. Because every thread you post is pumping someone else's misery for your hipsterism.
Hipsterism? Dude, have you been out in the sun too long?
HELLO? ARIZONA?
Anyway, yes. Hipsterism. You have to have your outrage, and you have to make sure everyone knows just how outraged you are.
Well, RWHN's repulsive ghoulishness has killed that excessive optimism I had going, so I might do a chapter tonight.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
No, my outrage is from Rolling Stone saddling up to the teat of the Cash Cow of Tragedy and latching on harder than a starving calf.
And how is what you're doing in this thread any different? Aside from the part where you're a zealot who does it for free, that is.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on July 18, 2013, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
No, my outrage is from Rolling Stone saddling up to the teat of the Cash Cow of Tragedy and latching on harder than a starving calf.
And how is what you're doing in this thread any different? Aside from the part where you're a zealot who does it for free, that is.
Exactly! He's just like Rolling Stone, except in stead of feeding and housing people he's throwing them in jail before they're old enough to vote :lulz:
Quote from: Balls Wellington on July 18, 2013, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
No, my outrage is from Rolling Stone saddling up to the teat of the Cash Cow of Tragedy and latching on harder than a starving calf.
And how is what you're doing in this thread any different? Aside from the part where you're a zealot who does it for free, that is.
You mean other than my thread here being seen by, at best, a dozen or so people?
Quote from: Balls Wellington on July 18, 2013, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
No, my outrage is from Rolling Stone saddling up to the teat of the Cash Cow of Tragedy and latching on harder than a starving calf.
And how is what you're doing in this thread any different? Aside from the part where you're a zealot who does it for free, that is.
THREAD OVER.
ECH WINS.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 10:00:02 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:58:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:52:21 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:50:43 PM
You'll never know. ;)
That's the beauty of it. If I'm right, which is actually the least likely scenario, I'll never know. If I'm wrong, and you really ARE that phony, well, you DO know.
But either way, you're a bit of a ghoul. The modern day equivalent of a grave robber.
Uhh, because I have opinions? That's kind of a weird thing to say.
Nope. Because every thread you post is pumping someone else's misery for your hipsterism.
Hipsterism? Dude, have you been out in the sun too long?
HELLO? ARIZONA?
Anyway, yes. Hipsterism. You have to have your outrage, and you have to make sure everyone knows just how outraged you are.
Sharing opinions on a message board is hipsterism?
I guess I should go join a board of mimes.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 10:11:32 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on July 18, 2013, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
No, my outrage is from Rolling Stone saddling up to the teat of the Cash Cow of Tragedy and latching on harder than a starving calf.
And how is what you're doing in this thread any different? Aside from the part where you're a zealot who does it for free, that is.
You mean other than my thread here being seen by, at best, a dozen or so people?
What so being an ignorant prick is okay as long as you're only fucking tubesocks in a basement?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 10:14:59 PM
THREAD OVER.
ECH WINS.
No way, man. I can beat his highscore. just need to keep posting...
I havent read much of this except the first and the two previous pages. But as a person from the city that was affected by this guy- i approve of the cover and the photo choice and believe that the people making a stink out of it forgot to read the words on the cover which make the photo choice apropos.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 18, 2013, 09:49:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Nope. From post one, this has been all about YOUR OUTRAGE,
Well of course it is MY outrage, asshat, I am expressing MY opinion.
Okay, we have that straight. Now let's drill down a bit.
Your manufactured outrage shamelessly drained out of the people actually effected, like some sort of horrible ghoul that feeds on media frenzies.
SOMEONE GET CRAM IN HERE, THIS IS A MONSTER THAT NEEDS TO EXIST IN A GAME.
OH MY GOD! WE ARE PLAYING WEREWOLF, THIS COULD TOTALLY WORK AS AN AGENT OF THE WYRM.
Alas, Payne is the ST, no me, and if I suggest it and he uses it I'd totally be spoilered.
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/07/18/2322871/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-on-rolling-stone-the-fake-pictures-of-trayvon-martin-and-crime-terror-and-race/
Completely misses the point. This has nothing to do with race or expected visions of evil. It's about the elevation of a figure that deserves none, thereby trivializing the tragedy and horror. But they are moving their units, so mission accomplished.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:08:27 AM
Completely misses the point. This has nothing to do with race or expected visions of evil. It's about the elevation of a figure that deserves none, thereby trivializing the tragedy and horror. But they are moving their units, so mission accomplished.
What makes you so fucking sure? we all have subconscious racial biases, and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking liar.
Gotta know they are there before you can work on that shit.
Because my reaction has nothing to do with the asshat's skin color, it has to do with a magazine using his mug to cash in on misery.
Dude, quote what the cover says about him.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 18, 2013, 09:51:02 PM
I'm the preacher whipping the hippies out of Houston then Pregamos appeared and fisted me so I stopped.
Dude, you can't stop us hippies, we'll crawl out of the rubble after they nuke this place. :evil:
Rolling Stone Cover:
"THE BOMBER:
How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster."(There. Not hard)
...Yes, Fundamentalism makes monsters out of otherwise normal people.
Better yet, otherwise GOOD, high-minded people...their belief system gets so airtight they wind up with their head up their butt.
They stop doubting, and start BELIEVING...and the shit can hit the fan. Political Fundamentalisms as well as religious ones...(insert war on drugs here)
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:31:45 AM
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"
Oh, actually, that was the 8 year old the sack of shit killed. Martin Richard, someone who's short years were way more deserving of a Rolling Stone cover than the coward who killed him.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:43:06 AM
Oh, actually, that was the 8 year old the sack of shit killed. Martin Richard, someone who's short years were way more deserving of a Rolling Stone cover than the coward who killed him.
You're not Martin Richard's mom. You're not his dad, or uncle, or sibling, or even someone who lives in THE SAME FUCKING TOWN. Step off.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 19, 2013, 12:48:36 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:43:06 AM
Oh, actually, that was the 8 year old the sack of shit killed. Martin Richard, someone who's short years were way more deserving of a Rolling Stone cover than the coward who killed him.
You're not Martin Richard's mom. You're not his dad, or uncle, or sibling, or even someone who lives in THE SAME FUCKING TOWN. Step off.
No. It doesn't preclude me, or anyone else, from having an opinion.
Also since you aren't related to Trayvon, nor a resident of his city, I'm assuming you are going to stop voicing opinions of that verdict, right?
But, but, but....that's different because.....
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:41:16 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:31:45 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:08:27 AM
This has nothing to do with race or expected visions of evil.
Um, so nobody is talking about race or expected visions of evil as a result of this cover?
Because, that's a conversation I think is worth having and my experience is that a lot of people are having it because of this.
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.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:14:37 AM
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?
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 01:15:23 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:08:27 AM
This has nothing to do with race or expected visions of evil.
Um, so nobody is talking about race or expected visions of evil as a result of this cover?
Because, that's a conversation I think is worth having and my experience is that a lot of people are having it because of this.
The race thing, and the religion thing, cannot be separated from this.
Step 1: No one knows who did it yet.
GOPpers- "It's those dang durn Islams again! Let go burn a Koran!"
Libs- "It could just as well have been a white guy."
Step 2: Manhunt.
Goppers- Wish you had yer gunz don't yer yer libturds?
Libs- Shut up. Bastards probably got gunz due to lack of proper controls.
Step 3: They're Chechen.
Goppers- Told you! It was MERZLERMS!!!!
Libs- WHITE merzlerms, yes....
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
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.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:14:37 AM
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.
Consider, these guys became what they were partially because they were Westernized and their mom disapproved of that, so they did a 180 and bolted in the other direction. Sometimes expectation of what you should be makes you go way across the line.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:22:36 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 01:15:23 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:08:27 AM
This has nothing to do with race or expected visions of evil.
Um, so nobody is talking about race or expected visions of evil as a result of this cover?
Because, that's a conversation I think is worth having and my experience is that a lot of people are having it because of this.
The race thing, and the religion thing, cannot be separated from this.
Step 1: No one knows who did it yet.
GOPpers- "It's those dang durn Islams again! Let go burn a Koran!"
Libs- "It could just as well have been a white guy."
Step 2: Manhunt.
Goppers- Wish you had yer gunz don't yer yer libturds?
Libs- Shut up. Bastards probably got gunz due to lack of proper controls.
Step 3: They're Chechen.
Goppers- Told you! It was MERZLERMS!!!!
Libs- WHITE merzlerms, yes....
I'm seeing the "monsters aren't born monsters" conversation elsewhere and then I come to PD and it's RWHN screeching about TERRURISTS and THE CHILDREN. Used to be that I came here for a deeper level of discussion than I could find on Facebook.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:12:28 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:41:16 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:31:45 AM
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.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:23:50 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
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.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:14:37 AM
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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:26:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:12:28 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:41:16 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:31:45 AM
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.
:weary:
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:14:37 AM
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.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 01:27:15 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:23:50 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
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.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:14:37 AM
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."
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:29:36 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:14:37 AM
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.
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.
I don't believe for a second that is what motivated the cover. $$$ is what motivated the cover.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:31:34 AM
No one is glamorizing Tsarnaev here. It seems pretty clear to me what they meant. It also seems pretty clear to me that you have trouble with things that are pretty clear.
Bullshit, it was glamorization to shock and move units.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:29:36 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:14:37 AM
I think part of the upset about all of this is the reminder that anyone of us, despite any promise, popularity, or altruism can turn into an evil monster. Your own son may do something similar someday, and you might not have any warning signs.
And yes, Dzhokhar is an evil young man. But he wasn't always.
No. And yes between all of the school shootings, college shootings, theater shootings, it's pretty obvious any kind of person can become evil and do evil shit. But that isn't the issue, at least it isn't my issue.
The issue is that you take exception to a magazine that illustrates that point, very ably.
The magazine cover should have had a picture of those who lost their lives rocking out in front of a cheering crowd on a stage made of money and chocolate and then a totally unrelated article trying to raise questions about enemy images and the nature of evil.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:32:40 AM
I don't believe for a second that is what motivated the cover. $$$ 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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:32:40 AMI don't believe for a second that is what motivated the cover.
That's because you've come to a Conclusion™.
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 01:35:33 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:30:36 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:29:36 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:14:37 AM
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.
:lulz:
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 01:35:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:32:40 AM
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"
Suspected thought process: Rolling Stone glorified terrorisism. This is my evidence for their being Bad People.
Challenge: Maybe that wasn't their aim and this is a misinterpretation?
NONSENSE. Glorifying terrorism is exactly the sort of thing Bad People do and considering as I have already demonstrated that Rolling Stone are Bad People, it all fits together rather well!
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
So a kid is more valuable than an adult?
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:39:04 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 01:35:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:32:40 AM
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"
(http://bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/default/public/blog_posts/0718TsarnaevCrop.jpg?c=f6e30b405c619fc0cdfab844db5c776a)
There he is all bloody with a target lighting up his forehead. Maybe that's more what RHWN had in mind...How dare we show that he was a human?
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 01:35:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:32:40 AM
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.
How about this, I detest them both.
I mean think about that RWHN-
You're saying that this guy is heinous because a kid died instead of a human died. That's pretty fucked up.
It sure is a good thing Americans never blow up children for any reason.
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 01:15:23 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:08:27 AM
This has nothing to do with race or expected visions of evil.
Um, so nobody is talking about race or expected visions of evil as a result of this cover?
Because, that's a conversation I think is worth having and my experience is that a lot of people are having it because of this.
I'm trying, Paes.
but apparently this isn't about race.
bullshit
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
So a kid is more valuable than an adult?
Than a cowardly, murdering sack of shit? Fucking right it is.
Quote from: Alty on July 19, 2013, 01:46:08 AM
It sure is a good thing Americans never blow up children for any reason.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: American citizen.
heh.
I mean..ho ho, that would just be TERRIBLE. Just think, your tax dollars murdering children. Gives me chills. Good thing we are all a bunch of righteous do gooders who would...
Wait..WTF am I doing?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:46:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
So a kid is more valuable than an adult?
Than a cowardly, murdering sack of shit? Fucking right it is.
No shithead. You're talking about ONE victim based on his age, rather than the victims COLLECTIVELY.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:45:23 AM
I mean think about that RWHN-
You're saying that this guy is heinous because a kid died instead of a human died. That's pretty fucked up.
No he's heinous for killing and maiming them all. What I said was the dead kid is more worthy of getting rock star status on magazine than assface. That goes for the adults he killed and maimed too. Any of them were more deserving.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:45:00 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 01:35:59 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:32:40 AM
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.
How about this, I detest them both.
Well, you can do that.
It's pretty obvious that the rest of us disagree about the Rolling Stone cover, though, and we have similarly valid reasons for disagreeing.
Personally, I think media sanitization of war in the west does us much more a disservice.
This guy's a monster because he killed a kid. Nevermind the two adults though and the hundreds of injured. That's just everyday bombings. This one kid makes it all different.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:48:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:45:23 AM
I mean think about that RWHN-
You're saying that this guy is heinous because a kid died instead of a human died. That's pretty fucked up.
No he's heinous for killing and maiming them all. What I said was the dead kid is more worthy of getting rock star status on magazine than assface. That goes for the adults he killed and maimed too. Any of them were more deserving.
He's not getting rockstar status. You're daft if you think he is.
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 01:42:54 AM
Suspected thought process: Rolling Stone glorified terrorisism. This is my evidence for their being Bad People.
Challenge: Maybe that wasn't their aim and this is a misinterpretation?
NONSENSE. Glorifying terrorism is exactly the sort of thing Bad People do and considering as I have already demonstrated that Rolling Stone are Bad People, it all fits together rather well!
Circular logic detected.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:48:22 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:46:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
So a kid is more valuable than an adult?
Than a cowardly, murdering sack of shit? Fucking right it is.
No shithead. You're talking about ONE victim based on his age, rather than the victims COLLECTIVELY.
I used him as an example to say the victims are more worthy of glamorization on a cover than the sack of shit. Pay attention.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:46:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
So a kid is more valuable than an adult?
Than a cowardly, murdering sack of shit? Fucking right it is.
Maybe it's time we start talking around RWHN and use him to illustrate someone only capable of seeing as far as "monster", because he's quite effectively repeating the exact position being spoken to by the cover. I feel as if, because it's his own mindset being challenged, he's had to interpret the cover the way he has to avoid examining his own beliefs.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:50:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:48:22 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:46:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
So a kid is more valuable than an adult?
Than a cowardly, murdering sack of shit? Fucking right it is.
No shithead. You're talking about ONE victim based on his age, rather than the victims COLLECTIVELY.
I used him as an example to say the victims are more worthy of glamorization on a cover than the sack of shit. Pay attention.
And yet, you singled out the kid and then turned around and told me, after I asserted that all human life is equally valuable that I should get back to you when I have a kid.
It's all about the kids.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:49:39 AM
This guy's a monster because he killed a kid. Nevermind the two adults though and the hundreds of injured. That's just everyday bombings. This one kid makes it all different.
Try reading the whole thread before you put those words in my mouth, ass. I've referenced the other victims in this thread multiple times now, I just used the kid, again, to illustrate the point that the victims are more worthy than the murderer to be getting the spotlight.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:51:54 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:50:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:48:22 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:46:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
So a kid is more valuable than an adult?
Than a cowardly, murdering sack of shit? Fucking right it is.
No shithead. You're talking about ONE victim based on his age, rather than the victims COLLECTIVELY.
I used him as an example to say the victims are more worthy of glamorization on a cover than the sack of shit. Pay attention.
And yet, you singled out the kid and then turned around and told me, after I asserted that all human life is equally valuable that I should get back to you when I have a kid.
It's all about the kids.
Because you said the death of a kid is irrelevant. A kid dying is never fucking irrelevant.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:49:39 AM
This guy's a monster because he killed a kid. Nevermind the two adults though and the hundreds of injured. That's just everyday bombings. This one kid makes it all different.
Try reading the whole thread before you put those words in my mouth, ass. I've referenced the other victims in this thread multiple times now, I just used the kid, again, to illustrate the point that the victims are more worthy than the murderer to be getting the spotlight.
Uh, so then why do I need kids to understand? As opposed to living in the city that got bombed?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:54:51 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:51:54 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:50:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:48:22 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:46:44 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
So a kid is more valuable than an adult?
Than a cowardly, murdering sack of shit? Fucking right it is.
No shithead. You're talking about ONE victim based on his age, rather than the victims COLLECTIVELY.
I used him as an example to say the victims are more worthy of glamorization on a cover than the sack of shit. Pay attention.
And yet, you singled out the kid and then turned around and told me, after I asserted that all human life is equally valuable that I should get back to you when I have a kid.
It's all about the kids.
Because you said the death of a kid is irrelevant. A kid dying is never fucking irrelevant.
So you do place different values on human life, dependent on age.
Look, it sucks that that kid died. It would suck equally if it was just all adults that died.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:54:55 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:49:39 AM
This guy's a monster because he killed a kid. Nevermind the two adults though and the hundreds of injured. That's just everyday bombings. This one kid makes it all different.
Try reading the whole thread before you put those words in my mouth, ass. I've referenced the other victims in this thread multiple times now, I just used the kid, again, to illustrate the point that the victims are more worthy than the murderer to be getting the spotlight.
Uh, so then why do I need kids to understand? As opposed to living in the city that got bombed?
To understand that death coming to a child is never irrelevant.
Nobody getting murdered is irrelevant.
...That still doesn't mean we need to censor shit.
What happened was important and we need to be able to examine it even if it offends.
I think it's interesting and Rolling Stone's aim to highlight that we're not allowed to talk about the people behind acts of evil. Once the act has been committed, they're not allowed to be people any more, they have to be a monster or a "sack of shit". We (PD) are used to being a group of people talking about kneejerk (for lack of a better word) reactions, rather than to them directly, which (if it weren't for RWHN's history) I might think was part of our inability to discuss this in this thread.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:56:12 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:54:55 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:49:39 AM
This guy's a monster because he killed a kid. Nevermind the two adults though and the hundreds of injured. That's just everyday bombings. This one kid makes it all different.
Try reading the whole thread before you put those words in my mouth, ass. I've referenced the other victims in this thread multiple times now, I just used the kid, again, to illustrate the point that the victims are more worthy than the murderer to be getting the spotlight.
Uh, so then why do I need kids to understand? As opposed to living in the city that got bombed?
To understand that death coming to a child is never irrelevant.
Insofar as that child is a human, yes.
That human's AGE is irrelevant.
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 01:58:08 AM
I think it's interesting and Rolling Stone's aim to highlight that we're not allowed to talk about the people behind acts of evil. Once the act has been committed, they're not allowed to be people any more, they have to be a monster or a "sack of shit". We (PD) are used to being a group of people talking about kneejerk (for lack of a better word) reactions, rather than to them directly, which (if it weren't for RWHN's history) I might think was part of our inability to discuss this in this thread.
...it places the problem entirely on the "monster".
...Instead of looking at why he or she is a product of our fucked-up society that discards people like kleenexes.
IMO, we're expecting too much of RWHN when we challenge the grayness of his face. I'm not expecting him to be as capable of examining his motivations as I would expect many of the others here to be, which makes it less facepalmy-disappointment when he does this.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 02:02:05 AM
IMO, we're expecting too much of RWHN when we challenge the grayness of his face. I'm not expecting him to be as capable of examining his motivations as I would expect many of the others here to be, which makes it less facepalmy-disappointment when he does this.
I'm fairly new here...I understand he's gone gray over a span of a few years...he stopped seeing the fnords.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm running a browser plugin which changes this guy's avatar to: :redneck2: which makes it less like a part of the conversation and more like an informative "here's how this situation is received by AMURRICANS".
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 02:03:34 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 02:02:05 AM
IMO, we're expecting too much of RWHN when we challenge the grayness of his face. I'm not expecting him to be as capable of examining his motivations as I would expect many of the others here to be, which makes it less facepalmy-disappointment when he does this.
I'm fairly new here...I understand he's gone gray over a span of a few years...he stopped seeing the fnords.
Honestly, I thought it was just talking about drugs where he became an absolutist, until today.
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Do you have kids?
If not, you wouldn't understand.
And I'm not just mocking RWHN here. I've heard other fathers say something like that in reference to executing drug dealers who deal to kids, and meaning it. And you know, telling me that I don't understand because I expect the accused to have rights like everyone else and I don't have kids.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Give him due process. If he's guilty, give him what he deserves.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Do you have kids?
If not, you wouldn't understand.
And I'm not just mocking RWHN here. I've heard other fathers say something like that in reference to executing drug dealers who deal to kids, and meaning it. And you know, telling me that I don't understand because I expect the accused to have rights like everyone else and I don't have kids.
...As much as I approve of parents that actually give a crap...and as much as child molesters make me go explodey...this.
i think if it was Time magazine and the exact same pic AS USED IN HUFFPO, WASHINGTON POST AND LOADS OF OTHER PLACES RWHN wouldn't be getting his panties in a bunch.
but because it's rolling stone and shit he's all OOH GLORIFICATION! ROCKSTAR!
WHICH IS PRETTY FUCKING IDIOTIC CONSIDERING RS HAS DONE ACTUAL JOURNALISM JOURNALISM SINCE IT WAS FOUNDED when my mum was still wearing white socks.
And he doesn't WANT to actually analyze what turns good average kids into people who hurt people.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:09:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
No, I see little value in the life of a murderer, particularly one on the scale of this guy.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:27:26 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2013, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 18, 2013, 01:20:55 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?
there are only like 3-million people (http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html) in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo
I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.
I just think it is in very poor taste given the horror that people have gone through and continue to go through. I'm glad to see some places like CVS, Walgreens, and Shaw's are refusing to carry this edition.
Certainly. The people themselves can't be allowed to decide.
They can choose to go find a store that does carry it.
I know every time I see an absence a a magazine at a store, I immediately know that that particular magazine is being censored and have the full information neccessay to decide whether I agree with the decision.
Quote from: Pixie on July 19, 2013, 02:11:56 AM
And he doesn't WANT to actually analyze what turns good average kids into people who hurt people.
Obviously it's weed.
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
fucking this
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:09:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
No, I see little value in the life of a murderer, particularly one on the scale of this guy.
He killed what, two people? Three if he really did run over his brother during the confusion.
Every day, a driver somewhere kills more just by being careless.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Do you have kids?
If not, you wouldn't understand.
And I'm not just mocking RWHN here. I've heard other fathers say something like that in reference to executing drug dealers who deal to kids, and meaning it. And you know, telling me that I don't understand because I expect the accused to have rights like everyone else and I don't have kids.
Thats fine to expect the accused to have rights, but when you say shit like a kid getting blown up is irrelevant, then yeah, I'm gonna suggest you wait until you have kids of your own and see of you think that same way.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 19, 2013, 02:17:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:09:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
No, I see little value in the life of a murderer, particularly one on the scale of this guy.
He killed what, two people? Three if he really did run over his brother during the confusion.
Every day, a driver somewhere kills more just by being careless.
You do realize there were hundreds more injured, some very horrificly, right?
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 02:14:19 AM
Quote from: Pixie on July 19, 2013, 02:11:56 AM
And he doesn't WANT to actually analyze what turns good average kids into people who hurt people.
Obviously it's weed.
:argh!:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:10:31 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Give him due process. If he's guilty, give him what he deserves.
What he deserves is life in prison. He does not deserve death. Only fucking barbarians kill people who no longer pose a threat.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:09:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
No, I see little value in the life of a murderer, particularly one on the scale of this guy.
Then you are a barbarian.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:23:45 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:09:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
No, I see little value in the life of a murderer, particularly one on the scale of this guy.
Then you are a barbarian.
Hey, wait, I resemble that remark.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 19, 2013, 02:17:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:09:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
No, I see little value in the life of a murderer, particularly one on the scale of this guy.
He killed what, two people? Three if he really did run over his brother during the confusion.
Every day, a driver somewhere kills more just by being careless.
3 fatalities from the bombing itself, Tamerlan would have been his 4th, unintentional, victim.
But yeah, there were casualties in the triple digits. Just saying.
Hmm, I can go along with that. Put him in a prison in Mass. Mix him in with the general population.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:17:51 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Do you have kids?
If not, you wouldn't understand.
And I'm not just mocking RWHN here. I've heard other fathers say something like that in reference to executing drug dealers who deal to kids, and meaning it. And you know, telling me that I don't understand because I expect the accused to have rights like everyone else and I don't have kids.
Thats fine to expect the accused to have rights, but when you say shit like a kid getting blown up is irrelevant, then yeah, I'm gonna suggest you wait until you have kids of your own and see of you think that same way.
The kid is irrelevant if you are saying it's worse because there was a kid that died. 3 humans died. The youngest one's age is irrelevant. But again, you seem pretty intent on not understanding what people say.
Mob mentality, pure and fucking simple.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:26:22 AM
Hmm, I can go along with that. Put him in a prison in Mass. Mix him in with the general population.
Yeah, I know that's a nice little compromise for you. Don't think I forget what the guards did with Fr. Geoghan, and his cellmate assignment.
That's just as barbaric. Put Dzhokhar in maximum security in his own cell.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 02:24:47 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:23:45 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:09:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
No, I see little value in the life of a murderer, particularly one on the scale of this guy.
Then you are a barbarian.
Hey, wait, I resemble that remark.
You can come from barbarian stock. After a certain point though you have to stop pillaging for the sake of pillaging and maybe try to pay for what you want.
So RWHN- what would Tsarnaev's death accomplish?
He's no longer a threat to society. Revenge?
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:28:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:26:22 AM
Hmm, I can go along with that. Put him in a prison in Mass. Mix him in with the general population.
Yeah, I know that's a nice little compromise for you. Don't think I forget what the guards did with Fr. Geoghan, and his cellmate assignment.
That's just as barbaric. Put Dzhokhar in maximum security in his own cell.
RWHN,
barbarian
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:30:29 AM
So RWHN- what would Tsarnaev's death accomplish?
He's no longer a threat to society. Revenge?
Because if that's the case, you're going to have to clone him a few times and kill him again in order to even the scoreboard.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:30:29 AM
So RWHN- what would Tsarnaev's death accomplish?
He's no longer a threat to society. Revenge?
He'd be dead. That's what it would accomplish.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:30:53 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:28:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:26:22 AM
Hmm, I can go along with that. Put him in a prison in Mass. Mix him in with the general population.
Yeah, I know that's a nice little compromise for you. Don't think I forget what the guards did with Fr. Geoghan, and his cellmate assignment.
That's just as barbaric. Put Dzhokhar in maximum security in his own cell.
RWHN,
barbarian
Go ahead, take pride in being an uncivilized ape.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:32:03 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:30:29 AM
So RWHN- what would Tsarnaev's death accomplish?
He's no longer a threat to society. Revenge?
He'd be dead. That's what it would accomplish.
What would be the purpose of that?
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:32:09 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:30:53 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:28:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:26:22 AM
Hmm, I can go along with that. Put him in a prison in Mass. Mix him in with the general population.
Yeah, I know that's a nice little compromise for you. Don't think I forget what the guards did with Fr. Geoghan, and his cellmate assignment.
That's just as barbaric. Put Dzhokhar in maximum security in his own cell.
RWHN,
barbarian
Go ahead, take pride in being an uncivilized ape.
Sorry, I'm fresh out of fucks to give for him. Assuming he's guilty.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:34:35 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:32:09 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:30:53 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:28:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:26:22 AM
Hmm, I can go along with that. Put him in a prison in Mass. Mix him in with the general population.
Yeah, I know that's a nice little compromise for you. Don't think I forget what the guards did with Fr. Geoghan, and his cellmate assignment.
That's just as barbaric. Put Dzhokhar in maximum security in his own cell.
RWHN,
barbarian
Go ahead, take pride in being an uncivilized ape.
Sorry, I'm fresh out of fucks to give for him. Assuming he's guilty.
He's admitted as such.
Still doesn't deserve death, you Hun.
If he were killed in the process of trying to neutralize him, fine.
But he survived neutralization. Let him live, separated from society.
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:17:51 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Do you have kids?
If not, you wouldn't understand.
And I'm not just mocking RWHN here. I've heard other fathers say something like that in reference to executing drug dealers who deal to kids, and meaning it. And you know, telling me that I don't understand because I expect the accused to have rights like everyone else and I don't have kids.
Thats fine to expect the accused to have rights, but when you say shit like a kid getting blown up is irrelevant, then yeah, I'm gonna suggest you wait until you have kids of your own and see of you think that same way.
We as a country have blow up 16 year olds for no other reason other than that their fathers were accused of being terrorists on more than one occasion.
When due process and human rights are the only things between children and US bombs, due process
matters.
Unless you have some magic number of suitably photogenic injuries, that makes it
special and
different. Then a young man is human garbage, and anyone who resembles them proportionately worthless. That's exactly how we end up expelling kids for eating pop tarts.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:19:19 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 19, 2013, 02:17:16 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:09:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
So torture is now also acceptable?
Look, man. I'd be happy if he gets life in prison and no death penalty. Because like I said, I am opposed to the taking of human life. Even his.
I'm not. After a fair trial of course.
Then you value human life as little as any other murderer.
No, I see little value in the life of a murderer, particularly one on the scale of this guy.
He killed what, two people? Three if he really did run over his brother during the confusion.
Every day, a driver somewhere kills more just by being careless.
You do realize there were hundreds more injured, some very horrificly, right?
Hundreds? Didn't realize it was that many.
Statistics are in favor of there being at least a rapist or two if there among the injured.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 19, 2013, 02:39:29 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:17:51 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Do you have kids?
If not, you wouldn't understand.
And I'm not just mocking RWHN here. I've heard other fathers say something like that in reference to executing drug dealers who deal to kids, and meaning it. And you know, telling me that I don't understand because I expect the accused to have rights like everyone else and I don't have kids.
Thats fine to expect the accused to have rights, but when you say shit like a kid getting blown up is irrelevant, then yeah, I'm gonna suggest you wait until you have kids of your own and see of you think that same way.
We as a country have blow up 16 year olds for no other reason other than that their fathers were accused of being terrorists on more than one occasion.
When due process and human rights are the only things between children and US bombs, due process matters.
Unless you have some magic number of suitably photogenic injuries, that makes it special and different. Then a young man is human garbage, and anyone who resembles them proportionately worthless. That's exactly how we end up expelling kids for eating pop tarts funny.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
I like to believe in redemption but I don't always.
In this guy's case? possibility.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 19, 2013, 02:39:29 AM
We as a country have blow up 16 year olds for no other reason other than that their fathers were accused of being terrorists on more than one occasion.
When due process and human rights are the only things between children and US bombs, due process matters.
Also cruel and unusual punishment, but don't get me started on that one...basically, as a society, we allow mass rape in prison...even though a lot of the guys in there aren't nice guys, that is still totally fucked up.
...And yeah, our tax dollars at work. We blow up innocent people all the damn time.
...These drone pilots aren't even in the same country as the people they kill.
Maybe that's another reason why looking at this kid is too much like looking in the mirror.
Quote from: SpockI've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.
Quote from: SurakAs far as possible, do not kill. Can you return life to what you kill? Then be slow to take life.
Quote from: SurakThe spear in the other's heart is the spear in your own.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 19, 2013, 02:44:02 AM
Statistics are in favor of there being at least a rapist or two if there among the injured. [
http://sailaweigh.tumblr.com/post/55781527892/sanityscraps-thegoddamazon-maymay-repeat
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 02:46:47 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
I like to believe in redemption but I don't always.
In this guy's case? possibility.
It doesn't matter if he redeems himself. What matters is we gave him the chance to repent.
Yes, because advocating violence around children is a great idea.
"Now sweeties, this asshole blew up people in Boston, in response, we're going to beat him to a bloody pulp!"
Yeah no. It's easy to get carried away with emotions, I do it all the time, but seriously...chill the fuck out. This coming from someone who spews angry rants at Facebook for no reason other than I got sand in my fucking vagina, dude. We have our justice system for a reason. Clearly, it's not foolproof, but a suspect is still just that. You should be teaching your kids about how the law works, not going Code of Hammurabi on their asses.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 02:50:00 AM
Yes, because advocating violence around children is a great idea.
"Now sweeties, this asshole blew up people in Boston, in response, we're going to beat him to a bloody pulp!"
Yeah no. It's easy to get carrying away with emotions, I do it all the time, but seriously...chill the fuck out. This coming from someone who spews angry rants at Facebook for no reason other than I got sand in my fucking vagina, dude. We have our justice system for a reason. Clearly, it's not foolproof, but a suspect is still just that. You should be teaching your kids about how the law works, not going Code of Hammurabi on their asses.
This.
Vengeance reduces you to the level of the object of your ire.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:49:53 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 02:46:47 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
I like to believe in redemption but I don't always.
In this guy's case? possibility.
It doesn't matter if he redeems himself. What matters is we gave him the chance to repent.
Is that before, after, or by the act of you murdering him?
Thanks for taking that one, Twid. Late dinner and baths in the Gogira household.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 02:50:00 AM
Yes, because advocating violence around children is a great idea.
"Now sweeties, this asshole blew up people in Boston, in response, we're going to beat him to a bloody pulp!"
Yeah no. It's easy to get carrying away with emotions, I do it all the time, but seriously...chill the fuck out. This coming from someone who spews angry rants at Facebook for no reason other than I got sand in my fucking vagina, dude. We have our justice system for a reason. Clearly, it's not foolproof, but a suspect is still just that. You should be teaching your kids about how the law works, not going Code of Hammurabi on their asses.
This. So much this ^^^
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:51:52 AM
Vengeance reduces you to BELOW the level of the object of your ire.
my take ^^
PD.com: a living wax museum of hyperbole that makes you shit your pance.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
You're worse than him.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:56:12 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:54:55 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:49:39 AM
This guy's a monster because he killed a kid. Nevermind the two adults though and the hundreds of injured. That's just everyday bombings. This one kid makes it all different.
Try reading the whole thread before you put those words in my mouth, ass. I've referenced the other victims in this thread multiple times now, I just used the kid, again, to illustrate the point that the victims are more worthy than the murderer to be getting the spotlight.
Uh, so then why do I need kids to understand? As opposed to living in the city that got bombed?
To understand that death coming to a child is never irrelevant.
Sure. But giving them a world of sanctioned barbarism and torture to live in is JUST FINE.
You scumbag.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 19, 2013, 02:55:58 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:49:53 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 02:46:47 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
I like to believe in redemption but I don't always.
In this guy's case? possibility.
It doesn't matter if he redeems himself. What matters is we gave him the chance to repent.
Is that before, after, or by the act of you murdering him?
None of the above. I'm advocating against doing anything to him other than imprisoning him, and safely at that.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 19, 2013, 02:56:21 AM
Thanks for taking that one, Twid. Late dinner and baths in the Gogira household.
No worries. I'm frankly appalled by RWHN.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 19, 2013, 02:55:58 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:49:53 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 02:46:47 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
I like to believe in redemption but I don't always.
In this guy's case? possibility.
It doesn't matter if he redeems himself. What matters is we gave him the chance to repent.
Is that before, after, or by the act of you murdering him?
None of the above. I'm advocating against doing anything to him other than imprisoning him, and safely at that.
Clearly you are doing justice wrong, then. You don't understand.
It's for the children.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 19, 2013, 03:07:32 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 19, 2013, 02:55:58 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:49:53 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 02:46:47 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
I like to believe in redemption but I don't always.
In this guy's case? possibility.
It doesn't matter if he redeems himself. What matters is we gave him the chance to repent.
Is that before, after, or by the act of you murdering him?
None of the above. I'm advocating against doing anything to him other than imprisoning him, and safely at that.
Clearly you are doing justice wrong, then. You don't understand. It's for the children.
It's ok when a drone controller does it though. We don't want to torture them. They're fighting for our freedoms. You know, unless you're an illegal murderer.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
Eh, wasn't super serious about that but I wouldn't shed any tears for him if it happened.
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:32:03 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:30:29 AM
So RWHN- what would Tsarnaev's death accomplish?
He's no longer a threat to society. Revenge?
He'd be dead. That's what it would accomplish.
//
:redneck2:
\\
USA! USA! USA! USA!
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:28:34 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
Eh, wasn't super serious about that but I wouldn't shed any tears for him if it happened.
Yeah. Somewhere along the line, you've turned into the illegitimate child of Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 02:50:00 AM
Yes, because advocating violence around children is a great idea.
"Now sweeties, this asshole blew up people in Boston, in response, we're going to beat him to a bloody pulp!"
Yeah no. It's easy to get carried away with emotions, I do it all the time, but seriously...chill the fuck out. This coming from someone who spews angry rants at Facebook for no reason other than I got sand in my fucking vagina, dude. We have our justice system for a reason. Clearly, it's not foolproof, but a suspect is still just that. You should be teaching your kids about how the law works, not going Code of Hammurabi on their asses.
My kids are in bed. I don't talk to them about this. I'm not advocating for anything in front of them.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:24:24 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 19, 2013, 03:07:32 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 19, 2013, 02:55:58 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:49:53 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 02:46:47 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
The fact that you want him bludgeoned is sick, and inhuman.
I like to believe in redemption but I don't always.
In this guy's case? possibility.
It doesn't matter if he redeems himself. What matters is we gave him the chance to repent.
Is that before, after, or by the act of you murdering him?
None of the above. I'm advocating against doing anything to him other than imprisoning him, and safely at that.
Clearly you are doing justice wrong, then. You don't understand. It's for the children.
It's ok when a drone controller does it though. We don't want to torture them. They're fighting for our freedoms. You know, unless you're an illegal murderer.
Well if they're doing it illegally they should be punished. After all, they're breaking the law. And laws like this are important.
And it's for the children. You wouldn't understand, Twid.
You don't have kids. So you should let RHWN do your thinking for you. Because he knows what's best.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:34:52 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 02:50:00 AM
Yes, because advocating violence around children is a great idea.
"Now sweeties, this asshole blew up people in Boston, in response, we're going to beat him to a bloody pulp!"
Yeah no. It's easy to get carried away with emotions, I do it all the time, but seriously...chill the fuck out. This coming from someone who spews angry rants at Facebook for no reason other than I got sand in my fucking vagina, dude. We have our justice system for a reason. Clearly, it's not foolproof, but a suspect is still just that. You should be teaching your kids about how the law works, not going Code of Hammurabi on their asses.
My kids are in bed. I don't talk to them about this. I'm not advocating for anything in front of them.
They'd probably realize what a hypocritical self-contained circle-jerk you are so it's probably a good idea. No kid likes to know the truth about their parents that young.
I have a couple...scratch that, about 3 people I'd like to kill.
It's not morality. I don't want to go to jail.
That feels selfish, TBH. They ought to die slowly and painfully.
...So I understand wanting to kill someone for what they did? But the individuals had to work VERY hard to get me there, on a personal level.
...I wouldn't feel that way about just anyone though.
If society wanted to protect the children they should give my nasty alter ego people like this:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/05/florida-police-arrest-states-biggest-alleged-distributor-of-child-pornography/
...and film the results for release.
You see, I AM capable of murder.
But I'm not exactly sane in the ordinary sense of the term-sane people don't have voices in their head commenting on things, and don't end up in weird trance states doing things they can't remember very well later.
...And I don't know what to do with Tsarnev.
He's 20 years old, and when you are 20, your brain still hasn't finished growing.
... I can attest to the ability of people to transform themselves into something better, because I did it. I'm not the same person I was in high school, not at all.
But I don't know that we owe every human being the chance to repent.
...The majority of them won't anyway.
How do you come to terms with having done something you cannot forgive yourself for?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:34:52 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 02:50:00 AM
Yes, because advocating violence around children is a great idea.
"Now sweeties, this asshole blew up people in Boston, in response, we're going to beat him to a bloody pulp!"
Yeah no. It's easy to get carried away with emotions, I do it all the time, but seriously...chill the fuck out. This coming from someone who spews angry rants at Facebook for no reason other than I got sand in my fucking vagina, dude. We have our justice system for a reason. Clearly, it's not foolproof, but a suspect is still just that. You should be teaching your kids about how the law works, not going Code of Hammurabi on their asses.
My kids are in bed. I don't talk to them about this. I'm not advocating for anything in front of them.
Because leaving them in the dark of current events is better. Hell, fuck teaching them right from wrong, even. Yeah, I know they're young, but I was young when the Berlin Wall fell, I still remember my mom explaining it to me the best way a 3rd grader could understand.
Ah. Ah! Ah...
Dammit, RWHN. Every time. Every time.
I was going to playfully jibe that someone had come to a conclusion. Because your posts didn't seem to respond to the new information presented, it just repeated itself.
And then you introduced some new information of your own, and that information expressed a viewpoint that is completely foreign to my own, and one I thought, through previous discussions, was foreign to you as well.
I can tell myself you're caught up in emotion as much as I can bear, but the only reaction I can have is, you've changed.
And not necessarily for the more rational.
Sorry, man, but after the last two pages, I'm gonna have to quit you.
I still respect all your ideas prior to, though. You had some right on cool ideas and great writing, back then.
Hope that guy comes back someday.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:41:32 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:34:52 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 02:50:00 AM
Yes, because advocating violence around children is a great idea.
"Now sweeties, this asshole blew up people in Boston, in response, we're going to beat him to a bloody pulp!"
Yeah no. It's easy to get carried away with emotions, I do it all the time, but seriously...chill the fuck out. This coming from someone who spews angry rants at Facebook for no reason other than I got sand in my fucking vagina, dude. We have our justice system for a reason. Clearly, it's not foolproof, but a suspect is still just that. You should be teaching your kids about how the law works, not going Code of Hammurabi on their asses.
My kids are in bed. I don't talk to them about this. I'm not advocating for anything in front of them.
Because leaving them in the dark of current events is better. Hell, fuck teaching them right from wrong, even. Yeah, I know they're young, but I was young when the Berlin Wall fell, I still remember my mom explaining it to me the best way a 3rd grader could understand.
I remember the Soviets being our enemy, but that Gorbachov was in charge, and he was a reasonable, if funny looking, Soviet. Good thing too, because, well nukes. Yes, I understood nukes when I was a wee lad. Kids aren't dumb, and they pick up on things.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
No shit. This is proving NH and ME are really just conglomo Texas North.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
No shit. This is proving NH and ME are really just conglomo Texas North.
The funny thing is I expected more from ME. I mean, we all know that NH is full of insane people. I guess Mainiacs just hide it a bit better.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
No shit. This is proving NH and ME are really just conglomo Texas North.
The funny thing is I expected more from ME. I mean, we all know that NH is full of insane people. I guess Mainiacs just hide it a bit better.
They had bins of Seagram's wine coolers in sale barrels for 99 cents each at Walmart in Auburn last weekend. No self-respecting New Englander would drink that. It's at least worth driving across the border to Texas North for the state liquor stores for real shit.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:04:56 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
No shit. This is proving NH and ME are really just conglomo Texas North.
The funny thing is I expected more from ME. I mean, we all know that NH is full of insane people. I guess Mainiacs just hide it a bit better.
They had bins of Seagram's wine coolers in sale barrels for 99 cents each at Walmart in Auburn last weekend. No self-respecting New Englander would drink that. It's at least worth driving across the border to Texas North for the state liquor stores for real shit.
Definitely. MA is pretty restrictive on some things. At least we can get tattoos here now.
Twid,
Got his tattoo in Seabrook because the laws hadn't changed yet.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:06:48 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:04:56 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
No shit. This is proving NH and ME are really just conglomo Texas North.
The funny thing is I expected more from ME. I mean, we all know that NH is full of insane people. I guess Mainiacs just hide it a bit better.
They had bins of Seagram's wine coolers in sale barrels for 99 cents each at Walmart in Auburn last weekend. No self-respecting New Englander would drink that. It's at least worth driving across the border to Texas North for the state liquor stores for real shit.
Definitely. MA is pretty restrictive on some things. At least we can get tattoos here now.
Twid,
Got his tattoo in Seabrook because the laws hadn't changed yet.
No tatts in MA???
WTF? It's your body!
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 19, 2013, 04:07:48 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:06:48 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:04:56 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
No shit. This is proving NH and ME are really just conglomo Texas North.
The funny thing is I expected more from ME. I mean, we all know that NH is full of insane people. I guess Mainiacs just hide it a bit better.
They had bins of Seagram's wine coolers in sale barrels for 99 cents each at Walmart in Auburn last weekend. No self-respecting New Englander would drink that. It's at least worth driving across the border to Texas North for the state liquor stores for real shit.
Definitely. MA is pretty restrictive on some things. At least we can get tattoos here now.
Twid,
Got his tattoo in Seabrook because the laws hadn't changed yet.
No tatts in MA???
WTF? It's your body!
Hepatitis scare created the law.
Law has since been repealed.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Safety Dance
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:06:48 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:04:56 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
No shit. This is proving NH and ME are really just conglomo Texas North.
The funny thing is I expected more from ME. I mean, we all know that NH is full of insane people. I guess Mainiacs just hide it a bit better.
They had bins of Seagram's wine coolers in sale barrels for 99 cents each at Walmart in Auburn last weekend. No self-respecting New Englander would drink that. It's at least worth driving across the border to Texas North for the state liquor stores for real shit.
Definitely. MA is pretty restrictive on some things. At least we can get tattoos here now.
Twid,
Got his tattoo in Seabrook because the laws hadn't changed yet.
That was before my time up here. Tattoos and guns have been legal in the Plantations since forever. We'd be almost like NH if we weren't so greedy.
Also, until a couple of years ago, it was still technically illegal to blaspheme against Christianity, with a punishment, if I recall, of $300 or a year in jail, which just goes to show how old the law was.
Also recently repealed, Native Americans not being allowed on Boston Common. And no shooting bears on Boston Common.
These three laws, naturally, have not been enforced in a very, very, long time.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:11:32 AM
Also, until a couple of years ago, it was still technically illegal to blaspheme against Christianity, with a punishment, if I recall, of $300 or a year in jail, which just goes to show how old the law was.
Also recently repealed, Native Americans not being allowed on Boston Common. And no shooting bears on Boston Common.
These three laws, naturally, have not been enforced in a very, very, long time.
It is still technically illegal to interfere with the worship of god! I know because the Scientologists tried to use that one and then we made fun of them for having no gods and they sulked.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:11:32 AM
Also, until a couple of years ago, it was still technically illegal to blaspheme against Christianity, with a punishment, if I recall, of $300 or a year in jail, which just goes to show how old the law was.
Also recently repealed, Native Americans not being allowed on Boston Common. And no shooting bears on Boston Common.
These three laws, naturally, have not been enforced in a very, very, long time.
And Rhode Islanders were to be shot on site if crossing the border after dark. Note: Rhode Islander, not Providence Plantationer. I had to point that out to someone who thought he was being funny, and I reminded up that Portsmouth is where the bad kids went. And Newport had...sailors.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:11:32 AM
Also, until a couple of years ago, it was still technically illegal to blaspheme against Christianity, with a punishment, if I recall, of $300 or a year in jail, which just goes to show how old the law was.
Also recently repealed, Native Americans not being allowed on Boston Common. And no shooting bears on Boston Common.
These three laws, naturally, have not been enforced in a very, very, long time.
TX had an old law that said you have to give a released convict $50 and a good horse.
It now has been repealed after a convict demanded it, he resold the horse for a couple thousand.
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
RI and CT had to stop disputing their border on the Pawcatuck River in 1879, or they would both be forced to join NH. Not MA, NH. That was a fucking punishment back in the day.
...CT claimed a mile of RI a few years ago, and that law came up. New Hampshire went, "FUCK NO! DEMOCRATS!" and we be like, "SALES TAX RELIEF, BITCHES....oh fuck property taxes." And like NH went, "Trololololo." And CT be all, "Fuck this, we're joining NY." And we went, "Later spags. (finally.)" And then NH gave up. And then MA stopped charging tax on their liquor and got all of RI's business. The end.
-Suu
True story bro.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Yep.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
:sad:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 19, 2013, 04:13:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:11:32 AM
Also, until a couple of years ago, it was still technically illegal to blaspheme against Christianity, with a punishment, if I recall, of $300 or a year in jail, which just goes to show how old the law was.
Also recently repealed, Native Americans not being allowed on Boston Common. And no shooting bears on Boston Common.
These three laws, naturally, have not been enforced in a very, very, long time.
It is still technically illegal to interfere with the worship of god! I know because the Scientologists tried to use that one and then we made fun of them for having no gods and they sulked.
Well, that is a law I do agree with. People should be able to worship in peace. That said, you weren't protesting inside the church.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:24:24 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 19, 2013, 04:13:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:11:32 AM
Also, until a couple of years ago, it was still technically illegal to blaspheme against Christianity, with a punishment, if I recall, of $300 or a year in jail, which just goes to show how old the law was.
Also recently repealed, Native Americans not being allowed on Boston Common. And no shooting bears on Boston Common.
These three laws, naturally, have not been enforced in a very, very, long time.
It is still technically illegal to interfere with the worship of god! I know because the Scientologists tried to use that one and then we made fun of them for having no gods and they sulked.
Well, that is a law I do agree with. People should be able to worship in peace. That said, you weren't protesting inside the church.
That was a cold, icky afternoon.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:17:09 AM
RI and CT had to stop disputing their border on the Pawcatuck River in 1879, or they would both be forced to join NH. Not MA, NH. That was a fucking punishment back in the day.
...CT claimed a mile of RI a few years ago, and that law came up. New Hampshire went, "FUCK NO! DEMOCRATS!" and we be like, "SALES TAX RELIEF, BITCHES....oh fuck property taxes." And like NH went, "Trololololo." And CT be all, "Fuck this, we're joining NY." And we went, "Later spags. (finally.)" And then NH gave up. And then MA stopped charging tax on their liquor and got all of RI's business. The end.
-Suu
True story bro.
This actually made me LOL.
Twid,
New England is hilarious
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:25:43 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:17:09 AM
RI and CT had to stop disputing their border on the Pawcatuck River in 1879, or they would both be forced to join NH. Not MA, NH. That was a fucking punishment back in the day.
...CT claimed a mile of RI a few years ago, and that law came up. New Hampshire went, "FUCK NO! DEMOCRATS!" and we be like, "SALES TAX RELIEF, BITCHES....oh fuck property taxes." And like NH went, "Trololololo." And CT be all, "Fuck this, we're joining NY." And we went, "Later spags. (finally.)" And then NH gave up. And then MA stopped charging tax on their liquor and got all of RI's business. The end.
-Suu
True story bro.
This actually made me LOL.
Twid,
New England is hilarious
The fact that you understood the entire scenario without me going into details says enough.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:28:23 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:25:43 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:17:09 AM
RI and CT had to stop disputing their border on the Pawcatuck River in 1879, or they would both be forced to join NH. Not MA, NH. That was a fucking punishment back in the day.
...CT claimed a mile of RI a few years ago, and that law came up. New Hampshire went, "FUCK NO! DEMOCRATS!" and we be like, "SALES TAX RELIEF, BITCHES....oh fuck property taxes." And like NH went, "Trololololo." And CT be all, "Fuck this, we're joining NY." And we went, "Later spags. (finally.)" And then NH gave up. And then MA stopped charging tax on their liquor and got all of RI's business. The end.
-Suu
True story bro.
This actually made me LOL.
Twid,
New England is hilarious
The fact that you understood the entire scenario without me going into details says enough.
A few years ago, didn't a Vermont town, like, in the MIDDLE of Vermont, threaten to secede and join New Hampshire and everyone just went :lulz:?
Oh, and until about 8 or 9 years ago, liquor stores couldn't open on Sunday.
Also, also, at least in most of Boston, you will be unable to find beer anywhere in a supermarket or a gas station, and there are no drive throughs for booze.
Villager's friend moved here from upstate NY and her parents mentioned they wanted to know where the nearest gas station was so they could buy some beer. I laughed, told them where it was, and said to go across the street to the liquor store.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:30:36 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:28:23 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:25:43 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:17:09 AM
RI and CT had to stop disputing their border on the Pawcatuck River in 1879, or they would both be forced to join NH. Not MA, NH. That was a fucking punishment back in the day.
...CT claimed a mile of RI a few years ago, and that law came up. New Hampshire went, "FUCK NO! DEMOCRATS!" and we be like, "SALES TAX RELIEF, BITCHES....oh fuck property taxes." And like NH went, "Trololololo." And CT be all, "Fuck this, we're joining NY." And we went, "Later spags. (finally.)" And then NH gave up. And then MA stopped charging tax on their liquor and got all of RI's business. The end.
-Suu
True story bro.
This actually made me LOL.
Twid,
New England is hilarious
The fact that you understood the entire scenario without me going into details says enough.
A few years ago, didn't a Vermont town, like, in the MIDDLE of Vermont, threaten to secede and join New Hampshire and everyone just went :lulz:?
Vermont is Canada, they just haven't accepted it yet, and yes. I mean, nobody WANTS to join New Hampshire other than Freestaters and Libertarians.
"LIVE FREE OR DIE MOTHERFUCKERS! LOOK AT ME! NO SEATBELT! NO LAWS AGAINST DRINKING AND DRIVING! NO SALES TAX! NO GOVERNMENT EXCEPT FOR THE GUYS WHO RUN THE STATE LIQUOR STORES! NO...what do you mean we have some of the highest property taxes in the country?!" *shoots gun into the air* <----New Hampshire.
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:44:55 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:30:36 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:28:23 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:25:43 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:17:09 AM
RI and CT had to stop disputing their border on the Pawcatuck River in 1879, or they would both be forced to join NH. Not MA, NH. That was a fucking punishment back in the day.
...CT claimed a mile of RI a few years ago, and that law came up. New Hampshire went, "FUCK NO! DEMOCRATS!" and we be like, "SALES TAX RELIEF, BITCHES....oh fuck property taxes." And like NH went, "Trololololo." And CT be all, "Fuck this, we're joining NY." And we went, "Later spags. (finally.)" And then NH gave up. And then MA stopped charging tax on their liquor and got all of RI's business. The end.
-Suu
True story bro.
This actually made me LOL.
Twid,
New England is hilarious
The fact that you understood the entire scenario without me going into details says enough.
A few years ago, didn't a Vermont town, like, in the MIDDLE of Vermont, threaten to secede and join New Hampshire and everyone just went :lulz:?
Vermont is Canada, they just haven't accepted it yet, and yes. I mean, nobody WANTS to join New Hampshire other than Freestaters and Libertarians.
"LIVE FREE OR DIE MOTHERFUCKERS! LOOK AT ME! NO SEATBELT! NO LAWS AGAINST DRINKING AND DRIVING! NO SALES TAX! NO GOVERNMENT EXCEPT FOR THE GUYS WHO RUN THE STATE LIQUOR STORES! NO...what do you mean we have some of the highest property taxes in the country?!" *shoots gun into the air* <----New Hampshire.
States still need budgets.
One of RWHN children is going to try to kill him when they're older. Calling it NOW! Why for the children!
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:37:25 AM
Oh, and until about 8 or 9 years ago, liquor stores couldn't open on Sunday.
Also, also, at least in most of Boston, you will be unable to find beer anywhere in a supermarket or a gas station, and there are no drive throughs for booze.
Villager's friend moved here from upstate NY and her parents mentioned they wanted to know where the nearest gas station was so they could buy some beer. I laughed, told them where it was, and said to go across the street to the liquor store.
In Oregon, liquor stores are closed on Sunday, and only open until 7 Monday-Saturday.
However, beer and wine is sold at every grocery store and corner market until 2 am. :?
Who posted this link? Suu? Pixie? http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/07/18/2322871/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-on-rolling-stone-the-fake-pictures-of-trayvon-martin-and-crime-terror-and-race/?mobile=nc
It's a damn good analysis.
For those who won't or can't click the link:
QuoteDzhokhar Tsarnaev In Rolling Stone, The Fake Pictures Of Trayvon Martin, And Crime, Terror, And Race
By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jul 18, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Both Slate and the New Yorker argue persuasively that the Rolling Stone cover image for its profile of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, is a useful deconstruction of the idea that criminality will out itself on the face of the perpetrator. "The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists," Mark Joseph Stern wrote in Slate. "It asks, 'What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?' The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know." And Ian Crouch argued that "The stories didn't match the crime, either: the pot-smoking kid, the skateboarder, the student at the diverse Cambridge high school, the anonymous undergrad at the state college. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's older brother, Tamerlan, fit our expectations much better. He looked older and angrier, and the accompanying biographical information was consistent with the appearance: he was alienated, radicalized, adrift, and dangerous."
The specific expectation that's most confounded by these images, though, is that of the race of the perpetrators. It's easy to think of the Tsarnaevs as foreign when you're just looking at their names, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, which he bowdlerized to Jahar, so it would be easier for his American friends to pronounce, and Janet Reitman reported in Rolling Stone, sometimes to Jizz and Joe. "If he had a hint of radical thoughts, then why would he change the spelling of his name so that more Americans in school could pronounce it?" one of Dzhokar's friends told Reitman. But looking only at their names rather than at their faces, whichever ones either Tsarnaev might have used at the time, the Tsarnaevs foreignness came to the fore. That's in keeping with the accepted understanding of terrorism in contemporary America, as a phenomenon perpetuated by men, particularly men of color, particularly men of Arab abstraction, from outside of the United States. Mass killings committed by white men in movie theaters, at elementary schools, or at public forums with members of Congress are crime, a distinct territory.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's selfie, which Rolling Stone was hardly the first outlet to publish, may have struck a nerve this time because it appeared in a context that's normally reserved for figures of cultural admiration, whether they're rock stars, movie stars, or star politicians—though criminals and raconteurs have occupied that position as well. It was an uncomfortable reminder for some observers that Dzhokhar's fans are capable of seeing his physical form as well as his bad acts, and that for some of them, his good looks outweigh the pain and suffering he's accused of causing so many other people. In that case, the discomfort is less about Tsarnaev's appearance, or the context of this particular picture's appearance on the cover of Rolling Stone, but on other people's reaction to him. But part of the reaction to the image itself is that it provides a reminder that an act we've defined as terrorism can be committed by someone whose appearance–and whose relative whiteness–might normally get his bad acts classed as crime.
A similar dynamic was at work after Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, in what Jelani Cobb describes as the need "to assassinate a dead teen-ager's character, to turn him from a slight seventeen-year-old into a rapper in his thirties with facial tattoos." The assassination to which he refers is a photo that was widely circulated in the wake of Martin's death, that was supposed to demonstrate the potential menace he represented to Zimmerman. The man in the photo was more than a decade older than Martin, physically larger than the boy, who hadn't finished growing, and had tattoos on his face, hands, and neck. When the real Trayvon Martin didn't match the image of the kind of man who some observers would deem killable by virtue of his size and body modifications they'd deem menacing, someone tried to turn him into another human being entirely so the narrative would continue to function.
This is why cracks in the facade prove so unnerving to people who want to maintain certain policy programs. If you want to continue New York City's Stop-And-Frisk program, then you have a vested interest in it being true that criminals are disproportionately black. If you want to continue singling out people of Arab origin for additional screening at airport security, the only way you can maintain that the policy is rational is if it is actually true that only people of Arab extraction commit acts of terrorism. Making Trayvon Martin or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev look frightening may be personally comforting for people who want to believe that no one they know and like could be capable of dreadful crimes. But making Trayvon Martin or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev meet the racial expectations for their experiences is a way of propping up policies with far broader implications.
Yeah, I just violated Fair Use by quoting the whole thing. But I think her analysis is important enough that getting it seen trumps Fair Use.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:10:31 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Give him due process. If he's guilty, give him what he deserves.
A life that doesn't turn him into a monster? Some love and compassion?
Quote from: Pixie on July 19, 2013, 02:11:56 AM
i think if it was Time magazine and the exact same pic AS USED IN HUFFPO, WASHINGTON POST AND LOADS OF OTHER PLACES RWHN wouldn't be getting his panties in a bunch.
but because it's rolling stone and shit he's all OOH GLORIFICATION! ROCKSTAR!
WHICH IS PRETTY FUCKING IDIOTIC CONSIDERING RS HAS DONE ACTUAL JOURNALISM JOURNALISM SINCE IT WAS FOUNDED when my mum was still wearing white socks.
And he doesn't WANT to actually analyze what turns good average kids into people who hurt people.
Not a lot of mirrors in the WHN house :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2013, 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:10:31 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Give him due process. If he's guilty, give him what he deserves.
A life that doesn't turn him into a monster? Some love and compassion?
You CRAY CRAY, P3nt, the only thing that can SAVE THE CHILLEN is PUNISHMENT. Lots and lots of PUNISHMENT.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 08:21:39 AM
Who posted this link? Suu? Pixie? http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/07/18/2322871/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-on-rolling-stone-the-fake-pictures-of-trayvon-martin-and-crime-terror-and-race/?mobile=nc
It's a damn good analysis.
For those who won't or can't click the link:
QuoteDzhokhar Tsarnaev In Rolling Stone, The Fake Pictures Of Trayvon Martin, And Crime, Terror, And Race
By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jul 18, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Both Slate and the New Yorker argue persuasively that the Rolling Stone cover image for its profile of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, is a useful deconstruction of the idea that criminality will out itself on the face of the perpetrator. "The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists," Mark Joseph Stern wrote in Slate. "It asks, 'What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?' The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know." And Ian Crouch argued that "The stories didn't match the crime, either: the pot-smoking kid, the skateboarder, the student at the diverse Cambridge high school, the anonymous undergrad at the state college. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's older brother, Tamerlan, fit our expectations much better. He looked older and angrier, and the accompanying biographical information was consistent with the appearance: he was alienated, radicalized, adrift, and dangerous."
The specific expectation that's most confounded by these images, though, is that of the race of the perpetrators. It's easy to think of the Tsarnaevs as foreign when you're just looking at their names, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, which he bowdlerized to Jahar, so it would be easier for his American friends to pronounce, and Janet Reitman reported in Rolling Stone, sometimes to Jizz and Joe. "If he had a hint of radical thoughts, then why would he change the spelling of his name so that more Americans in school could pronounce it?" one of Dzhokar's friends told Reitman. But looking only at their names rather than at their faces, whichever ones either Tsarnaev might have used at the time, the Tsarnaevs foreignness came to the fore. That's in keeping with the accepted understanding of terrorism in contemporary America, as a phenomenon perpetuated by men, particularly men of color, particularly men of Arab abstraction, from outside of the United States. Mass killings committed by white men in movie theaters, at elementary schools, or at public forums with members of Congress are crime, a distinct territory.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's selfie, which Rolling Stone was hardly the first outlet to publish, may have struck a nerve this time because it appeared in a context that's normally reserved for figures of cultural admiration, whether they're rock stars, movie stars, or star politicians—though criminals and raconteurs have occupied that position as well. It was an uncomfortable reminder for some observers that Dzhokhar's fans are capable of seeing his physical form as well as his bad acts, and that for some of them, his good looks outweigh the pain and suffering he's accused of causing so many other people. In that case, the discomfort is less about Tsarnaev's appearance, or the context of this particular picture's appearance on the cover of Rolling Stone, but on other people's reaction to him. But part of the reaction to the image itself is that it provides a reminder that an act we've defined as terrorism can be committed by someone whose appearance–and whose relative whiteness–might normally get his bad acts classed as crime.
A similar dynamic was at work after Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, in what Jelani Cobb describes as the need "to assassinate a dead teen-ager's character, to turn him from a slight seventeen-year-old into a rapper in his thirties with facial tattoos." The assassination to which he refers is a photo that was widely circulated in the wake of Martin's death, that was supposed to demonstrate the potential menace he represented to Zimmerman. The man in the photo was more than a decade older than Martin, physically larger than the boy, who hadn't finished growing, and had tattoos on his face, hands, and neck. When the real Trayvon Martin didn't match the image of the kind of man who some observers would deem killable by virtue of his size and body modifications they'd deem menacing, someone tried to turn him into another human being entirely so the narrative would continue to function.
This is why cracks in the facade prove so unnerving to people who want to maintain certain policy programs. If you want to continue New York City's Stop-And-Frisk program, then you have a vested interest in it being true that criminals are disproportionately black. If you want to continue singling out people of Arab origin for additional screening at airport security, the only way you can maintain that the policy is rational is if it is actually true that only people of Arab extraction commit acts of terrorism. Making Trayvon Martin or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev look frightening may be personally comforting for people who want to believe that no one they know and like could be capable of dreadful crimes. But making Trayvon Martin or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev meet the racial expectations for their experiences is a way of propping up policies with far broader implications.
Yeah, I just violated Fair Use by quoting the whole thing. But I think her analysis is important enough that getting it seen trumps Fair Use.
thank fuck someone fucking noticed it.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2013, 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:10:31 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Give him due process. If he's guilty, give him what he deserves.
A life that doesn't turn him into a monster? Some love and compassion?
You CRAY CRAY, P3nt, the only thing that can SAVE THE CHILLEN is PUNISHMENT. Lots and lots of PUNISHMENT.
I'M CONFUSED I THOUGHT IT WAS THE CHILLEN WHO HAD TO GO TO JAIL :?
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 04:29:10 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Not even.
At no point have I suggested people can't think for themselves. I support chains like CVS and Walgreens pulling the edition because they feel it is the right thing to do by their customer base. A customer base that includes many stores in the Greater Boston area. However, people still have plenty of other options to get the edition if they really want it, and I imagine at this point you can probably find the article online as well. So there are no shortage of ways to get and read the article.
I've been very clear what my objection is (assface on the cover like a rock star) and what that is based in (insensitivity to victims/exploiting and minimizing tragedy).
That's all this thread was about, voicing my opinion and displeasure about putting him on the cover, I didn't suggest the government should do anything about it, I didn't say it should be banned. This was made about me because you guys wanted it to be about me. Because it still seems to short circuit brains around here that a Discordian thinks a little differently than them.
You really should get over that shit.
It's not that you think differently, it's that when you're blatantly wrong and back-pedalling you screech like a brain damaged seagull.
It's dull and you'll do it for dozens of pages yet.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 04:29:10 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Not even.
At no point have I suggested people can't think for themselves. I support chains like CVS and Walgreens pulling the edition because they feel it is the right thing to do by their customer base. A customer base that includes many stores in the Greater Boston area. However, people still have plenty of other options to get the edition if they really want it, and I imagine at this point you can probably find the article online as well. So there are no shortage of ways to get and read the article.
I've been very clear what my objection is (assface on the cover like a rock star) and what that is based in (insensitivity to victims/exploiting and minimizing tragedy).
That's all this thread was about, voicing my opinion and displeasure about putting him on the cover, I didn't suggest the government should do anything about it, I didn't say it should be banned. This was made about me because you guys wanted it to be about me. Because it still seems to short circuit brains around here that a Discordian thinks a little differently than them.
You really should get over that shit.
Saying shit like having blunt head trauma is the attention we should be giving him does make it about you.
Because then you're just a horrible person.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 19, 2013, 11:56:00 AM
It's not that you think differently, it's that when you're blatantly wrong and back-pedalling you screech like a brain damaged seagull.
It's dull and you'll do it for dozens of pages yet.
I'm not wrong.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 04:29:10 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Not even.
At no point have I suggested people can't think for themselves. I support chains like CVS and Walgreens pulling the edition because they feel it is the right thing to do by their customer base. A customer base that includes many stores in the Greater Boston area. However, people still have plenty of other options to get the edition if they really want it, and I imagine at this point you can probably find the article online as well. So there are no shortage of ways to get and read the article.
I've been very clear what my objection is (assface on the cover like a rock star) and what that is based in (insensitivity to victims/exploiting and minimizing tragedy).
That's all this thread was about, voicing my opinion and displeasure about putting him on the cover, I didn't suggest the government should do anything about it, I didn't say it should be banned. This was made about me because you guys wanted it to be about me. Because it still seems to short circuit brains around here that a Discordian thinks a little differently than them.
You really should get over that shit.
Saying shit like having blunt head trauma is the attention we should be giving him does make it about you.
Because then you're just a horrible person.
All that means is I have little compassion for the crap weasel. Am I going to go round up a posse to have the guy bludgeoned? No. Am I going to advocate for the guy to be tortured? No. Give him his due process, lock him up. Mass doesn't have death penalty so unfortunately it isn't an option. I think he should go in general pop. Treat him like every other criminal. Why give his life and security any more value than any of the other humans there. Right?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:39:03 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 04:29:10 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Not even.
At no point have I suggested people can't think for themselves. I support chains like CVS and Walgreens pulling the edition because they feel it is the right thing to do by their customer base. A customer base that includes many stores in the Greater Boston area. However, people still have plenty of other options to get the edition if they really want it, and I imagine at this point you can probably find the article online as well. So there are no shortage of ways to get and read the article.
I've been very clear what my objection is (assface on the cover like a rock star) and what that is based in (insensitivity to victims/exploiting and minimizing tragedy).
That's all this thread was about, voicing my opinion and displeasure about putting him on the cover, I didn't suggest the government should do anything about it, I didn't say it should be banned. This was made about me because you guys wanted it to be about me. Because it still seems to short circuit brains around here that a Discordian thinks a little differently than them.
You really should get over that shit.
Saying shit like having blunt head trauma is the attention we should be giving him does make it about you.
Because then you're just a horrible person.
All that means is I have little compassion for the crap weasel. Am I going to go round up a posse to have the guy bludgeoned? No. Am I going to advocate for the guy to be tortured? No. Give him his due process, lock him up. Mass doesn't have death penalty so unfortunately it isn't an option. I think he should go in general pop. Treat him like every other criminal. Why give his life and security any more value than any of the other humans there. Right?
Federal crimes in MA can still get the death penalty.
And there's nothing unfortunate about it. There's no excuse for execution. It's cruel and unusual punishment. Just because rednecks and concerned fathers thinking of the children clamor for it doesn't make it a just punishment. The state doesn't have a right over your life.
Sure, don't give his life and security any more value, but don't give it any less either, by say, putting him in general population.
Quote from: Pixie on July 19, 2013, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 08:21:39 AM
Who posted this link? Suu? Pixie? http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/07/18/2322871/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-on-rolling-stone-the-fake-pictures-of-trayvon-martin-and-crime-terror-and-race/?mobile=nc
It's a damn good analysis.
For those who won't or can't click the link:
QuoteDzhokhar Tsarnaev In Rolling Stone, The Fake Pictures Of Trayvon Martin, And Crime, Terror, And Race
By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jul 18, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Both Slate and the New Yorker argue persuasively that the Rolling Stone cover image for its profile of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, is a useful deconstruction of the idea that criminality will out itself on the face of the perpetrator. "The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists," Mark Joseph Stern wrote in Slate. "It asks, 'What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?' The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know." And Ian Crouch argued that "The stories didn't match the crime, either: the pot-smoking kid, the skateboarder, the student at the diverse Cambridge high school, the anonymous undergrad at the state college. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's older brother, Tamerlan, fit our expectations much better. He looked older and angrier, and the accompanying biographical information was consistent with the appearance: he was alienated, radicalized, adrift, and dangerous."
The specific expectation that's most confounded by these images, though, is that of the race of the perpetrators. It's easy to think of the Tsarnaevs as foreign when you're just looking at their names, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, which he bowdlerized to Jahar, so it would be easier for his American friends to pronounce, and Janet Reitman reported in Rolling Stone, sometimes to Jizz and Joe. "If he had a hint of radical thoughts, then why would he change the spelling of his name so that more Americans in school could pronounce it?" one of Dzhokar's friends told Reitman. But looking only at their names rather than at their faces, whichever ones either Tsarnaev might have used at the time, the Tsarnaevs foreignness came to the fore. That's in keeping with the accepted understanding of terrorism in contemporary America, as a phenomenon perpetuated by men, particularly men of color, particularly men of Arab abstraction, from outside of the United States. Mass killings committed by white men in movie theaters, at elementary schools, or at public forums with members of Congress are crime, a distinct territory.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's selfie, which Rolling Stone was hardly the first outlet to publish, may have struck a nerve this time because it appeared in a context that's normally reserved for figures of cultural admiration, whether they're rock stars, movie stars, or star politicians—though criminals and raconteurs have occupied that position as well. It was an uncomfortable reminder for some observers that Dzhokhar's fans are capable of seeing his physical form as well as his bad acts, and that for some of them, his good looks outweigh the pain and suffering he's accused of causing so many other people. In that case, the discomfort is less about Tsarnaev's appearance, or the context of this particular picture's appearance on the cover of Rolling Stone, but on other people's reaction to him. But part of the reaction to the image itself is that it provides a reminder that an act we've defined as terrorism can be committed by someone whose appearance–and whose relative whiteness–might normally get his bad acts classed as crime.
A similar dynamic was at work after Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, in what Jelani Cobb describes as the need "to assassinate a dead teen-ager's character, to turn him from a slight seventeen-year-old into a rapper in his thirties with facial tattoos." The assassination to which he refers is a photo that was widely circulated in the wake of Martin's death, that was supposed to demonstrate the potential menace he represented to Zimmerman. The man in the photo was more than a decade older than Martin, physically larger than the boy, who hadn't finished growing, and had tattoos on his face, hands, and neck. When the real Trayvon Martin didn't match the image of the kind of man who some observers would deem killable by virtue of his size and body modifications they'd deem menacing, someone tried to turn him into another human being entirely so the narrative would continue to function.
This is why cracks in the facade prove so unnerving to people who want to maintain certain policy programs. If you want to continue New York City's Stop-And-Frisk program, then you have a vested interest in it being true that criminals are disproportionately black. If you want to continue singling out people of Arab origin for additional screening at airport security, the only way you can maintain that the policy is rational is if it is actually true that only people of Arab extraction commit acts of terrorism. Making Trayvon Martin or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev look frightening may be personally comforting for people who want to believe that no one they know and like could be capable of dreadful crimes. But making Trayvon Martin or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev meet the racial expectations for their experiences is a way of propping up policies with far broader implications.
Yeah, I just violated Fair Use by quoting the whole thing. But I think her analysis is important enough that getting it seen trumps Fair Use.
thank fuck someone fucking noticed it.
After reading the RS article, the whole reason they used that picture became very clear. They proved that you don't have to be an ugly scruffy turban-wearing brown guy from the Middle East to be a terrorist. And THAT is what's shaking people up. He's "just a kid." He's "a good boy" and "he's cute!" rather than, "OMFGTURRURIST!" The blinders are off, and people are pissed at this new reality.
No suu thats not it at all. Theyre treating him like a rockstar like elvis or richard nixon.
But yeah sometimes its the guy with the eyepatch. Not usually though.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:53:27 PM
No suu thats not it at all. Theyre treating him like a rockstar like elvis or richard nixon.
But yeah sometimes its the guy with the eyepatch. Not usually though.
You know, I'm racking my brain and I'm damned if I can think of a single rock star in the history of, well ever, who was banged up and put on trial for using a
weapon of mass destruction. So it looks like hyperbole just follows this kid around.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:22:50 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 19, 2013, 11:56:00 AM
It's not that you think differently, it's that when you're blatantly wrong and back-pedalling you screech like a brain damaged seagull.
It's dull and you'll do it for dozens of pages yet.
I'm not wrong.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SLBmn66M7TE/TjWOPC8yIFI/AAAAAAAAAGM/i5-lMqefduc/s320/Evil+seagull.png)
Honestly, this is more interaction than you deserve.
I almost choked on my coffee there junkenstein
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:22:50 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 19, 2013, 11:56:00 AM
It's not that you think differently, it's that when you're blatantly wrong and back-pedalling you screech like a brain damaged seagull.
It's dull and you'll do it for dozens of pages yet.
I'm not wrong.
Oh, okay. I'll just believe you then.
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:53:27 PM
No suu thats not it at all. Theyre treating him like a rockstar like elvis or richard nixon.
But yeah sometimes its the guy with the eyepatch. Not usually though.
You know, I'm racking my brain and I'm damned if I can think of a single rock star in the history of, well ever, who was banged up and put on trial for using a weapon of mass destruction. So it looks like hyperbole just follows this kid around.
Keith Richards probably should have been, though.
Quote from: Cain on July 19, 2013, 03:40:24 PM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 02:53:27 PM
No suu thats not it at all. Theyre treating him like a rockstar like elvis or richard nixon.
But yeah sometimes its the guy with the eyepatch. Not usually though.
You know, I'm racking my brain and I'm damned if I can think of a single rock star in the history of, well ever, who was banged up and put on trial for using a weapon of mass destruction. So it looks like hyperbole just follows this kid around.
Keith Richards probably should have been, though.
Good point
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 19, 2013, 03:05:06 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:22:50 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 19, 2013, 11:56:00 AM
It's not that you think differently, it's that when you're blatantly wrong and back-pedalling you screech like a brain damaged seagull.
It's dull and you'll do it for dozens of pages yet.
I'm not wrong.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SLBmn66M7TE/TjWOPC8yIFI/AAAAAAAAAGM/i5-lMqefduc/s320/Evil+seagull.png)
Honestly, this is more interaction than you deserve.
ilu junky :kiss:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2013, 09:19:07 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2013, 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:10:31 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Give him due process. If he's guilty, give him what he deserves.
A life that doesn't turn him into a monster? Some love and compassion?
You CRAY CRAY, P3nt, the only thing that can SAVE THE CHILLEN is PUNISHMENT. Lots and lots of PUNISHMENT.
I'M CONFUSED I THOUGHT IT WAS THE CHILLEN WHO HAD TO GO TO JAIL :?
Well, YES. To SAVE them from PREDATORS. Can't you see?
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 19, 2013, 03:05:06 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:22:50 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 19, 2013, 11:56:00 AM
It's not that you think differently, it's that when you're blatantly wrong and back-pedalling you screech like a brain damaged seagull.
It's dull and you'll do it for dozens of pages yet.
I'm not wrong.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SLBmn66M7TE/TjWOPC8yIFI/AAAAAAAAAGM/i5-lMqefduc/s320/Evil+seagull.png)
Honestly, this is more interaction than you deserve.
:lulz:
And now I'm totally confused. :lulz:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:18:13 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2013, 09:19:07 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2013, 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:10:31 AM
Quote from: MMIX on July 19, 2013, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Examine it all the fuck you want. Dont give the sack of crap any more attention than he deserves though. Unless maybe some attention in the form of blunt instruments against his skull.
I'm starting to worry about who is the monster here.
Due process of law, dude, or you are just another lynch mob with a bad attitude.
Give him due process. If he's guilty, give him what he deserves.
A life that doesn't turn him into a monster? Some love and compassion?
You CRAY CRAY, P3nt, the only thing that can SAVE THE CHILLEN is PUNISHMENT. Lots and lots of PUNISHMENT.
I'M CONFUSED I THOUGHT IT WAS THE CHILLEN WHO HAD TO GO TO JAIL :?
Well, YES. To SAVE them from PREDATORS. Can't you see?
Well, there is a kinda retarded, RWHN-style logic in it but I refuse to accept it, given that following to conclusion means the most effective way of protecting the children is to shoot them at birth. Hopefully he's too fucking stupid to figure this out, tho. ..
*reads last couple of years worth of posts*
...Yeah, pretty confident he lacks the intellectual capacity
Aaaaand the bullshit goes on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23370205
QuoteA US police photographer has leaked images of Boston Marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev during his capture in anger at the picture used by Rolling Stone magazine for its next cover.
Police Sgt Sean Murphy said his photos showed "the real bomber" - the magazine cover was "hurtful" to the victims' memories and their families.
Article unclear, but it appears the leaker is the guy named.
Note - Police. Surely this is a fucking sackable offence?
Note 2 - Arbitrary decison on what is right and best for victims
note 3 - Appears not to have consulted any victims or have a direct link.
More:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57594535-504083/sgt-sean-murphy-mass-state-police-photographer-who-released-photos-of-tsarnaevs-capture-supended/
QuoteMurphy, who did not return a message from the AP, said in his statement to Boston Magazine that Rolling Stone's cover photo, a softly-lit image of a brooding Tsarnaev, insults officers killed in the line of duty, their colleagues and their families by glamorizing the "face of terror."
Typical police reaction. Got a confession, got my monster lets demonize the little fuck and not think about why or how this could happen. Also, the continued guilty before trial as MMIX noted. Serious kudos there because that's probably a really good discussion.
QuoteIn his statement, Murphy said the capture of Tsarnaev played out like a television show, but he hopes his photos show it was "as real as it gets."
"These were real people, with real lives, with real families," Murphy said. "And to have this cover dropped into Boston was hurtful to their memories and their families."
He added: "There is nothing glamorous in bringing more pain to a grieving family."
So yeah, this guy is an moralistic prick. "My image is more real than any other image because I was there and I know how everyone feels about everything"
However, it may have brought the fundamental question to light if the cover had BOTH pictures, in split screen.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 19, 2013, 05:50:32 PM
However, it may have brought the fundamental question to light if the cover had BOTH pictures, in split screen.
That's an incredibly good idea.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
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.
The fact that a kid got blown up is irrelevant? Really?
Dude, that is just a level of wrong I can't comprehend. Come back and tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
you do realize that your ridiculous idea that children's lives are worth more than other peoples' is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING INSANE, right?
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 19, 2013, 05:43:37 PM
"My image is more real than any other image because I was there and I know how everyone feels about everything"
THIS. This is the thing I couldn't quite put my finger on yesterday. It's okay to have feels about something that didn't happen to you or near you, but when you start trying to HAVE FEELS AT THEM or tell them how they're supposed to be feeling, you fail at empathy. Also at not being a dick.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 02:26:22 AM
Hmm, I can go along with that. Put him in a prison in Mass. Mix him in with the general population.
You sound like Florida. You know that, right?
"You sound like Florida" is now my new favorite burn.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: Suu on July 19, 2013, 03:29:06 AM
I'm up to bat.
I'm gonna swing...here it goes:
Suddenly, the idea that Ex-Mrs. RWHN was having a mid-life crisis seems like bullshit.
Nah, she'd be on the same page as me on this. RWHN-GF is. In fact she's the one who made me aware of this.
Suddenly I'm glad the concept of balancing free states with slave states booted you guys out of the Commonwealth.
No shit. This is proving NH and ME are really just conglomo Texas North.
The funny thing is I expected more from ME. I mean, we all know that NH is full of insane people. I guess Mainiacs just hide it a bit better.
The fucked-up shithole part of Maine that RWHN is in bears almost no resemblance to the rest of the state. He's basically in Lowell North.
Ah. That makes more sense.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 04:29:10 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Not even.
At no point have I suggested people can't think for themselves. I support chains like CVS and Walgreens pulling the edition because they feel it is the right thing to do by their customer base. A customer base that includes many stores in the Greater Boston area. However, people still have plenty of other options to get the edition if they really want it, and I imagine at this point you can probably find the article online as well. So there are no shortage of ways to get and read the article.
I've been very clear what my objection is (assface on the cover like a rock star) and what that is based in (insensitivity to victims/exploiting and minimizing tragedy).
That's all this thread was about, voicing my opinion and displeasure about putting him on the cover, I didn't suggest the government should do anything about it, I didn't say it should be banned. This was made about me because you guys wanted it to be about me. Because it still seems to short circuit brains around here that a Discordian thinks a little differently than them.
You really should get over that shit.
The part where we don't understand why you still post at PD is what he meant by it being at least half-right. Seriously, why ARE you here? Pretty much everyone else here either hates your guts or ignores you because they can't be bothered to hate your guts.
I wouldnt say i hate the guy. Im more flabbergasted and disappointed that someone who struck me as a smart guy has turned into a vengeance monkey that seems to go out of his way to misinterpret like everything.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 19, 2013, 05:50:32 PM
However, it may have brought the fundamental question to light if the cover had BOTH pictures, in split screen.
They didn't have those pictures, so they couldn't have.
Also, possibly an interesting observation: in the pictures of him bloody and hunted, he looks anguished and overwhelmed. If anything, I feel a stronger sympathetic response to those pictures than to the one RS used.
I'm interested in knowing the whole story, someday. He is, after all, just a fucking kid.
I mean, FFS, look at this:
(http://cdn.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/113_4510A_21.jpg)
(http://cdn.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/113_4470_21.jpg)
(http://cdn.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/113_44851.jpg)
These are images of a child who is completely lost. What happened to him? How did he get there? Those are important questions, especially to those of us who have children. But, also, really, for everyone.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 06:45:19 PM
I wouldnt say i hate the guy. Im more flabbergasted and disappointed that someone who struck me as a smart guy has turned into a vengeance monkey that seems to go out of his way to misinterpret like everything.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34965.msg1277007.html#msg1277007
"Hunting Season" open in Florida.
A thread title after Zimmerman received due process and was found innocent. What was that about vengeance monkey?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:13:40 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 06:45:19 PM
I wouldnt say i hate the guy. Im more flabbergasted and disappointed that someone who struck me as a smart guy has turned into a vengeance monkey that seems to go out of his way to misinterpret like everything.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34965.msg1277007.html#msg1277007
"Hunting Season is Open"
You twit, that was a comment quoted concerning the fact that it's now apparently okay to stalk and kill Black men.
But you knew that, you dishonest piece of shit.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:13:40 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 06:45:19 PM
I wouldnt say i hate the guy. Im more flabbergasted and disappointed that someone who struck me as a smart guy has turned into a vengeance monkey that seems to go out of his way to misinterpret like everything.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34965.msg1277007.html#msg1277007
"Hunting Season" open in Florida.
A thread title after Zimmerman received due process and was found innocent. What was that about vengeance monkey?
:lulz: :lulz: As Twid was saying...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What am i supposed to be looking at?
Not to mention the whole human element of what Twid was trying to say.
This asshole lives in a constant state of denial. It would really bum me out if it wasn't so fucking funny watching him make a caricature of himself.
The sad part is treating people that WANT to be friendly with you in such a way.
Quote from: Alty on July 19, 2013, 07:25:25 PM
Not to mention the whole human element of what Twid was trying to say.
This asshole lives in a constant state of denial. It would really bum me out if it wasn't so fucking funny watching him make a caricature of himself.
The sad part is treating people that WANT to be friendly with you in such a way.
RWHN is the sort of guy that views friendliness as prey behavior.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 06:45:19 PM
I wouldnt say i hate the guy. Im more flabbergasted and disappointed that someone who struck me as a smart guy has turned into a vengeance monkey that seems to go out of his way to misinterpret like everything.
I don't feel that I've misinterpreted anything. And while not here, there are many people who've had the interpretation I've had. A crass stunt to move units. And Rolling Stone still won't confirm or deny if they doctored the photo in any way.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:31:07 PM
And Rolling Stone still won't confirm or deny if they doctored the photo in any way.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 07:24:33 PM
What am i supposed to be looking at?
He quoted you calling him a "vengeance monkey that seems to go out of his way to misinterpret everything" and proceeded to try to paint you as a hypocrite by bolding "vengeance monkey" and linking to Stella's thread about hunting season in Florida, apparently misinterpreting her fairly obvious intended point (that Florida has declared it open season on black men) to mean that it's now open season on Zimmerman.
Thereby, hilariously, reinforcing your point in the act of attempting to refute it.
And it isn't about vengeance, it's about cheapening and minimizing the tragedy to hundreds by shining this kind of limelight on the perpetrator. You can examine him in ways that are much less putting him out there. But that wouldn't move units.
This guy is either, seriously, THE BEST troll I've ever seen, or a moron of staggering ineptitude. :lulz: I'd really like to believe the former, because mannnnn, in the presence of greatness and all that.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:33:55 PM
And it isn't about vengeance, it's about cheapening and minimizing the tragedy to hundreds by shining this kind of limelight on the perpetrator. You can examine him in ways that are much less putting him out there. But that wouldn't move units.
Oh, and it's about bludgeoning and torturing people to death.
How would something stelz said paint me as a hypocrite anyway?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:39:03 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 04:29:10 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Not even.
At no point have I suggested people can't think for themselves. I support chains like CVS and Walgreens pulling the edition because they feel it is the right thing to do by their customer base. A customer base that includes many stores in the Greater Boston area. However, people still have plenty of other options to get the edition if they really want it, and I imagine at this point you can probably find the article online as well. So there are no shortage of ways to get and read the article.
I've been very clear what my objection is (assface on the cover like a rock star) and what that is based in (insensitivity to victims/exploiting and minimizing tragedy).
That's all this thread was about, voicing my opinion and displeasure about putting him on the cover, I didn't suggest the government should do anything about it, I didn't say it should be banned. This was made about me because you guys wanted it to be about me. Because it still seems to short circuit brains around here that a Discordian thinks a little differently than them.
You really should get over that shit.
Saying shit like having blunt head trauma is the attention we should be giving him does make it about you.
Because then you're just a horrible person.
All that means is I have little compassion for the crap weasel. Am I going to go round up a posse to have the guy bludgeoned? No. Am I going to advocate for the guy to be tortured? No. Give him his due process, lock him up. Mass doesn't have death penalty so unfortunately it isn't an option. I think he should go in general pop. Treat him like every other criminal. Why give his life and security any more value than any of the other humans there. Right?
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
How would something stelz said paint me as a hypocrite anyway?
Through the miracle of the Reverend What's His Name Power Hour.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 07:35:26 PM
This guy is either, seriously, THE BEST troll I've ever seen, or a moron of staggering ineptitude. :lulz: I'd really like to believe the former, because mannnnn, in the presence of greatness and all that.
Hmmm, could be? :wink:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:39:03 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 04:29:10 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Not even.
At no point have I suggested people can't think for themselves. I support chains like CVS and Walgreens pulling the edition because they feel it is the right thing to do by their customer base. A customer base that includes many stores in the Greater Boston area. However, people still have plenty of other options to get the edition if they really want it, and I imagine at this point you can probably find the article online as well. So there are no shortage of ways to get and read the article.
I've been very clear what my objection is (assface on the cover like a rock star) and what that is based in (insensitivity to victims/exploiting and minimizing tragedy).
That's all this thread was about, voicing my opinion and displeasure about putting him on the cover, I didn't suggest the government should do anything about it, I didn't say it should be banned. This was made about me because you guys wanted it to be about me. Because it still seems to short circuit brains around here that a Discordian thinks a little differently than them.
You really should get over that shit.
Saying shit like having blunt head trauma is the attention we should be giving him does make it about you.
Because then you're just a horrible person.
All that means is I have little compassion for the crap weasel. Am I going to go round up a posse to have the guy bludgeoned? No. Am I going to advocate for the guy to be tortured? No. Give him his due process, lock him up. Mass doesn't have death penalty so unfortunately it isn't an option. I think he should go in general pop. Treat him like every other criminal. Why give his life and security any more value than any of the other humans there. Right?
But that isn't what you said earlier. That is just weaseling.
Quote from: Alty on July 19, 2013, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
How would something stelz said paint me as a hypocrite anyway?
Through the miracle of the Reverend What's His Name Power Hour.
That guy is dead.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 07:43:07 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 01:39:03 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 19, 2013, 04:29:10 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Thread summary:
RWHN: "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, IT'S DANGEROUS"
Discordians: "Why are you here, again?"
Same as every RWHN thread.
Not even close.
It's at least half right.
Not even.
At no point have I suggested people can't think for themselves. I support chains like CVS and Walgreens pulling the edition because they feel it is the right thing to do by their customer base. A customer base that includes many stores in the Greater Boston area. However, people still have plenty of other options to get the edition if they really want it, and I imagine at this point you can probably find the article online as well. So there are no shortage of ways to get and read the article.
I've been very clear what my objection is (assface on the cover like a rock star) and what that is based in (insensitivity to victims/exploiting and minimizing tragedy).
That's all this thread was about, voicing my opinion and displeasure about putting him on the cover, I didn't suggest the government should do anything about it, I didn't say it should be banned. This was made about me because you guys wanted it to be about me. Because it still seems to short circuit brains around here that a Discordian thinks a little differently than them.
You really should get over that shit.
Saying shit like having blunt head trauma is the attention we should be giving him does make it about you.
Because then you're just a horrible person.
All that means is I have little compassion for the crap weasel. Am I going to go round up a posse to have the guy bludgeoned? No. Am I going to advocate for the guy to be tortured? No. Give him his due process, lock him up. Mass doesn't have death penalty so unfortunately it isn't an option. I think he should go in general pop. Treat him like every other criminal. Why give his life and security any more value than any of the other humans there. Right?
But that isn't what you said earlier. That is just weaseling.
"Don't fuck with my narrative bro!"
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:43:34 PM
Quote from: Alty on July 19, 2013, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
How would something stelz said paint me as a hypocrite anyway?
Through the miracle of the Reverend What's His Name Power Hour.
That guy is dead.
Yeah, we know.
Maybe he'll rise from the dead again like TGRR does every six months. :wink:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:45:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:43:34 PM
Quote from: Alty on July 19, 2013, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
How would something stelz said paint me as a hypocrite anyway?
Through the miracle of the Reverend What's His Name Power Hour.
That guy is dead.
Yeah, we know.
Maybe he'll rise from the dead again like TGRR does every six months. :wink:
Nope. All that's left of RWHN is a shitbag that does his best to halt all other traffic on the board.
Congratulations, you're basically a poptart.
I've never actual seen someone have a midlife crisis like this, it's horrible. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, I feel bad for this dudes brain.
It's probably starved for alcohol.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 07:47:02 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:45:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:43:34 PM
Quote from: Alty on July 19, 2013, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
How would something stelz said paint me as a hypocrite anyway?
Through the miracle of the Reverend What's His Name Power Hour.
That guy is dead.
Yeah, we know.
Maybe he'll rise from the dead again like TGRR does every six months. :wink:
Nope. All that's left of RWHN is a shitbag that does his best to halt all other traffic on the board.
Congratulations, you're basically a poptart.
Whaddya talking about? There have been plenty of other posts in other threads and even one that has some creative writing inspired by me. Who's being dishonest now?
Quote from: Alty on July 19, 2013, 07:49:32 PM
I've never actual seen someone have a midlife crisis like this, it's horrible. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, I feel bad for this dudes brain.
It's probably starved for alcohol.
Yeah, my life really sucks right now. Woe is me!
12 threads in Apple Talk have had at least one post in them today. A Friday. Yeah, total stand still on PD today.
:lulz:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 07:47:02 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:45:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:43:34 PM
Quote from: Alty on July 19, 2013, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
How would something stelz said paint me as a hypocrite anyway?
Through the miracle of the Reverend What's His Name Power Hour.
That guy is dead.
Yeah, we know.
Maybe he'll rise from the dead again like TGRR does every six months. :wink:
Nope. All that's left of RWHN is a shitbag that does his best to halt all other traffic on the board.
Congratulations, you're basically a poptart.
Whaddya talking about? There have been plenty of other posts in other threads and even one that has some creative writing inspired by me. Who's being dishonest now?
1. Traffic picks up.
2. RWHN posts a thread. Each successive thread is more troll-worthy than the last, going from drugs to guns to "bludgeon and torture to death".
3. Decent people (ie, the other users) object to RWHN's fascist shit.
4. Traffic moves to thread.
5. People get disgusted by thread and leave for a while.
6. Traffic dies.
Rinse, repeat. If people stop responding, ratchet subject material up a notch. You know it's going to work, because people will react almost involuntarily, out of sheer disgust.
And your other threads were basically hippie bullshit (the joy thread), etc, designed specifically to start fights (especially given that you called attention to them as your way of showing us that we are doin' it wrong, stated in as many words).
Fuck off.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:55:59 PM
12 threads in Apple Talk have had at least one post in them today. A Friday. Yeah, total stand still on PD today.
:lulz:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:55:59 PM
12 threads in Apple Talk have had at least one post in them today. A Friday. Yeah, total stand still on PD today.
:lulz:
Yep. But you'll fix that, right?
Again, fuck off, you disgusting fraction of a man.
18 threads have been active today across PD today. On a Friday.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 08:02:47 PM
18 threads have been active today across PD today. On a Friday.
It's making you crazy, isn't it?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:55:59 PM
12 threads in Apple Talk have had at least one post in them today. A Friday. Yeah, total stand still on PD today.
:lulz:
Yep. But you'll fix that, right?
Again, fuck off, you disgusting fraction of a man.
But you should see the size of my numerator. ;)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2013, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 08:02:47 PM
18 threads have been active today across PD today. On a Friday.
It's making you crazy, isn't it?
You just said this thread brought the place to a halt but that doesn't seem to be supported by the data.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
How would something stelz said paint me as a hypocrite anyway?
Using RWHN logic!
:pope:
Well, I'm off to write more bios.
You just keep on keeping on, RWHN. Eventually, you might reach your goal of making the world pay for your failed life.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 08:02:47 PM
18 threads have been active today across PD today. On a Friday.
And thankfully, in none of the other active threads did anybody advocate torturing and killing a kid. Just you ITT.
So what youre saying is that your denominator you know the size of the bottom half is disproportionately small?
Sounds about right. Dude's got a huge head but there's isn't much to the rest of him. He's pretty much the spitting image of a self-important twerp. And I say this having met him in person.
So the mr mackey comparisons arent entirely off.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on July 19, 2013, 08:32:52 PM
Sounds about right. Dude's got a huge head but there's isn't much to the rest of him. He's pretty much the spitting image of a self-important twerp. And I say this having met him in person.
Too bad it's more-or-less empty.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on July 19, 2013, 08:32:52 PM
Sounds about right. Dude's got a huge head but there's isn't much to the rest of him. He's pretty much the spitting image of a self-important twerp. And I say this having met him in person.
For what, 5 minutes?
Long enough to know what you look like, Spanky. :lulz:
Did he look like this?
(http://www.imgur.com/ZYdqoEl.jpeg)
Because that's how I see him in my minds eye.
Wait, what am I thinking.
That's not the fuckface who posts before us, that's RWHN. That dead guy. He shouldn't mind a little.lulz, that guy was a trooper.
I just know the new him...
I seem to remember he was mad about something (though I'm forgetting what) so he kind of comes here and posts stuff he knows is going to aggravate us.
Has the political orientation of the board shifted progressive? or has RHWN shifted towards Fox-News territory?
I haven't been here long enough to know.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 20, 2013, 08:00:40 AM
I just know the new him...
I seem to remember he was mad about something (though I'm forgetting what) so he kind of comes here and posts stuff he knows is going to aggravate us.
Has the political orientation of the board shifted progressive? or has RHWN shifted towards Fox-News territory?
I haven't been here long enough to know.
Probably drugs. That is RWHN's Thermopylae.
I've been here... since. Well, probably 3 or 4 years. Not nearly as long as Dok or Nigel, or LMNO, or RWHN himself. We've always been progressive, at least in my memory. This is a shift, or so it would seem to me, on RWHN's part.
I mean, I feel bad for the guy in some ways, happy for him in others, and as I said upthread, deeply disappointed.
He either sustained a pretty bad head injury or he's trolling us for some unknown reason (as he hints at, FREQUENTLY, but I'm not sure if that's legit or to make him look less like a brain damaged seagull (totally stealing that btw)), or as Alty suggested, a wee bit of the midlife. Either way, I hope that he shakes it off.
All I know, is that LMNO said that he has to quit RWHN. LMNO is a patient man. Probably more so than me. So, if LMNO can keep his composure while saying "later dude" and that LMNO has been in contact with RWHN for longer than I have with either of them, says a lot to me.
When it all comes down to it, RWHN has been Thermopylaeing a lot over the past, I dunno, year. It wasn't always like this. I remember the days when it was his puns that irritated me (I hate extended puns. Get your quip an move on, is my take on it). I'm resisting not liking the guy, but this thread has kinda made that difficult, especially in the implications that the value of a human life is mutable. It's not mutable. I'm usually a moral relativist, but this is one thing I stand firm on. It is only acceptable to end a human life if it is an immediate necessity to preserve that of your own or another's. And even then, you should feel like a shitstain, because that is a normal reaction.
Quote from: Alty on July 20, 2013, 05:42:48 AM
Did he look like this?
(http://www.imgur.com/ZYdqoEl.jpeg)
Because that's how I see him in my minds eye.
Less Ariel, more Squidward.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 20, 2013, 08:00:40 AM
I just know the new him...
I seem to remember he was mad about something (though I'm forgetting what) so he kind of comes here and posts stuff he knows is going to aggravate us.
Has the political orientation of the board shifted progressive? or has RHWN shifted towards Fox-News territory?
I haven't been here long enough to know.
There is no "new" or "old", there just....is.
Aaaaaaand we can throw denial on there too.
Denial of what? Anyone who's been paying attention would know that I am to the right of many here on certain issues. I'm certainly liberal socially and more or less liberal economically. But I am hawkish when it comes to public safety and public health, but that isnt new. So there is nothing to deny.
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
It isn't he who has changed, it's everybody else! Can't you see, Twid?
(http://i.imgur.com/gPqGNgJ.jpg)
Indeed. Perhaps your right nigel. Maybe it really is just all of us that decided that rwhn would interact with us differently. Personally im looking forward to using my nifty new mindlaser
(http://i.imgur.com/JwvSzGt.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2013, 08:32:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JwvSzGt.jpg)
It's different when the New York Times does it, though; THAT'S journalism. It's sensationalism when Rolling Stone does it.
Right?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 20, 2013, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2013, 08:32:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JwvSzGt.jpg)
It's different when the New York Times does it, though; THAT'S journalism. It's sensationalism when Rolling Stone does it.
Right?
Also note the date.
I agree with the New Yorker's take:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover-controversy.html
QuoteBut just because something sparks outrage doesn't mean that it is outrageous. Menino, on Wednesday, added that the cover, or perhaps the story itself, "should have been about survivors or first responders." There have been many moving and illuminating stories about the victims of the marathon attack, and the people who selflessly came to their aid, but this is not one of them. Instead, the Rolling Stone article is about the still largely mysterious backstory of a young man who transformed, in what appears to be a short amount of time, from a seemingly normal college student into an alleged terrorist. The facts of his life are important, the larger social implications of his biography are important—and so this story has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the public record and to the general understanding of one of the most serious incidents of domestic terrorism in American history. And so, in the plainest terms, Rolling Stone chose to promote an article about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with a photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev—one that other news outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, had previously published. It does not appear that the magazine altered the image in any meaningful way. Nor does the photograph convey an editorial opinion about the subject; the accompanying cover text, meanwhile, identifies Tsarnaev as a "monster." It shows him as he looked when he allegedly killed four people and injured hundreds more.
Many commenters on Facebook have complained that the image gives Tsarnaev the "rock star" treatment—that his scruffy facial hair; long, curly hair; T-shirt; and soft-eyed glance straight at the camera all make him look like just another Rolling Stone cover boy, whether Jim Morrison or any of the many longhairs who appeared in the magazine's nineteen-seventies heyday. But these elements are not engineered. What is so troubling about this image, and many of the others that have become available since April, is that Tsarnaev really does look like a rock star. In this way, the photograph on Rolling Stone is of a part with the often unexpected, and unsettling, portrait of Tsarnaev that has emerged over the past few months.
Yeah, I read that same article a couple of days ago, and it's a good one.
Matt Taibbi, a native of Boston and writer for Rolling Stone, also has an article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719)on this:
QuoteAs to the question of why anyone would ever put a terrorist on a cover of a magazine for any reason beyond the opportunity to slash a red X through his face or depict him in crosshairs, there's an explanation for that. Terrorists are a fact of our modern lives and we need to understand them, because understanding is the key to stopping them.
But in trying to understand someone like a Tsarnaev, there is a delicate line between empathy and sympathy that any journalist has to be careful not to cross. You cannot understand someone without empathy, but you also have to remember at all times who this person is and what he or she did. I think author Janet Reitman did an excellent job of walking that line, but certainly this kind of approach is going to be inherently troubling to some, because it focuses on the criminal and his motivations and not his victims and their suffering.
Which brings us to point No. 2, the idea that the cover photo showed Tsarnaev to be too nice-looking, too much like a sweet little boy.
I can understand why this might upset some people. But the jarringly non-threatening image of Tsarnaev is exactly the point of the whole story. If any of those who are up in arms about this cover had read Janet's piece, they would see that the lesson of this story is that there are no warning signs for terrorism, that even nice, polite, sweet-looking young kids can end up packing pressure-cookers full of shrapnel and tossing them into crowds of strangers.
QuoteI expect there will be boycotts, but I wonder about the media figures calling for them. Did they seek to boycott Time after its "Face of Buddhist Terror" cover? How about Newsweek after its "Children of bin Laden" cover?
Or the New York Times after it used exactly the same photo of Tsarnaev? What about all those times that people like Khomeini and Stalin made it to Time's "Man of the Year" cover? On the other hand, there will be critics who will say that Rolling Stone is making money off the despair of the Boston victims, and they will be right. But this will also be true of every media outlet that covered the story. (It's even true of the outlets whose pundits are chewing up airtime bashing this magazine this week). That aspect of journalism is always particularly hard to defend, so I won't try.
However, it's been suggested, by (among others) Boston Mayor Tom Menino, that Rolling Stone expected this controversy and planned to use the image and the notoriety as a way to gain free publicity. I can't speak for everyone at the magazine, but my belief is that this is not true in the slightest – I know people in the office this week are actually in shock and very freaked out. They didn't expect this at all.
It's also worth considering the motives of those in the press and politics for their reasons behind attacking Rolling Stone. As Taibbi himself says:
QuoteOne could even go so far as to say that in recent years, when investigative journalism has been so dramatically de-emphasized at the major newspapers and at the big television news networks, Rolling Stone's role as a source of hard-news reporting has been magnified. In other words, we're more than ever a hard news outlet in a business where long-form reporting is becoming more scarce.
Rolling Stone's coverage of such things as the criminal roots of the ongoing financial crisis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (Michael Hastings on McChrystal for example), the intersection of business and politics (Rick Perlstein, among others) has no doubt earned them quite a few enemies in lofty and rarified circles.
The sort of circles where the NYT is favoured because of its less critical attitude and more accomodating attitude towards those in power.
Just putting it out there.
But Cain, if all of that is true, who can we demonize? What about our outrage? YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2013, 08:32:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JwvSzGt.jpg)
Didn't see this when it came out because I don't read NYT. But my reaction is the same. He doesn't deserve that kind of limelight.
If we all got what we deserved wouldn't the world be a strange place . . .
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
So I ask you again, why are you still here?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 20, 2013, 09:32:44 PM
I agree with the New Yorker's take:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover-controversy.html
QuoteBut just because something sparks outrage doesn't mean that it is outrageous. Menino, on Wednesday, added that the cover, or perhaps the story itself, "should have been about survivors or first responders." There have been many moving and illuminating stories about the victims of the marathon attack, and the people who selflessly came to their aid, but this is not one of them. Instead, the Rolling Stone article is about the still largely mysterious backstory of a young man who transformed, in what appears to be a short amount of time, from a seemingly normal college student into an alleged terrorist. The facts of his life are important, the larger social implications of his biography are important—and so this story has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the public record and to the general understanding of one of the most serious incidents of domestic terrorism in American history. And so, in the plainest terms, Rolling Stone chose to promote an article about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with a photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev—one that other news outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, had previously published. It does not appear that the magazine altered the image in any meaningful way. Nor does the photograph convey an editorial opinion about the subject; the accompanying cover text, meanwhile, identifies Tsarnaev as a "monster." It shows him as he looked when he allegedly killed four people and injured hundreds more.
Many commenters on Facebook have complained that the image gives Tsarnaev the "rock star" treatment—that his scruffy facial hair; long, curly hair; T-shirt; and soft-eyed glance straight at the camera all make him look like just another Rolling Stone cover boy, whether Jim Morrison or any of the many longhairs who appeared in the magazine's nineteen-seventies heyday. But these elements are not engineered. What is so troubling about this image, and many of the others that have become available since April, is that Tsarnaev really does look like a rock star. In this way, the photograph on Rolling Stone is of a part with the often unexpected, and unsettling, portrait of Tsarnaev that has emerged over the past few months.
It's bullshit and misses the point. It isn't "troubling", it's disrespectful and minimizes the pain and tragedy he caused.
"Oh, let's examine the poor dear and see why he went wrong."
Quote from: Balls Wellington on July 20, 2013, 10:38:09 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
So I ask you again, why are you still here?
My reasons are my own.
Presently, I'm killing time until my GF gets back home.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:43:30 PM
Presently, I'm killing time until my GF gets back home.
We can only hope that she likes it dead, then.
Time. How can a longtime punster have missed such a simple play on words?
Maybe because it was bad and non-sensical?
I revile you because of your puns? No dude. Puns annoy me. They dont trigger revulsion towards the punster.
If i revile you for anything its your unsettling devaluing of human life which you freely admit to.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 11:13:08 PM
Maybe because it was bad and non-sensical?
It may well be bad and nonsensical but it is also venerable, and a pretty easy word play to decipher:
"It was a book to kill time for those who like it better dead." —Dame Rose Macaulay CBE 1881-1958
Quote from: MMIX on July 21, 2013, 12:22:34 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 11:13:08 PM
Maybe because it was bad and non-sensical?
It may well be bad and nonsensical but it is also venerable, and a pretty easy word play to decipher:
"It was a book to kill time for those who like it better dead." —Dame Rose Macaulay CBE 1881-1958
Hence RWHN's frustration.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 12:20:28 AM
If i revile you for anything its your unsettling devaluing of human life which you freely admit to.
Says the guy that said kids getting blown up was irrelevant.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 12:46:32 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 12:20:28 AM
If i revile you for anything its your unsettling devaluing of human life which you freely admit to.
Says the guy that said kids getting blown up was irrelevant.
Says the guy who would smile to see a kid tortured and executed.
The kid is no more valuable than any other human being. But again, show your inability to understand what anyone else is saying.
I'm pretty sure at this point you're incapable of understanding anything that anyone says. It's pretty fucking obvious what I meant when I said it was irrelevant that a kid got blown up. But you insist on being obtuse, and I can't fix that.
If you're looking for everyone here to think you're a worthless piece of shit you are succeeding beyond measure.
Congrats.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
I like being genuine. I place a bit of a premium on it. Not being genuine seems like an utter waste of time.
...So you're here, and you're not being genuine.
Instead nurturing a grudge.
...I was trying to reach out to you. Genuinely. Believe it or not. That's the way I carry myself.
But I won't know when you're being you, or when you're trying to fuck with the rest of us.
Therefore I have to assume you're just trying to fuck with people everytime you post from here on out. I can't take you seriously.
Congrats. :|
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 19, 2013, 07:13:40 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 19, 2013, 06:45:19 PM
I wouldnt say i hate the guy. Im more flabbergasted and disappointed that someone who struck me as a smart guy has turned into a vengeance monkey that seems to go out of his way to misinterpret like everything.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34965.msg1277007.html#msg1277007
"Hunting Season" open in Florida.
A thread title after Zimmerman received due process and was found innocent. What was that about vengeance monkey?
:lulz: :lulz: As Twid was saying...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
HAAAAAAA
He's not only a statist zealot, he's cast his lot with the racist po'buckers. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
:butthurt:
Could you at least PRETEND to see more than one side to this story? I mean, seeing as how that is a main point of one of the cooler things I've seen you write?
Damn, I'm doing it again. They're right-- being nice IS a curse.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 21, 2013, 05:30:54 AM
Could you at least PRETEND to see more than one side to this story? I mean, seeing as how that is a main point of one of the cooler things I've seen you write?
Damn, I'm doing it again. They're right-- being nice IS a curse.
Indeed.
You shut up. :wink:
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
200 pages. Calling it now.
Butthurt bureaucrat is butthurt.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 19, 2013, 07:10:27 PM
I mean, FFS, look at this:
(http://www.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/113_4510A_21.jpg)
(http://www.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/113_4470_21.jpg)
(http://www.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/113_44851.jpg)
These are images of a child who is completely lost. What happened to him? How did he get there? Those are important questions, especially to those of us who have children. But, also, really, for everyone.
Bump for truth.
("cdn" changed to "www" for anybody else who couldn't see these at first.)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 21, 2013, 07:38:33 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
200 pages. Calling it now.
Butthurt bureaucrat is butthurt.
Yeah, because everybody knows that's what this thread is REALLY about and yes, 200+ pages.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 21, 2013, 07:38:33 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
200 pages. Calling it now.
Butthurt bureaucrat is butthurt.
Butthurt bureaucrat also equates mild irritation with revulsion. Explains a few things.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 21, 2013, 07:38:33 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
200 pages. Calling it now.
Butthurt bureaucrat is butthurt.
Butthurt bureaucrat also equates mild irritation with revulsion. Explains a few things.
Willfully. He willfully misinterprets.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 21, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 21, 2013, 07:38:33 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
200 pages. Calling it now.
Butthurt bureaucrat is butthurt.
Butthurt bureaucrat also equates mild irritation with revulsion. Explains a few things.
Willfully. He willfully misinterprets.
That seems to be the case since it was plainly clear that when I said it was irrelevant that a kid died that I meant that human life has a fixed value, and that the age is irrelevant, and then he defends his devaluing of human life by saying that I devalue human life by saying that the age of a victim is unimportant.
And honestly, while he has pissed me off recently, due to his willful misinterpretations, I've never been disgusted with him until the past couple of days, and ITT. His misinterpretation is so blatant that there are only two explanations. He's either deliberately being a jackass, or something short-circuited in his brain.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 21, 2013, 05:30:54 AM
Could you at least PRETEND to see more than one side to this story? I mean, seeing as how that is a main point of one of the cooler things I've seen you write?
Damn, I'm doing it again. They're right-- being nice IS a curse.
Why? I mean, really, why does it matter? Why is it SO offensive that I have a different opinion on this?
This isn't like a drug thread. I have no professional role in this. I'm just spag speaking my piece.
The butthurt thing is weird too. I'm butthurt about what? I post an opinion and you guys get all bent out of shape and so I'M butthurt?
Weird interpretation.
(http://www.marriedtothesea.com/072113/in-this-forum.gif)
if only...
So let of get this straight. You feel reviled because no one here agrees with you on drugs. You change how you interact with us in such a way that it seems like youre trolling. You alienate people who were trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in the process. And this is somehow not butthurt?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 21, 2013, 05:30:54 AM
Could you at least PRETEND to see more than one side to this story? I mean, seeing as how that is a main point of one of the cooler things I've seen you write?
Damn, I'm doing it again. They're right-- being nice IS a curse.
Sadly, I think he lost that capacity a long, long time ago.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 21, 2013, 03:34:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 21, 2013, 05:30:54 AM
Could you at least PRETEND to see more than one side to this story? I mean, seeing as how that is a main point of one of the cooler things I've seen you write?
Damn, I'm doing it again. They're right-- being nice IS a curse.
Sadly, I think he lost that capacity a long, long time ago.
This.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 21, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 21, 2013, 07:38:33 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
200 pages. Calling it now.
Butthurt bureaucrat is butthurt.
Butthurt bureaucrat also equates mild irritation with revulsion. Explains a few things.
Willfully. He willfully misinterprets.
That seems to be the case since it was plainly clear that when I said it was irrelevant that a kid died that I meant that human life has a fixed value, and that the age is irrelevant, and then he defends his devaluing of human life by saying that I devalue human life by saying that the age of a victim is unimportant.
And honestly, while he has pissed me off recently, due to his willful misinterpretations, I've never been disgusted with him until the past couple of days, and ITT. His misinterpretation is so blatant that there are only two explanations. He's either deliberately being a jackass, or something short-circuited in his brain.
Because when you consider all human life as equally valuable, it disrupts the ERMAGERD ITS FER THER CHILRIN shit?
Quote from: stelz on July 21, 2013, 04:33:32 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 21, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 21, 2013, 07:38:33 AM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
200 pages. Calling it now.
Butthurt bureaucrat is butthurt.
Butthurt bureaucrat also equates mild irritation with revulsion. Explains a few things.
Willfully. He willfully misinterprets.
That seems to be the case since it was plainly clear that when I said it was irrelevant that a kid died that I meant that human life has a fixed value, and that the age is irrelevant, and then he defends his devaluing of human life by saying that I devalue human life by saying that the age of a victim is unimportant.
And honestly, while he has pissed me off recently, due to his willful misinterpretations, I've never been disgusted with him until the past couple of days, and ITT. His misinterpretation is so blatant that there are only two explanations. He's either deliberately being a jackass, or something short-circuited in his brain.
Because when you consider all human life as equally valuable, it disrupts the ERMAGERD ITS FER THER CHILRIN shit?
When you consider all human life equally valuable, it renders those screaming for blood equally monstrous as those whose deaths they're calling for.
Hey guys, I'm posting ITT from Texas!
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 04:48:52 PM
Hey guys, I'm posting ITT from Texas!
Is that your location or your political stance?
ETA Apologies to Texas residents, this is undoubtedly a cheap crack
My political stance is very Maine.
Of course it is my location.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 05:00:38 PM
My political stance is very Maine.
Of course it is my location.
No. Your political stance is New Hampshire.
Non sequitur.
Which of course means hes got nothing. Hes stuck. Kinda like when he refused to acknowledge whether or not he was threatening legal action when ech told him that would be an instaban.
Quote from: Suu on July 21, 2013, 05:32:15 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 05:00:38 PM
My political stance is very Maine.
Of course it is my location.
No. Your political stance is New Hampshire.
No, that would be my girlfriend. I am very Moderate Maine.
But seriously, I really am in Texas. Austin to be exact. A big Anti-Drug Coalition conference here this week.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 21, 2013, 05:41:50 PM
Which of course means hes got nothing. Hes stuck. Kinda like when he refused to acknowledge whether or not he was threatening legal action when ech told him that would be an instaban.
Stuck in what?
I reckon your inability to refute the assertion that you have less respect for human life than you had previously thought and choose not to acknowledge the fact. That might lead to the possibility that you might have to change your mind about something. Thats just a guess though. The more you type the less sense you make. I honestly have less and less of an idea of just what goes on in your head.
The problem is that you've made an uninformed assumption about certain views I've had now and before you joined. My hawkishness towards any kind of criminal act where children and youth are victims is not new. I've never had respect for the sort of human life that would commit such crimes. We've never really had a big death penalty debate either, but I've always been, at best, moderate on the death penalty. I think there are some crimes that are so heinous where that punishment can be appropriate. But, it really has to be beyond a sliver of a doubt, and there should be ample opportunities for due process, appeals, etc., to make sure they get it right.
So nothing has changed. It's just that pretty much every heated debate involving me has been drugs. Oh, maybe a piracy one here and there. I'm strongly anti-piracy if you want to take that one up too. ;)
Trying to discuss things with him will only give you guys a headache, you know. Just saying.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 20, 2013, 09:32:44 PM
I agree with the New Yorker's take:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover-controversy.html
QuoteBut just because something sparks outrage doesn't mean that it is outrageous. Menino, on Wednesday, added that the cover, or perhaps the story itself, "should have been about survivors or first responders." There have been many moving and illuminating stories about the victims of the marathon attack, and the people who selflessly came to their aid, but this is not one of them. Instead, the Rolling Stone article is about the still largely mysterious backstory of a young man who transformed, in what appears to be a short amount of time, from a seemingly normal college student into an alleged terrorist. The facts of his life are important, the larger social implications of his biography are important—and so this story has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the public record and to the general understanding of one of the most serious incidents of domestic terrorism in American history. And so, in the plainest terms, Rolling Stone chose to promote an article about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with a photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev—one that other news outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, had previously published. It does not appear that the magazine altered the image in any meaningful way. Nor does the photograph convey an editorial opinion about the subject; the accompanying cover text, meanwhile, identifies Tsarnaev as a "monster." It shows him as he looked when he allegedly killed four people and injured hundreds more.
Many commenters on Facebook have complained that the image gives Tsarnaev the "rock star" treatment—that his scruffy facial hair; long, curly hair; T-shirt; and soft-eyed glance straight at the camera all make him look like just another Rolling Stone cover boy, whether Jim Morrison or any of the many longhairs who appeared in the magazine's nineteen-seventies heyday. But these elements are not engineered. What is so troubling about this image, and many of the others that have become available since April, is that Tsarnaev really does look like a rock star. In this way, the photograph on Rolling Stone is of a part with the often unexpected, and unsettling, portrait of Tsarnaev that has emerged over the past few months.
It's bullshit and misses the point. It isn't "troubling", it's disrespectful and minimizes the pain and tragedy he caused.
"Oh, let's examine the poor dear and see why he went wrong."
Yeah, clearly someone's hurt little fee-fees are more important than examining something like this with the hope of gaining some understanding and maybe some insight into how to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
It should be physically painful to be as stupid as you are.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on July 20, 2013, 10:38:09 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 20, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.
Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy. It spilled into anything else I posted about. TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns. So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.
So I ask you again, why are you still here?
My reasons are my own.
Well the fact that you can't or won't articulate them here speaks volumes, doesn't it?
My roommate had a "crazy" theory that the media narrative spun around the Trayvon Martin case, and now the publicizing of the Tsanaev kid on Rolling Stone, is an attempt by the intelligence services to initiate general unrest (Arab spring style) in order to push militarization of domestic responders.
I don't buy that 100%, but it's an interesting theory.
And it's reactions like RWHN's which (on a mass scale ) would make this possible.
(Also, DUDE, THIS IS THE INTERNET... we can only form a picture of the "person" you are by the types of interactions you have with us...... basic memetic theory there man. But the whole "the reasons are my own" thing is shady as fuck.)
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 07:42:39 PM
The problem is that you've made an uninformed assumption about certain views I've had now and before you joined. My hawkishness towards any kind of criminal act where children and youth are victims is not new. I've never had respect for the sort of human life that would commit such crimes. We've never really had a big death penalty debate either, but I've always been, at best, moderate on the death penalty. I think there are some crimes that are so heinous where that punishment can be appropriate. But, it really has to be beyond a sliver of a doubt, and there should be ample opportunities for due process, appeals, etc., to make sure they get it right.
So nothing has changed. It's just that pretty much every heated debate involving me has been drugs. Oh, maybe a piracy one here and there. I'm strongly anti-piracy if you want to take that one up too. ;)
So you advocate state-sponsored homicide.
Dude now thinks I'm making assumptions that his views on the death penalty have changed. More misinterpretation.
I'm pledging at this point. Guy's either off his nut, trolling, plain old stupid, or some combination of the three. In any case, it's impossible to have any meaningful communication with him.
He's going to fit in Austin like a turd in a punchbowl. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: stelz on July 21, 2013, 09:40:36 PM
He's going to fit in Austin like a turd in a punchbowl. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Why did they want to have an anti-drug conference in Austin, of all places...
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 21, 2013, 09:42:41 PM
Quote from: stelz on July 21, 2013, 09:40:36 PM
He's going to fit in Austin like a turd in a punchbowl. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Why did they want to have an anti-drug conference in Austin, of all places...
Why not? It's as good a place as any.
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 11:58:45 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 21, 2013, 09:42:41 PM
Quote from: stelz on July 21, 2013, 09:40:36 PM
He's going to fit in Austin like a turd in a punchbowl. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Why did they want to have an anti-drug conference in Austin, of all places...
Why not? It's as good a place as any.
The last time I went through, there was a place called "Stoned windshield repair."
Was that down the street from Juanita's? I think I remember it.
I dunno, I think that was when I was going to the protest in El Paso with the commies.
All I know is that lunch at Uncle Julio's was amazing. Best fajitas ever!
Yeah, we do food well here, generally.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 22, 2013, 04:29:17 AM
Yeah, we do food well here, generally.
WE'RE #9!!!!!!! (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-fattest-states-in-the-worlds-fattest-country-2010-7?op=1)
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 20, 2013, 09:32:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 20, 2013, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2013, 08:32:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JwvSzGt.jpg)
It's different when the New York Times does it, though; THAT'S journalism. It's sensationalism when Rolling Stone does it.
Right?
Also note the date.
Oh yeah, I did. Probably pundits hadn't had time to work up a good foundless outrage yet, at the time. They needed to sit on it some, to come up with some reason why him being young, cute, and white is offensive to accurately portray.
Doesn't need to be portrayed at all.
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 22, 2013, 12:30:52 PM
Doesn't need to be portrayed at all.
I disagree entirely.
Letting people believe that the bombers were vague, scary, foreign-looking terrorists allows assumptions to be reinforced. Stupid, alienating, Other-ing assumptions. And people absolutely did assume that the bombers were swarthy Muslim-looking men, even after learning that they were from Chechnya, because what American even knows what a Chechnyan looks like. I sure as shit wouldn't have known off the top of my head.
Attaching the real, human face to the incident is critical to reminding people that monsters
aren't The Other. They look like the rest of us, and they can even look
good to the rest of us.
It's the 21st fucking century. We don't need to rely on modern bogeymen to replace the monsters, changelings, and other inhuman excuses to try and distance ourselves from those who commit evil. Make us stare it in the goddamn face and come to terms with something for once in our miserable crawl on this muddy rock.
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 01:26:20 PM
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 22, 2013, 12:30:52 PM
Doesn't need to be portrayed at all.
I disagree entirely.
Letting people believe that the bombers were vague, scary, foreign-looking terrorists allows assumptions to be reinforced. Stupid, alienating, Other-ing assumptions. And people absolutely did assume that the bombers were swarthy Muslim-looking men, even after learning that they were from Chechnya, because what American even knows what a Chechnyan looks like. I sure as shit wouldn't have known off the top of my head.
Attaching the real, human face to the incident is critical to reminding people that monsters aren't The Other. They look like the rest of us, and they can even look good to the rest of us.
It's the 21st fucking century. We don't need to rely on modern bogeymen to replace the monsters, changelings, and other inhuman excuses to try and distance ourselves from those who commit evil. Make us stare it in the goddamn face and come to terms with something for once in our miserable crawl on this muddy rock.
:lulz:
No Cainad, we need to go ostrich style, hide our heads under the sand and pretend that it was a
muslim lone-wolf sociopathic monster that was not at all played by different groups of people for their own interests.
I mean,
such assholes by not letting
me keep my preconceived
prejudices about a person that must be scape-goated to oblivion so that it's surrounding context of creation and influence can be ignored because it insists on shitty systemic situations that happen over and over again and denounces that
some things are not handled as it should.
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 21, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 21, 2013, 05:32:15 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 05:00:38 PM
My political stance is very Maine.
Of course it is my location.
No. Your political stance is New Hampshire.
No, that would be my girlfriend. I am very Moderate Maine.
Oh, that would explain the sudden loss of cool points, then. You're dating a racist, gun-toting, lake-house owning Freestater. Makes sense. People like her make me glad that MA stopped charging sales tax on liquor, because now I don't have to drive 2 hours to contribute to an economy driven by libertarian pieces of shit. I'll just give it to the commies instead.
Quote from: Suu on July 22, 2013, 03:21:38 PM
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 21, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 21, 2013, 05:32:15 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 05:00:38 PM
My political stance is very Maine.
Of course it is my location.
No. Your political stance is New Hampshire.
No, that would be my girlfriend. I am very Moderate Maine.
Oh, that would explain the sudden loss of cool points, then. You're dating a racist, gun-toting, lake-house owning Freestater. Makes sense. People like her make me glad that MA stopped charging sales tax on liquor, because now I don't have to drive 2 hours to contribute to an economy driven by libertarian pieces of shit. I'll just give it to the commies instead.
Da, tovarish.
Quote from: Suu on July 22, 2013, 03:21:38 PM
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 21, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Suu on July 21, 2013, 05:32:15 PM
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 21, 2013, 05:00:38 PM
My political stance is very Maine.
Of course it is my location.
No. Your political stance is New Hampshire.
No, that would be my girlfriend. I am very Moderate Maine.
Oh, that would explain the sudden loss of cool points, then. You're dating a racist, gun-toting, lake-house owning Freestater. Makes sense. People like her make me glad that MA stopped charging sales tax on liquor, because now I don't have to drive 2 hours to contribute to an economy driven by libertarian pieces of shit. I'll just give it to the commies instead.
Actually she doesn't own a gun, has never held a gun, is quite not-racist. She is a Libertarian, but very liberal socially. She's pretty cool. I'm a very lucky guy.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 01:26:20 PM
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 22, 2013, 12:30:52 PM
Doesn't need to be portrayed at all.
I disagree entirely.
Letting people believe that the bombers were vague, scary, foreign-looking terrorists allows assumptions to be reinforced. Stupid, alienating, Other-ing assumptions. And people absolutely did assume that the bombers were swarthy Muslim-looking men, even after learning that they were from Chechnya, because what American even knows what a Chechnyan looks like. I sure as shit wouldn't have known off the top of my head.
Attaching the real, human face to the incident is critical to reminding people that monsters aren't The Other. They look like the rest of us, and they can even look good to the rest of us.
It's the 21st fucking century. We don't need to rely on modern bogeymen to replace the monsters, changelings, and other inhuman excuses to try and distance ourselves from those who commit evil. Make us stare it in the goddamn face and come to terms with something for once in our miserable crawl on this muddy rock.
:lulz:
No Cainad, we need to go ostrich style, hide our heads under the sand and pretend that it was a muslim lone-wolf sociopathic monster that was not at all played by different groups of people for their own interests.
I mean, such assholes by not letting me keep my preconceived prejudices about a person that must be scape-goated to oblivion so that it's surrounding context of creation and influence can be ignored because it insists on shitty systemic situations that happen over and over again and denounces that some things are not handled as it should.
No, Johnny, understanding how this came to be isn't important. What's important is
punishing people, because that's been working for us so well as a culture, so far.
Understanding things never helped nobody with nothing.
You and your ivory tower ideas!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 01:26:20 PM
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 22, 2013, 12:30:52 PM
Doesn't need to be portrayed at all.
I disagree entirely.
Letting people believe that the bombers were vague, scary, foreign-looking terrorists allows assumptions to be reinforced. Stupid, alienating, Other-ing assumptions. And people absolutely did assume that the bombers were swarthy Muslim-looking men, even after learning that they were from Chechnya, because what American even knows what a Chechnyan looks like. I sure as shit wouldn't have known off the top of my head.
Attaching the real, human face to the incident is critical to reminding people that monsters aren't The Other. They look like the rest of us, and they can even look good to the rest of us.
It's the 21st fucking century. We don't need to rely on modern bogeymen to replace the monsters, changelings, and other inhuman excuses to try and distance ourselves from those who commit evil. Make us stare it in the goddamn face and come to terms with something for once in our miserable crawl on this muddy rock.
:lulz:
No Cainad, we need to go ostrich style, hide our heads under the sand and pretend that it was a muslim lone-wolf sociopathic monster that was not at all played by different groups of people for their own interests.
I mean, such assholes by not letting me keep my preconceived prejudices about a person that must be scape-goated to oblivion so that it's surrounding context of creation and influence can be ignored because it insists on shitty systemic situations that happen over and over again and denounces that some things are not handled as it should.
No, Johnny, understanding how this came to be isn't important. What's important is punishing people, because that's been working for us so well as a culture, so far.
Understanding things never helped nobody with nothing.
They are not like us.
They did not come from our stock.
The only reason they're still around is because we haven't managed to kill off, imprison, or otherwise incapacitate The Bad People.
They're just
bad. Nothing
made them bad, they're just that way and need to be stopped.
Keep doing what you're doing. Don't look at them, don't think about them. We've got them locked up, strung up, put away, put down.
The Bad People must have come from some deep dark pit somewhere; don't go looking for it. Don't ask how they came to do terrible things. It certainly has nothing to do with the very same society you grew up in, live in, and are a part of.
Just another ugly mystery, not meant for us to solve.
Grieve for the victims, and forget.
Forget.
Ain't he sum kinda Commie? He got a funny name, Ah thank it's Rushin or A-rab or somethin'. They shoulda never put his pichur up but he ain't white, Ah know a half-Meskin looks like that.
/
:redneck2:
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 04:47:12 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 01:26:20 PM
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 22, 2013, 12:30:52 PM
Doesn't need to be portrayed at all.
I disagree entirely.
Letting people believe that the bombers were vague, scary, foreign-looking terrorists allows assumptions to be reinforced. Stupid, alienating, Other-ing assumptions. And people absolutely did assume that the bombers were swarthy Muslim-looking men, even after learning that they were from Chechnya, because what American even knows what a Chechnyan looks like. I sure as shit wouldn't have known off the top of my head.
Attaching the real, human face to the incident is critical to reminding people that monsters aren't The Other. They look like the rest of us, and they can even look good to the rest of us.
It's the 21st fucking century. We don't need to rely on modern bogeymen to replace the monsters, changelings, and other inhuman excuses to try and distance ourselves from those who commit evil. Make us stare it in the goddamn face and come to terms with something for once in our miserable crawl on this muddy rock.
:lulz:
No Cainad, we need to go ostrich style, hide our heads under the sand and pretend that it was a muslim lone-wolf sociopathic monster that was not at all played by different groups of people for their own interests.
I mean, such assholes by not letting me keep my preconceived prejudices about a person that must be scape-goated to oblivion so that it's surrounding context of creation and influence can be ignored because it insists on shitty systemic situations that happen over and over again and denounces that some things are not handled as it should.
No, Johnny, understanding how this came to be isn't important. What's important is punishing people, because that's been working for us so well as a culture, so far.
Understanding things never helped nobody with nothing.
They are not like us.
They did not come from our stock.
The only reason they're still around is because we haven't managed to kill off, imprison, or otherwise incapacitate The Bad People.
They're just bad. Nothing made them bad, they're just that way and need to be stopped.
Keep doing what you're doing. Don't look at them, don't think about them. We've got them locked up, strung up, put away, put down.
The Bad People must have come from some deep dark pit somewhere; don't go looking for it. Don't ask how they came to do terrible things. It certainly has nothing to do with the very same society you grew up in, live in, and are a part of.
Just another ugly mystery, not meant for us to solve.
Grieve for the victims, and forget.
Forget.
Don't go asking questions and looking for reasons. Reasons imply that maybe people aren't born bad, and that maybe something, or several things, influences to become that way. This kind of thinking scares people, and that's terrorism. Making them think that perfectly ordinary kids,
white kids, might grow up to do bad things. You know that's crazy talk, that picture should never have seen the light of day, let alone dialogue about how such a normal-looking American teenager could have turned into a monster. "Turned" is the wrong word, you see; that's the wrong question. It's a terrorist question, and when you start asking questions like that it implies that there's something wrong with America. The real question ought to be how those damn terrorist immigrants got here in the first place, we need to lock down our borders and stop asking questions. For America!
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 04:54:12 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 04:47:12 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 01:26:20 PM
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 22, 2013, 12:30:52 PM
Doesn't need to be portrayed at all.
I disagree entirely.
Letting people believe that the bombers were vague, scary, foreign-looking terrorists allows assumptions to be reinforced. Stupid, alienating, Other-ing assumptions. And people absolutely did assume that the bombers were swarthy Muslim-looking men, even after learning that they were from Chechnya, because what American even knows what a Chechnyan looks like. I sure as shit wouldn't have known off the top of my head.
Attaching the real, human face to the incident is critical to reminding people that monsters aren't The Other. They look like the rest of us, and they can even look good to the rest of us.
It's the 21st fucking century. We don't need to rely on modern bogeymen to replace the monsters, changelings, and other inhuman excuses to try and distance ourselves from those who commit evil. Make us stare it in the goddamn face and come to terms with something for once in our miserable crawl on this muddy rock.
:lulz:
No Cainad, we need to go ostrich style, hide our heads under the sand and pretend that it was a muslim lone-wolf sociopathic monster that was not at all played by different groups of people for their own interests.
I mean, such assholes by not letting me keep my preconceived prejudices about a person that must be scape-goated to oblivion so that it's surrounding context of creation and influence can be ignored because it insists on shitty systemic situations that happen over and over again and denounces that some things are not handled as it should.
No, Johnny, understanding how this came to be isn't important. What's important is punishing people, because that's been working for us so well as a culture, so far.
Understanding things never helped nobody with nothing.
They are not like us.
They did not come from our stock.
The only reason they're still around is because we haven't managed to kill off, imprison, or otherwise incapacitate The Bad People.
They're just bad. Nothing made them bad, they're just that way and need to be stopped.
Keep doing what you're doing. Don't look at them, don't think about them. We've got them locked up, strung up, put away, put down.
The Bad People must have come from some deep dark pit somewhere; don't go looking for it. Don't ask how they came to do terrible things. It certainly has nothing to do with the very same society you grew up in, live in, and are a part of.
Just another ugly mystery, not meant for us to solve.
Grieve for the victims, and forget.
Forget.
Don't go asking questions and looking for reasons. Reasons imply that maybe people aren't born bad, and that maybe something, or several things, influences to become that way. This kind of thinking scares people, and that's terrorism. Making them think that perfectly ordinary kids, white kids, might grow up to do bad things. You know that's crazy talk, that picture should never have seen the light of day, let alone dialogue about how such a normal-looking American teenager could have turned into a monster. "Turned" is the wrong word, you see; that's the wrong question. It's a terrorist question, and when you start asking questions like that it implies that there's something wrong with America. The real question ought to be how those damn terrorist immigrants got here in the first place, we need to lock down our borders and stop asking questions. For America!
No one wakes up one morning and goes, "I'm going to kill a shitload of people."
It's a process that makes that happen. Much in the same way that the Tsarnaev brothers probably didn't wake up one morning and say "I'm going to become an American citizen today."
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
The uncomfortable fact here is that being OUTRAGED might lead you to be like them. It might make you approve of things like killing people who are not a threat to society. But we have to have REVENGE.
We need due process of law and the underpinnings of a civilized society EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME OKAY
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
And then RWHN was Khara.
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
We need due process of law and the underpinnings of a civilized society EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME OKAY
Well, due process of law is for regular Americans, not for terrorists. That's silly!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
We need due process of law and the underpinnings of a civilized society EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME OKAY
Well, due process of law is for regular Americans, not for terrorists. That's silly!
But... but... what if they are both, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
And then RWHN was Khara.
Well, if the accusation is bad enough, we shouldn't have to go through due process before meting out the punishment.
Right?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
And then RWHN was Khara.
Well, if the accusation is bad enough, we shouldn't have to go through due process before meting out the punishment.
Right?
Obviously not.
What if someone who is
clearly a dangerous freak (just look at 'em!) gets exonerated by something as flimsy and meaningless as forensic DNA evidence, or video footage? Unacceptable!
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 22, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
We need due process of law and the underpinnings of a civilized society EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME OKAY
Well, due process of law is for regular Americans, not for terrorists. That's silly!
But... but... what if they are both, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
SSSHHHHHHHH! :fuckoff:
You might upset someone with that nonsense, have some decency!
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:30:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
And then RWHN was Khara.
Well, if the accusation is bad enough, we shouldn't have to go through due process before meting out the punishment.
Right?
Obviously not.
What if someone who is clearly a dangerous freak (just look at 'em!) gets exonerated by something as flimsy and meaningless as forensic DNA evidence, or video footage? Unacceptable!
Not really the point. It was Khara's opinion that people accused of pedophelia didn't DESERVE a trial.
Because, as we all know, trials are just some favor we do for crooks.
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:30:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
And then RWHN was Khara.
Well, if the accusation is bad enough, we shouldn't have to go through due process before meting out the punishment.
Right?
Obviously not.
What if someone who is clearly a dangerous freak (just look at 'em!) gets exonerated by something as flimsy and meaningless as forensic DNA evidence, or video footage? Unacceptable!
EXACTLY
It's tantamount to letting them get away with it. Another good reason to not publish that picture in the newspaper; people might get the wrong idea about that terrorist, and feel sympathy toward him because he's young, cute, and white, and that could get in the way of the obvious necessity of circumventing due process and getting straight to the part where we enhanced-interrogate a confession out of him.
White people might even worry that their OWN sons could become susceptible to ideas that might turn them bad, and that kind of thinking is essentially letting the terrorists win.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:34:46 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:30:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
And then RWHN was Khara.
Well, if the accusation is bad enough, we shouldn't have to go through due process before meting out the punishment.
Right?
Obviously not.
What if someone who is clearly a dangerous freak (just look at 'em!) gets exonerated by something as flimsy and meaningless as forensic DNA evidence, or video footage? Unacceptable!
EXACTLY
It's tantamount to letting them get away with it. Another good reason to not publish that picture in the newspaper; people might get the wrong idea about that terrorist, and feel sympathy toward him because he's young, cute, and white, and that could get in the way of the obvious necessity of circumventing due process and getting straight to the part where we enhanced-interrogate a confession out of him.
White people might even worry that their OWN sons could become susceptible to ideas that might turn them bad, and that kind of thinking is essentially letting the terrorists win.
We all know form the confessions of Jews that they were indeed responsible for the Bubonic Plague that enhanced interrogation is a successful tactic, fleas be damned.
[/quote]
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:32:13 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:30:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:07:20 PM
Identifying reasons why a person might commit horrible acts is the same as justifying those acts!
Attempting to see things from their perspective to figure out what led to their crimes is the same as sympathizing with them!
LOOK IT'S JUST BAD HORRIBLE STUFF OKAY, LOOKING TOO CLOSELY AT IT IS MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO BEING OKAY WITH IT
So say a lot of things about how horrible it all is, remember the blood and death and weeping, and forget everything that led up to it.
And don't forget to be OUTRAGED, and to call for unspeakable acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the accused with utter disregard for any ethical standards or legal proceedings, so that everyone knows how AGAINST IT you are.
And then RWHN was Khara.
Well, if the accusation is bad enough, we shouldn't have to go through due process before meting out the punishment.
Right?
Obviously not.
What if someone who is clearly a dangerous freak (just look at 'em!) gets exonerated by something as flimsy and meaningless as forensic DNA evidence, or video footage? Unacceptable!
Not really the point. It was Khara's opinion that people accused of pedophelia didn't DESERVE a trial.
Because, as we all know, trials are just some favor we do for crooks.
Even they need to be treated as human beings. They just need to also be neutralized from their tendency towards crime, in non-violent ways. They're ill.
(Edited for multiquote)
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 22, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
We need due process of law and the underpinnings of a civilized society EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME OKAY
Well, due process of law is for regular Americans, not for terrorists. That's silly!
But... but... what if they are both, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
Don't be silly, now. He's a Muslim AND an immigrant, and that ain't American. They shoulda kept that picture out of the paper, it's already giving people bad ideas, like how he doesn't look like a Muslim immigrant oughtta look. People are going to start thinking Muslims and immigrants look like regular people.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:38:21 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 22, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
We need due process of law and the underpinnings of a civilized society EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME OKAY
Well, due process of law is for regular Americans, not for terrorists. That's silly!
But... but... what if they are both, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
Don't be silly, now. He's a Muslim AND an immigrant, and that ain't American. They shoulda kept that picture out of the paper, it's already giving people bad ideas, like how he doesn't look like a Muslim immigrant oughtta look. People are going to start thinking Muslims and immigrants look like regular people.
Or worse, that they ARE people.
If they really had to publish it they should have at least given him the OJ treatment by darkening his skin and giving him some dark circles under his eyes, or something. Made him look like a real terrorist, not like somebody's son.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:38:21 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 22, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
We need due process of law and the underpinnings of a civilized society EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME OKAY
Well, due process of law is for regular Americans, not for terrorists. That's silly!
But... but... what if they are both, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
Don't be silly, now. He's a Muslim AND an immigrant, and that ain't American. They shoulda kept that picture out of the paper, it's already giving people bad ideas, like how he doesn't look like a Muslim immigrant oughtta look. People are going to start thinking Muslims and immigrants look like regular people.
Or worse, that they ARE people.
Now, Dok, everyone knows that being a Muslim makes you a tourist. That's why the plenty of Americans who happen to be Muslim are perfectly satisfied with being American and are pro-democracy and socially liberal. You know, kinda like Catholics who are cool with gay marriage and abortion.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:32:13 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:30:04 PM
Obviously not.
What if someone who is clearly a dangerous freak (just look at 'em!) gets exonerated by something as flimsy and meaningless as forensic DNA evidence, or video footage? Unacceptable!
Not really the point. It was Khara's opinion that people accused of pedophelia didn't DESERVE a trial.
Because, as we all know, trials are just some favor we do for crooks.
Yeah, I see what you mean.
Anything that gets between the criminal and the gallows is CLEARLY useless bullshit.
Trials are for people like me and mine when we get shat on. It's a privilege that you earn by not being accused of horrible crimes in the first place.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:40:17 PM
If they really had to publish it they should have at least given him the OJ treatment by darkening his skin and giving him some dark circles under his eyes, or something. Made him look like a real terrorist, not like somebody's son.
Accurate pictures are inaccurate. As RHWN pointed out, we have no proof the picture wasn't shooped.
...
...
...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:43:07 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:40:17 PM
If they really had to publish it they should have at least given him the OJ treatment by darkening his skin and giving him some dark circles under his eyes, or something. Made him look like a real terrorist, not like somebody's son.
Accurate pictures are inaccurate. As RHWN pointed out, we have no proof the picture wasn't shooped.
...
...
...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
No man has ever taken a flattering picture to impress the ladies. Clearly it was shooped.
It's not like NINETEEN-YEAR-OLDS ever photograph looking like nineteen-year-olds, either.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:47:20 PM
It's not like NINETEEN-YEAR-OLDS ever photograph looking like nineteen-year-olds, either.
ROCKSTAR TREATMENT DISRESPECTING THE VICTIMS BEAT HIM TO DEATH LIMELIGHT KIDS KIDS KIDS BACK IN THE DAY IT WAS KIDS KIDS KIDS WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE KIDS EVEN IF THE BOMBER WAS A KID TORTURE MAIM BEAT TO DEATH GENERAL POPULATION HIV HEP C PUNISHMENT PUNISHMENT ROCKSTAR.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:47:20 PM
It's not like NINETEEN-YEAR-OLDS ever photograph looking like nineteen-year-olds, either.
ROCKSTAR TREATMENT DISRESPECTING THE VICTIMS BEAT HIM TO DEATH LIMELIGHT KIDS KIDS KIDS BACK IN THE DAY IT WAS KIDS KIDS KIDS WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE KIDS EVEN IF THE BOMBER WAS A KID TORTURE MAIM BEAT TO DEATH GENERAL POPULATION HIV HEP C PUNISHMENT PUNISHMENT ROCKSTAR.
You forgot something:
QuoteROCKSTAR TREATMENT DISRESPECTING THE VICTIMS BEAT HIM TO DEATH LIMELIGHT KIDS KIDS KIDS BACK IN THE DAY IT WAS KIDS KIDS KIDS WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE KIDS EVEN IF THE BOMBER WAS A KID TORTURE MAIM BEAT TO DEATH GENERAL POPULATION HIV HEP C PUNISHMENT PUNISHMENT ROCKSTAR.
\
(https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3285305350/7418474158d9903103ba25bcd88192df.jpeg)
There we go.
Except that it isn't just hicks, is it?
This once again proves my point that po'buckerism isn't a Southern thing, a race thing, or even a socio-economic thing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 06:10:52 PM
Except that it isn't just hicks, is it?
This once again proves my point that po'buckerism isn't a Southern thing, a race thing, or even a socio-economic thing.
I was looking for Maximum America, but anymore that guy is a remnant of an idyllic and bygone America. I could just as easily have used this guy, he's pretty much the generic face of America:
QuoteROCKSTAR TREATMENT DISRESPECTING THE VICTIMS BEAT HIM TO DEATH LIMELIGHT KIDS KIDS KIDS BACK IN THE DAY IT WAS KIDS KIDS KIDS WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE KIDS EVEN IF THE BOMBER WAS A KID TORTURE MAIM BEAT TO DEATH GENERAL POPULATION HIV HEP C PUNISHMENT PUNISHMENT ROCKSTAR.
\
(http://www.angryasianman.com/images/angry/heywhiteguys01.jpg)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 06:10:52 PM
Except that it isn't just hicks, is it?
This once again proves my point that po'buckerism isn't a Southern thing, a race thing, or even a socio-economic thing.
I was looking for Maximum America, but anymore that guy is a remnant of an idyllic and bygone America. I could just as easily have used this guy, he's pretty much the generic face of America:
(http://www.angryasianman.com/images/angry/heywhiteguys01.jpg)
This inspired a shoop.
Tonight I am going to WOMP America.
anybody ever see this film?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%282003_film%29
there is a HUGE difference between noting the influences that lead someone to do something horrible, to justifying the act.
in other words, there is a crime this person must pay for, but there's also a phonebook of people that should also should be punished, for they lead him to commit the crime, things dont exist in a vaccuum, its all context and influences.
EDIT: goddamn link, now fixed
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 06:24:25 PM
anybody ever see this film?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_(2003_film)
there is a HUGE difference between noting the influences that lead someone to do something horrible, to justifying the act.
in other words, there is a crime this person must pay for, but there's also a phonebook of people that should also should be punished, for they lead him to commit the crime, things dont exist in a vaccuum, its all context and influences.
No, but I am suddenly reminded of a movie I saw with my ex about two Palestinian guys who end up becoming suicide bombers, and the doubts that they went through. I just emailed her to see if she remembered the title.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 06:10:52 PM
Except that it isn't just hicks, is it?
This once again proves my point that po'buckerism isn't a Southern thing, a race thing, or even a socio-economic thing.
I have a totally progressive cousin and cousin-in-law living in bumfuck Alabama, and have met some serious po'bucker douches in downtown Providence. It's a state of mind, not a red state or blue state.
Random aside, the Japanese legal system places a massive degree of importance on the motive and events leading to the crime.
Lots of other things fucked with Japanese legal system, but this always struck me as very, very, smart.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 07:47:46 PM
Random aside, the Japanese legal system places a massive degree of importance on the motive and events leading to the crime.
Lots of other things fucked with Japanese legal system, but this always struck me as very, very, smart.
Motive is a big component of common law systems as well. Under the most traditional understanding, the motive as well as the action is critical in deciding the sentence. That's why there are different outcomes for justified killing in self-defense, manslaughter and murder, despite all of them ending up in the same place, with someone dead.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 07:54:55 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 07:47:46 PM
Random aside, the Japanese legal system places a massive degree of importance on the motive and events leading to the crime.
Lots of other things fucked with Japanese legal system, but this always struck me as very, very, smart.
Motive is a big component of common law systems as well. Under the most traditional understanding, the motive as well as the action is critical in deciding the sentence. That's why there are different outcomes for justified killing in self-defense, manslaughter and murder, despite all of them ending up in the same place, with someone dead.
well, but to what point "events leading to the crime" are taken into account? surely not macro-economics
cartels have their origins with people that had to live on starvation thresholds or make a big break with trafficking... so part of the guilt is on the states abandonment of these people.
the general justice system is too short sighted
A macro-economic defense may make sense if it's some kind of mass/class action against say a bank or somesuch?
I can't quite rule it out, because it would seem to be a part of social justice.
I'd say the justice system in general is short sighted, and that's probably by design.
Taking the story behind the creation of "Monster":
Aileen Wuornos was born out of a teen-pregnancy, her mother abandoned her giving her away to her grandmother, her father (schizophrenic) was incarcerated for sexual abuse; so Wuornos had a lot of negative influences over her life course, they are so strong that they could be called determinants.
She turned to tricks and crime to survive.
Where does the justice system start to account for everything? Who knows what negative influences her parents had on themselves that lead to them treating her that way? Was it lack of education, a lacking support from their families, or was it poverty, poverty caused from systemic injustice in the distribution of wealth?
I don't think we will ever know, but it's not just blood on her hands, but all the influences and context that lead her to do the things she did.
Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?
Not sure I can agree with that.
The more I think about it, the more I don't like it.
I don't agree with it either. Not every bad person is a bad person because of parents. Most of the time it is in spite of having good parents.
That's going near-sighted. What made them "bad parents" in the first place?
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 22, 2013, 08:52:02 PM
I don't agree with it either. Not every bad person is a bad person because of parents. Most of the time it is in spite of having good parents.
Not only that, but if we accept the idea that people who have had an influence on a person are responsible or co-responsible - legally - for anything someone does, then expect to be thrown in jail, for shit you didn't do or were even aware of.
It also implies that people are no more than the sum of their experiences, which I reject as absurd.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:54:54 PM
That's going near-sighted. What made them "bad parents" in the first place?
Not sure I understand what you're getting at, here. Can you elaborate, please?
Heh. Mister "erase all my pics" is now using his pic as an avatar. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:56:24 PM
Quote from: Player To Be Named Later on July 22, 2013, 08:52:02 PM
I don't agree with it either. Not every bad person is a bad person because of parents. Most of the time it is in spite of having good parents.
Not only that, but if we accept the idea that people who have had an influence on a person are responsible or co-responsible - legally - for anything someone does, then expect to be thrown in jail, for shit you didn't do or were even aware of.
It also implies that people are no more than the sum of their experiences, which I reject as absurd.
It's absurd and even if it wasn't, there are so many influences where do you pin the blame? It's a silly concept.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Responsibility always rests with the individual.
But I do think punishment should be calibrated to the circumstances.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.
I think that's the idea of the whole justice system though, no? Laws and punishments are means to an end. The end is a disciplined society.
If you're the kind of person who is not beholden to state power, the system is designed to change you into one. The whole justice enchilada is about fixing parts of the machine which aren't working up to code.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 22, 2013, 09:00:40 PM
I think that's the idea of the whole justice system though, no? Laws and punishments are means to an end. The end is a disciplined society.
Not really. The whole system is based on punishment for its own sake, and now punishment for profit. Prison is not and has never been about rehabilitation. The few attempts at doing so have always been struck down as "coddling criminals".
QuoteIf you're the kind of person who is not beholden to state power, the system is designed to change you into one. The whole justice enchilada is about fixing parts of the machine which aren't working up to code.
Nope. The system is designed to make you a worse criminal, so that you will return to prison in short order following your release. The whole "justice" enchilada is about funding and - more recently - a pool of cheap labor.
This isn't cynicism, it's plain fact.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?
Yeah, I'm kinda seeing the same thing here...
Everyone is an accomplice sort of thing.
There's a difference between understanding how it happened (with the example of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev it was the "why can't you be like more like your brother Tamerlan" sort of thing, with a bit of extra "Oh... maybe you should be better Muslims.") I mean hell, that's the entire message of this cover isn't it? Road to Hell's pavement, we are the monster we seek to kill, all that rot?
These are the nuances that certain folks I'm no longer talking to get all up in arms about and get offended by because they stopped fucking thinking and missed the point entirely.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 22, 2013, 05:41:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:38:21 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 22, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 22, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
We need due process of law and the underpinnings of a civilized society EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME OKAY
Well, due process of law is for regular Americans, not for terrorists. That's silly!
But... but... what if they are both, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
Don't be silly, now. He's a Muslim AND an immigrant, and that ain't American. They shoulda kept that picture out of the paper, it's already giving people bad ideas, like how he doesn't look like a Muslim immigrant oughtta look. People are going to start thinking Muslims and immigrants look like regular people.
Or worse, that they ARE people.
Now, Dok, everyone knows that being a Muslim makes you a tourist. That's why the plenty of Americans who happen to be Muslim are perfectly satisfied with being American and are pro-democracy and socially liberal. You know, kinda like Catholics who are cool with gay marriage and abortion.
You people just don't GET IT, do you?
ANYBODY can be a Moozlim. If you suspect your co-workers, neighbors, or even your own family of Moozlimizm, do the right thing and TURN THEM IN.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 06:24:25 PM
anybody ever see this film?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%282003_film%29
there is a HUGE difference between noting the influences that lead someone to do something horrible, to justifying the act.
in other words, there is a crime this person must pay for, but there's also a phonebook of people that should also should be punished, for they lead him to commit the crime, things dont exist in a vaccuum, its all context and influences.
EDIT: goddamn link, now fixed
Basically we NEED to understand what happened if we have any interest in interrupting the influences that led to it happening, and may lead to it happening again with other kids.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 06:24:25 PM
anybody ever see this film?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%282003_film%29
there is a HUGE difference between noting the influences that lead someone to do something horrible, to justifying the act.
in other words, there is a crime this person must pay for, but there's also a phonebook of people that should also should be punished, for they lead him to commit the crime, things dont exist in a vaccuum, its all context and influences.
EDIT: goddamn link, now fixed
Didn't see the movie, but I followed the case.
Fucking OUCH.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:17:31 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 06:24:25 PM
anybody ever see this film?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%282003_film%29
there is a HUGE difference between noting the influences that lead someone to do something horrible, to justifying the act.
in other words, there is a crime this person must pay for, but there's also a phonebook of people that should also should be punished, for they lead him to commit the crime, things dont exist in a vaccuum, its all context and influences.
EDIT: goddamn link, now fixed
Basically we NEED to understand what happened if we have any interest in interrupting the influences that led to it happening, and may lead to it happening again with other kids.
But we won't. We'll sling him into GP, and the chance will be lost.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:17:31 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 06:24:25 PM
anybody ever see this film?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%282003_film%29
there is a HUGE difference between noting the influences that lead someone to do something horrible, to justifying the act.
in other words, there is a crime this person must pay for, but there's also a phonebook of people that should also should be punished, for they lead him to commit the crime, things dont exist in a vaccuum, its all context and influences.
EDIT: goddamn link, now fixed
Basically we NEED to understand what happened if we have any interest in interrupting the influences that led to it happening, and may lead to it happening again with other kids.
This. Entirely.
Ok, returning to the Cartels problem:
People living on the verge of starvation with no good options that turn to crime.
So, no ways to survive is the start, bad jobs with bad salaries, these which come from lack of worker's rights and income disparities within the country, which is enforced from top-to-bottom by policy, and this is related to "free market" ideology and practice, which, in part, this third world country engages in at a disadvantage because otherwise it would be marginalized by the first world countries in trading relationships.
If my example is lacking im fine by it being corrected/amended, but try to keep in mind the point im trying to make, in which Cartels are merely a symptom of things larger than itself and that they don't originate from themselves in a bubble that is disconnected with the world at large.
So yes, if a violent trafficker is captured, it should be tried in court as it should be, because everyone, even do has their reasons for doing something, it does not justify them (lets not turn this into DRUGS thread, PLEASE, i mean a trafficker that has actually killed someone, not just committed the crime of selling the goods)... but how would one go on about in delivering justice to the employers that give shitty salaries, or the State's worker policy, or the 1st world countries that provoke this? I don't know how, but all of them have guilt.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.
I do recall reading an interview with a trucker who picked her up and let her ride along for about a week or two, and treated her like an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING. He never had any trouble with her, or saw any indication that she was capable of killing anyone.
But the odds are overwhelming that she would have run into some ratbag and the PTSD would have kicked in and it would have happened all over again. I don't think she was "fixable".
Still, I wouldn't have killed her.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 09:24:02 PM
Ok, returning to the Cartels problem:
People living on the verge of starvation with no good options that turn to crime.
So, no ways to survive is the start, bad jobs with bad salaries, these which come from lack of worker's rights and income disparities within the country, which is enforced from top-to-bottom by policy, and this is related to "free market" ideology and practice, which, in part, this third world country engages in at a disadvantage because otherwise it would be marginalized by the first world countries in trading relationships.
If my example is lacking im fine by it being corrected/amended, but try to keep in mind the point im trying to make, in which Cartels are merely a symptom of things larger than itself and that they don't originate from themselves in a bubble that is disconnected with the world at large.
So yes, if a violent trafficker is captured, it should be tried in court as it should be, because everyone, even do has their reasons for doing something, it does not justify them (lets not turn this into DRUGS thread, PLEASE, i mean a trafficker that has actually killed someone, not just committed the crime of selling the goods)... but how would one go on about in delivering justice to the employers that give shitty salaries, or the State's worker policy, or the 1st world countries that provoke this? I don't know how, but all of them have guilt.
One would go about removing this problem by eliminating the root causes.
You treat the disease not the symptoms.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.
I think what Johnny is talking about is far more along the lines of the social determinants of crime. If you look at the two recent talks I posted in the TED thread, they both address that issue, one in far more depth than the other. You don't just take one step back and say "OK, this person committed a crime because they were messed up in the head, so we have to fix people who are messed up in the head". You have to keep asking for more reasons and going deeper. Why were they messed up in the head? Neglectful and abusive parents. Why were the parents neglectful and abusive? They were messed up in the head too. What is the underlying factor that connects so many people being messed up in the head? Economic inequality... and so on.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 09:24:02 PM
but how would one go on about in delivering justice to the employers that give shitty salaries, or the State's worker policy, or the 1st world countries that provoke this? I don't know how, but all of them have guilt.
Pretty sure that we'd be building a worse monster by attaching them to the crime.
The problem has to be solved, but attaching miserly employers to a murder case isn't going to do the job. Especially if said gunman never worked for them. And good luck holding El Norte responsible. We can't take responsibility for the shit we directly do.
Your question does, however, give a pretty good reason why we have the "justice" system we have.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:28:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.
I think what Johnny is talking about is far more along the lines of the social determinants of crime. If you look at the two recent talks I posted in the TED thread, they both address that issue, one in far more depth than the other. You don't just take one step back and say "OK, this person committed a crime because they were messed up in the head, so we have to fix people who are messed up in the head". You have to keep asking for more reasons and going deeper. Why were they messed up in the head? Neglectful and abusive parents. Why were the parents neglectful and abusive? They were messed up in the head too. What is the underlying factor that connects so many people being messed up in the head? Economic inequality... and so on.
Well, here's the root of the problem: The people that write the laws that define the system (and the funding) have no interest in addressing economic inequality. And the American people don't want to hear about it, because then THEY are complicit.
So while you and Johnny are correct, IMO, the difficult part isn't scoping the problem, it's selling the solution to a complacent "it hasn't happened to me yet" public, and then ramming it down the festering pie-holes of corrupt fixers and whores in expensive suits.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?
The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?
The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.
I was specifically responding to his comment about holding people accountable, in that post. His follow up argument (the cartel member example) seems to be saying the same thing.
I asked for clarification, but he seems to have missed that post.
So I am responding to the two different arguments; yours, and what I perceive his to be.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:31:31 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:28:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.
I think what Johnny is talking about is far more along the lines of the social determinants of crime. If you look at the two recent talks I posted in the TED thread, they both address that issue, one in far more depth than the other. You don't just take one step back and say "OK, this person committed a crime because they were messed up in the head, so we have to fix people who are messed up in the head". You have to keep asking for more reasons and going deeper. Why were they messed up in the head? Neglectful and abusive parents. Why were the parents neglectful and abusive? They were messed up in the head too. What is the underlying factor that connects so many people being messed up in the head? Economic inequality... and so on.
Well, here's the root of the problem: The people that write the laws that define the system (and the funding) have no interest in addressing economic inequality. And the American people don't want to hear about it, because then THEY are complicit.
So while you and Johnny are correct, IMO, the difficult part isn't scoping the problem, it's selling the solution to a complacent "it hasn't happened to me yet" public, and then ramming it down the festering pie-holes of corrupt fixers and whores in expensive suits.
Yes, that IS the difficult part, which is exactly why we need articles like the one in Rolling Stone, to make people talk about this shit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?
The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.
I was specifically responding to his comment about holding people accountable, in that post. His follow up argument (the cartel member example) seems to be saying the same thing.
I asked for clarification, but he seems to have missed that post.
So I am responding to the two different arguments; yours, and what I perceive his to be.
Ah, OK.
I don't typically read "accountability" and "punishment" as being the same, though.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:38:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:31:31 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:28:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.
I think what Johnny is talking about is far more along the lines of the social determinants of crime. If you look at the two recent talks I posted in the TED thread, they both address that issue, one in far more depth than the other. You don't just take one step back and say "OK, this person committed a crime because they were messed up in the head, so we have to fix people who are messed up in the head". You have to keep asking for more reasons and going deeper. Why were they messed up in the head? Neglectful and abusive parents. Why were the parents neglectful and abusive? They were messed up in the head too. What is the underlying factor that connects so many people being messed up in the head? Economic inequality... and so on.
Well, here's the root of the problem: The people that write the laws that define the system (and the funding) have no interest in addressing economic inequality. And the American people don't want to hear about it, because then THEY are complicit.
So while you and Johnny are correct, IMO, the difficult part isn't scoping the problem, it's selling the solution to a complacent "it hasn't happened to me yet" public, and then ramming it down the festering pie-holes of corrupt fixers and whores in expensive suits.
Yes, that IS the difficult part, which is exactly why we need articles like the one in Rolling Stone, to make people talk about this shit.
Yep. And people who don't actually want things fixed (ie, the two groups I mentioned) instead act all offended and butthurt over his "new rockstar image", for the express purpose of stopping that dialogue from occurring.
A lot of the focus in the Rolling Stone article was how Dzhokar's inner most thoughts prior to the bombing are inaccessible. An FBI agent who comments on it says that little things like his 9/11 hijacker sympathy is a crack in the facade, and while that might be true is an unreliable way of preventing this kind of thing from happening.
What is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere? Of the Tzarnaev brothers, one of was on food stamps and the other was tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt to a school he chose because of its affordability. Their parents had already removed themselves from the country for financial reasons.
Both brothers also had a strong sense of Chechen pride, Tamerlan being desperate to belong to something and Dzhokar identifying with a culture that, from what I read, he had very few ties to.
Those are the factors that need to be looked at, more than anything.
ETA - I started writing this like 10 posts and a page ago and now a lot of this has already been brought up. I fucking hate posting from work for that reason. It's frustrating to stay on top of a conversation that's moving faster than I can keep up.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:39:11 PM
Ah, OK.
I don't typically read "accountability" and "punishment" as being the same, though.
I've been working for corporate whores for too long, I think. :horrormirth:
In our company's terms, "determine accountability" = "someone's head on a plate last Tuesday, please".
And my company isn't even one of the really bad ones.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.
surely some people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of being arrested
I'm not saying it's a good system, but that is the theory - to make people associate the crime with the punishment
this is where the "disciplined society" comes from. It's not about reforming the individual who broke the law, it's about reforming the crowd, the people who have not committed any crimes, and deter them from going down that road.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PM
Both brothers also had a strong sense of Chechen pride, Tamerlan being desperate to belong to something and Dzhokar identifying with a culture that, from what I read, he had very few ties to.
Those are the factors that need to be looked at, more than anything.
Something about Irish Americans getting worked up over the IRA, drunkenly bawling Irish ballads, despite knowing nothing about the situation in Ireland, or its actual history.
Hmm.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:43:07 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PM
Both brothers also had a strong sense of Chechen pride, Tamerlan being desperate to belong to something and Dzhokar identifying with a culture that, from what I read, he had very few ties to.
Those are the factors that need to be looked at, more than anything.
Something about Irish Americans getting worked up over the IRA, drunkenly bawling Irish ballads, despite knowing nothing about the situation in Ireland, or its actual history.
Hmm.
Right. Again, scatterbrained at work. That sentence isn't meant to imply that Chechen pride was the problem, but that a lack of American cultural identity is.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 22, 2013, 09:42:42 PM
this is where the "disciplined society" comes from. It's not about reforming the individual who broke the law, it's about reforming the crowd, the people who have not committed any crimes, and deter them from going down that road.
The only program that even attempted that was "Scared Straight", and it largely only dealt with drug crimes, and it also didn't deal at all with root causes.
In addition, the felony court system is a faceless monolith. You hear about whatever case the media wants to cover, but never the literally MILLIONS of cases that happen off camera...There's just enough information to instill low grade fear of the courts rather than the crime, since your actual guilt has nothing to do with your fate, and anyone smart enough to question the system at all is smart enough to see THAT.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:43:07 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PM
Both brothers also had a strong sense of Chechen pride, Tamerlan being desperate to belong to something and Dzhokar identifying with a culture that, from what I read, he had very few ties to.
Those are the factors that need to be looked at, more than anything.
Something about Irish Americans getting worked up over the IRA, drunkenly bawling Irish ballads, despite knowing nothing about the situation in Ireland, or its actual history.
Hmm.
Sounds like it's at least somewhat on the mark, speaking from a personal perspective.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 22, 2013, 09:42:42 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.
surely some people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of being arrested
I'm not saying it's a good system, but that is the theory - to make people associate the crime with the punishment
this is where the "disciplined society" comes from. It's not about reforming the individual who broke the law, it's about reforming the crowd, the people who have not committed any crimes, and deter them from going down that road.
Most people do not commit crimes because they are trained to no commit crimes. Fear of punishment has little if anything to do with it.
Compare murder rates in states that have the death penalty with those that don't.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?
The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.
I was specifically responding to his comment about holding people accountable, in that post. His follow up argument (the cartel member example) seems to be saying the same thing.
I asked for clarification, but he seems to have missed that post.
So I am responding to the two different arguments; yours, and what I perceive his to be.
Well, sorry for not directly quoting, but, I thought the Cartel example was a good clarification, but no, parents should not be convicted for things their child did... either the child didn't know to a full extent their crime and are just partially accountable (economical restoration if it was damaged goods, but not jail time), or they did know what they were doing, so accountability rests upon themselves.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Somewhat like Marx? An anti-bourgeois member of the bourgeoisie?
Quote from: Cramulus on July 22, 2013, 09:42:42 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.
surely some people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of being arrested
I'm not saying it's a good system, but that is the theory - to make people associate the crime with the punishment
this is where the "disciplined society" comes from. It's not about reforming the individual who broke the law, it's about reforming the crowd, the people who have not committed any crimes, and deter them from going down that road.
Perhaps there are some people who don't commit some crimes because they're afraid of being caught and punished, but that would be a tiny minority. Most people don't commit major crimes simply because they view them as wrong, and because they have no motivating factors pushing them to commit them. As for minor, victimless crimes... we all commit them, all the time. Jaywalking, speeding, smoking pot, what have you. Walking in the street. We may not do them when we think an authority figure is watching, but the simple fact that some people do get caught and punished isn't a deterrent for most people.
All you have to do is look at the US crime and imprisonment rates and it is astonishingly clear that punishment is doing nothing to deter crime.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:54:54 PM
That's going near-sighted. What made them "bad parents" in the first place?
Not sure I understand what you're getting at, here. Can you elaborate, please?
OH, here it is, sorry again, I'm not accustomed to fast moving threads, serves me well for not directly quoting in the first place, so here's a reconstruction
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:50:39 PM
Not sure I can agree with that.
The more I think about it, the more I don't like it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:54:54 PM
That's going near-sighted. What made them "bad parents" in the first place?
Not sure I understand what you're getting at, here. Can you elaborate, please?
"Bad parenting" is the war-cry of so many conservatives over basicly any issue alongside with the "decay of morals and decency", so that's a semantic problem from the start, thats why i said <<"bad parenting">> rather than <<bad parenting>>, the quotation marks were used to denote not something i meant myself, but a reiteration of the conservative discourse.
If a child steals bread because he's hungry, it could be because it's parents are poor (which to conservatives is "bad parenting"), but why are its parents poor? Then we are back to macro-economics.
Does this clear it all up?
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 22, 2013, 09:54:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Somewhat like Marx? An anti-bourgeois member of the bourgeoisie?
Not necessarily. Most Islamic extremists have rather right wing views on economics and similar, which is why we have cosied up with them historically and unleashed them against the "godless atheists".
Poverty can form a macro-economic structural condition wherein political violence becomes more likely, and elements of ideologically charged members of the educated middle classes take the form of a terrorist vanguard. And that's also oversimplifying matters.
This happened in Italy in the 60s, when University students were unable to get jobs which allowed them to take part in the (highly selective) Italian economic boom, and thus working in the factories with traditional working class groups.
Equally, Al-Qaeda's average members, back when it was a cohesive organisation, were almost uniformally university educated, in the hard sciences or engineering, of fairly prosperous means by the average of their country of origin, and had spent extensive time abroad.
Indeed, the "terrorist with an engineering degree" trope exists for a reason.
Again, with the Palestinian groups, Fatah was at it's core an intellectual, middle class cadre, and Hamas has a similar background. The Shining Path in Peru are mostly university graduates in a country where many do not receive higher education. And so on and so forth, Baader-Meinhof, the original IRA, various anarchist groups etc.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Right, in this case the root cause seems to lie in social alienation.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on July 22, 2013, 09:54:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Somewhat like Marx? An anti-bourgeois member of the bourgeoisie?
Not necessarily. Most Islamic extremists have rather right wing views on economics and similar, which is why we have cosied up with them historically and unleashed them against the "godless atheists".
Poverty can form a macro-economic structural condition wherein political violence becomes more likely, and elements of ideologically charged members of the educated middle classes take the form of a terrorist vanguard. And that's also oversimplifying matters.
This happened in Italy in the 60s, when University students were unable to get jobs which allowed them to take part in the (highly selective) Italian economic boom, and thus working in the factories with traditional working class groups.
Equally, Al-Qaeda's average members, back when it was a cohesive organisation, were almost uniformally university educated, in the hard sciences or engineering, of fairly prosperous means by the average of their country of origin, and had spent extensive time abroad.
Indeed, the "terrorist with an engineering degree" trope exists for a reason.
Again, with the Palestinian groups, Fatah was at it's core an intellectual, middle class cadre, and Hamas has a similar background. The Shining Path in Peru are mostly university graduates in a country where many do not receive higher education. And so on and so forth, Baader-Meinhof, the original IRA, various anarchist groups etc.
Makes sense. With the example of the original IRA, I seem to remember that a good portion of the republican thinkers were educated Protestants. Wolfetone and Parnell come to mind.
Yes, and I believe they had certain Marxist sympathies, also.
Interestingly, the Provisional IRA probably has a very good claim to being a working class terrorist organization, though it's hard to say exactly how the economic condition of Northern Ireland may have impacted on this, being as it was. Still, far more of the leaders there, while very clever men, were of more modest means and backgrounds than most.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Right, in this case the root cause seems to lie in social alienation.
Yes, for sure. Social alienation, possibly exploited for reasons discussed in the previous thread.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Right, in this case the root cause seems to lie in social alienation.
That's something I suspect society will have distinct difficulty facing. Society can't take the blame so the Actor must be at fault and punished. Society is Us and we are good. He is Bad and must be shown to be such. He can't be Part of Us or that might mean that We too could be Bad.
The script's pretty much set from there.
The list with this factor is getting quite long, and incidents are racking up quite quickly.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 10:11:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Right, in this case the root cause seems to lie in social alienation.
Yes, for sure. Social alienation, possibly exploited for reasons discussed in the previous thread.
Yep. Very possibly.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 10:13:49 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PMWhat is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere?
Yes and no. There's a correlation of sorts, but it's not as clear cut as that. Many terrorists are quite middle class in their socio-economic status, when you investigate.
Right, in this case the root cause seems to lie in social alienation.
That's something I suspect society will have distinct difficulty facing. Society can't take the blame so the Actor must be at fault and punished. Society is Us and we are good. He is Bad and must be shown to be such. He can't be Part of Us or that might mean that We too could be Bad.
The script's pretty much set from there.
The list with this factor is getting quite long, and incidents are racking up quite quickly.
And also yep, on the head.
It's interesting, because we were talking about this a bit over a year ago, I think... that's how the Common Walls project got started. All this othering and alienation is having a pretty significant impact on the American psyche.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:46:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:43:07 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PM
Both brothers also had a strong sense of Chechen pride, Tamerlan being desperate to belong to something and Dzhokar identifying with a culture that, from what I read, he had very few ties to.
Those are the factors that need to be looked at, more than anything.
Something about Irish Americans getting worked up over the IRA, drunkenly bawling Irish ballads, despite knowing nothing about the situation in Ireland, or its actual history.
Hmm.
Right. Again, scatterbrained at work. That sentence isn't meant to imply that Chechen pride was the problem, but that a lack of American cultural identity is.
<insert group> pride is by definition a corrosive thing. It is Othering made not just acceptable but almost MANDATORY.
You could see that here on PD, when feminist or gay or transexual pride turned to sneering comments about "CISHET man tears".
You can see it everywhere.
I don't mean we shouldn't encourage differences, I mean "pride" quickly turns into "us vs those bastards".
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?
Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?
The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.
I was specifically responding to his comment about holding people accountable, in that post. His follow up argument (the cartel member example) seems to be saying the same thing.
I asked for clarification, but he seems to have missed that post.
So I am responding to the two different arguments; yours, and what I perceive his to be.
Well, sorry for not directly quoting, but, I thought the Cartel example was a good clarification, but no, parents should not be convicted for things their child did... either the child didn't know to a full extent their crime and are just partially accountable (economical restoration if it was damaged goods, but not jail time), or they did know what they were doing, so accountability rests upon themselves.
Oh, okay. I misunderstood, then.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:46:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2013, 09:43:07 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 22, 2013, 09:39:51 PM
Both brothers also had a strong sense of Chechen pride, Tamerlan being desperate to belong to something and Dzhokar identifying with a culture that, from what I read, he had very few ties to.
Those are the factors that need to be looked at, more than anything.
Something about Irish Americans getting worked up over the IRA, drunkenly bawling Irish ballads, despite knowing nothing about the situation in Ireland, or its actual history.
Hmm.
Right. Again, scatterbrained at work. That sentence isn't meant to imply that Chechen pride was the problem, but that a lack of American cultural identity is.
<insert group> pride is by definition a corrosive thing. It is Othering made not just acceptable but almost MANDATORY.
You could see that here on PD, when feminist or gay or transexual pride turned to sneering comments about "CISHET man tears".
You can see it everywhere.
I don't mean we shouldn't encourage differences, I mean "pride" quickly turns into "us vs those bastards".
It's way too easy. And recognizing that in myself is part of what gave me the current (and admittedly absolute) respect that I have for human life.
Regarding regular criminals...I read this a while back, and I find it interesting, if not...well, conclusive.
The vast majority of abused kids do not grow up to be criminals...
http://www.primal-page.com/stein.htm
QuoteMaltreated children are characteristically frozen in the traumatic moment, feeling like someone, but not really themselves, and with no real demarcation among past, present, and future. Devoid of historical perspective, absent the learned link between cause and effect, the abused child grown up proceeds without premeditation. Indeed, only the bad act itself announces the intention to commit it.
In one research study I did (Stein, 2007) with 65 offenders, the vast majority of the men, roughly 80% I would say, were horrifically abused in childhood: Broken bones, loss of consciousness, attempts on their lives by parents or parental surrogates. About a third of those I interviewed were sexually abused, often by more than one caretaker. This is a relatively common historical portrait of serious offenders.
Of the 65, the eleven most pathologically dissociated offenders had committed the most vicious crimes: kidnapping, attempted matricide, murder, arson, serial rape, aggravated assault, and armed robbery. Five of these men professed amnesia for their offenses, although they did not deny committing them. This is actually low as a national average. Research (Partwatiker, Holcomb, & Menninger, 1985; Taylor & Koppelman, 1984; Bradford & Smith, 1979) indicates that as many as a third of violent offenders may not remember committing their crimes; some studies have found that percentage of offenders claiming amnesia for their acts climbs as high as 50% when the crime is homicide (O'Connell,1960).
But even when dissociation is not so complete as to induce amnesia, it is still severs memory in notable ways. For example, despite the destruction they have wrought, almost all the felons I have worked with describe themselves as peaceful; their violent selves feel like what psychoanalyst Harry Stack Sullivan (1956) called the "not me" part of personality:
The thing is?
I don't think terrorists fall into the above, at all.
Criminals and terrorists are made differently.
...Somehow the terrorists come to see what they are doing as morally righteous...we need to find out more about that.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 10:10:54 PM
Interestingly, the Provisional IRA probably has a very good claim to being a working class terrorist organization, though it's hard to say exactly how the economic condition of Northern Ireland may have impacted on this, being as it was. Still, far more of the leaders there, while very clever men, were of more modest means and backgrounds than most.
It always struck me that the IRA turned into an organised crime syndicate pretty quickly. Is this a fair assessment? If so, it might explain the class thing?
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 23, 2013, 07:24:29 AM
Regarding regular criminals...I read this a while back, and I find it interesting, if not...well, conclusive.
The vast majority of abused kids do not grow up to be criminals...
http://www.primal-page.com/stein.htm
QuoteMaltreated children are characteristically frozen in the traumatic moment, feeling like someone, but not really themselves, and with no real demarcation among past, present, and future. Devoid of historical perspective, absent the learned link between cause and effect, the abused child grown up proceeds without premeditation. Indeed, only the bad act itself announces the intention to commit it.
In one research study I did (Stein, 2007) with 65 offenders, the vast majority of the men, roughly 80% I would say, were horrifically abused in childhood: Broken bones, loss of consciousness, attempts on their lives by parents or parental surrogates. About a third of those I interviewed were sexually abused, often by more than one caretaker. This is a relatively common historical portrait of serious offenders.
Of the 65, the eleven most pathologically dissociated offenders had committed the most vicious crimes: kidnapping, attempted matricide, murder, arson, serial rape, aggravated assault, and armed robbery. Five of these men professed amnesia for their offenses, although they did not deny committing them. This is actually low as a national average. Research (Partwatiker, Holcomb, & Menninger, 1985; Taylor & Koppelman, 1984; Bradford & Smith, 1979) indicates that as many as a third of violent offenders may not remember committing their crimes; some studies have found that percentage of offenders claiming amnesia for their acts climbs as high as 50% when the crime is homicide (O'Connell,1960).
But even when dissociation is not so complete as to induce amnesia, it is still severs memory in notable ways. For example, despite the destruction they have wrought, almost all the felons I have worked with describe themselves as peaceful; their violent selves feel like what psychoanalyst Harry Stack Sullivan (1956) called the "not me" part of personality:
The thing is?
I don't think terrorists fall into the above, at all.
Criminals and terrorists are made differently.
...Somehow the terrorists come to see what they are doing as morally righteous...we need to find out more about that.
Yeah, that's what Cain and I were talking about when we were saying how with terrorists like the Tsarnaev brothers the key seems to be social alienation, not disenfranchisement like it is with common types of crime.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0801/Why-Rolling-Stone-boycott-backfired-as-Tsarnaev-cover-flies-off-shelves
People talking about the boycott actually increased interest in the issue. CONGRATULATIONS.
QuoteOnly 5 percent of Rolling Stone's [normal] circulation comes from single-copy sales, but the surge in newsstand sales for the August issue, to north of 13,000, is a lesson on how media works in today's communication-saturated environment. The lesson, in short, is that publicity of almost any kind pays.
"Media boycotts most often play into the hands of those who are being targeted," says Ben Bogardus, chairman of the journalism department at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut. If the August issue had simply appeared without comment, it would not have garnered such numbers, he adds.
Beyond that, the controversy revives the magazine's credibility, especially in the eyes of its targeted demographic: young people, says Mr. Bogardus.
"You have a group that sees itself as anti-establishment anyway, and now here is an issue that the Establishment is boycotting. This says to that desired demographic, 'This is really something you should read,' " he says, noting that "you could not pay for" this kind of message-specific advertising.
Quote from: Telarus on August 02, 2013, 01:32:02 AM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0801/Why-Rolling-Stone-boycott-backfired-as-Tsarnaev-cover-flies-off-shelves
People talking about the boycott actually increased interest in the issue. CONGRATULATIONS.
QuoteOnly 5 percent of Rolling Stone's [normal] circulation comes from single-copy sales, but the surge in newsstand sales for the August issue, to north of 13,000, is a lesson on how media works in today's communication-saturated environment. The lesson, in short, is that publicity of almost any kind pays.
"Media boycotts most often play into the hands of those who are being targeted," says Ben Bogardus, chairman of the journalism department at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut. If the August issue had simply appeared without comment, it would not have garnered such numbers, he adds.
Beyond that, the controversy revives the magazine's credibility, especially in the eyes of its targeted demographic: young people, says Mr. Bogardus.
"You have a group that sees itself as anti-establishment anyway, and now here is an issue that the Establishment is boycotting. This says to that desired demographic, 'This is really something you should read,' " he says, noting that "you could not pay for" this kind of message-specific advertising.
:lulz:
And this is good. We need, as a society, to take more than a knee-jerk look at how terrorists come about.
Quote from: Telarus on August 02, 2013, 01:32:02 AM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0801/Why-Rolling-Stone-boycott-backfired-as-Tsarnaev-cover-flies-off-shelves
"You have a group that sees itself as anti-establishment anyway, and now here is an issue that the Establishment is boycotting. This says to that desired demographic, 'This is really something you should read TRY,' " he says, noting that "you could not pay for" this kind of message-specific advertising.
[/quote]
With just that one minor alteration that starts to look suspiciously like a mechanism we have seen before . . . now where was it ?
Quote from: MMIX on August 02, 2013, 01:41:52 AM
Quote from: Telarus on August 02, 2013, 01:32:02 AM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0801/Why-Rolling-Stone-boycott-backfired-as-Tsarnaev-cover-flies-off-shelves
"You have a group that sees itself as anti-establishment anyway, and now here is an issue that the Establishment is boycotting. This says to that desired demographic, 'This is really something you should read TRY,' " he says, noting that "you could not pay for" this kind of message-specific advertising.
With just that one minor alteration that starts to look suspiciously like a mechanism we have seen before . . . now where was it ?
[/quote]
:ohnotache:
Yeah, they created controversy to move units, which would have happened with oue without a boycott. This was the whole plan. Stir shit up and rake in the dough.
CENSOR THE EXPLORATION OF BIOGRAPHY AND AGRAVATING CONTEXT AND ACTORS, OR THE CHILDURUN WILL IDEALIZE THEM
/
/
/
:genius:
NEVER MIND LEARNING IMPORTANT THINGS, THERE ARE PEOPLES' FEELINGS AT STAKE HERE!
\
:lord:
THIS IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS GIVING TERRORISTS A BEARD-JOB!
\
:fishhook: