Post: #1

Post: #2

Where is the fail?

Post: #3

When was the last time there was a major buzz over a Rolling Stone cover?

Seems like a cover win to me.

Especially since we live in a day when print magazines are dying.

Post: #4

Rollingstone exploits tragedy and uses the heart-throb teen idol pic of this guy, reinforcing tweeny hamsterism to make profit.

Why did they not do this?

[img][/img]

Post: #5

Didn't he get dommed by his older brother?

Post: #6

I've been hearing about this controversy all day but I fail to see what the big deal about the cover is. What am I missing? They keep saying they're portraying him as a rock star but it just looks like an ordinary picture of a guy to me. Though one might question why a music magazine puts any terrorist on the cover in the first place when the focus should be music. But I see nothing glorifying him, especially when you read the huge block of text below his face.

Post: #7

I hate it how the subtitle implies it wasn't his responsibility at all. He was just "failed by" society, family, government and all the usual culprits.

Post: #8

(07-18-2013 03:15 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I hate it how the subtitle implies it wasn't his responsibility at all. He was just "failed by" society, family, government and all the usual culprits.

White, heteronormative patriarchy?

Post: #9

(07-18-2013 01:33 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  I've been hearing about this controversy all day but I fail to see what the big deal about the cover is. What am I missing? They keep saying they're portraying him as a rock star but it just looks like an ordinary picture of a guy to me. Though one might question why a music magazine puts any terrorist on the cover in the first place when the focus should be music. But I see nothing glorifying him, especially when you read the huge block of text below his face.

They picked the sexy/alpha picture of him. They could have picked something like this:


I'm betting the only reason they did an article about him is so they could put that picture on their cover and open their market up to all his hamster teeny-bopper crushes.

From my memory, they never put the other mass murderers are their cover..

Post: #10

^^ It may also be just to show the irony of how a totally normal looking and to some people good looking guy can be such a danger to society.

Post: #11

(07-18-2013 03:48 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^^ It may also be just to show the irony of how a totally normal looking and to some people good looking guy can be such a danger to society.

If it was the case that they were actually trying to show something true, they could have re-tilted this: "Why is this killer adored by American teenage girls?"

But, then they'd have to spit some manosphere talk and would get in a lot of trouble.

Rollingstone is a joke..

Post: #12

It's a got damn disgrace to put that punks picture on the cover of ANY magazine.Everybody knows his name meanwhile his victims lay in obscurity.That cover is in very bad taste.

Post: #13

(07-18-2013 03:15 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I hate it how the subtitle implies it wasn't his responsibility at all. He was just "failed by" society, family, government and all the usual culprits.

This is true, but the main objection I've seen is that Rolling Stone is selling him as a sex symbol with the particular picture they have put on the cover.

Post: #14

Of all the pictures of him that are out there, they chose the one most likely to moisten vaginas. In order to sell more magazines. Raising his status in the process.

That's why people are pissed off.

Post: #15

Looks like last month's picture with Bruno Mars.

Post: #16

Publicity stunt of a failed business model. Out of business in two years tops.

Post: #17

People should stop complaining and read the article. Wait, I forgot, most people are too lazy to slog through a 10,000 word article and would just rather take the easy way out and get outraged over the cover.

Post: #18

(07-18-2013 08:18 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  People should stop complaining and read the article. Wait, I forgot, most people are too lazy to slog through a 10,000 word article and would just rather take the easy way out and get outraged over the cover.

Sure, I'll fork over some money to get a copy of Rolling Stone so that I can read a story that I already mostly know and in the process reward the magazine for engaging in shit-stirring and provocation.

The magazine cover shows up in places like grocery stores and drugstores, places where people are walking around going about their day to day business. These people, who never had any interest in reading Rolling Stone to begin with, have even less desire to see Djoker's bedroom eyes gazing at them while they pick up their medications-- maybe the ones they're taking because they lost limbs in the attack. That's who is complaining. That, and fans of the magazine who might be interested in the article but STILL don't want Joker's dipshit stare gloating at them in the supermarket checkout aisle.

Post: #19

Clearly you didn't READ the article. The article probes further into his personal life than anything out there at the moment. Am I bad person for being curious as to how something so horrific manifests itself? Is Rolling Stone immoral because they chose to dig a little bit deeper into the narrative and use a cover that makes you stop and pause for a moment?

It was an excellent piece of longform journalism and took me about 45 minutes to read.

Post: #20

@Soup You made me spit out my coffee twice from laughing!! I used to subscribe to Rolling Stone but they are so far to the left I couldn't take it anymore.

It's a stupid cover because they are making the kid look like Jim Morrison, but then again they are getting insane traffic from it so who knows....

I'm assuming the magazine version will be out of business soon and rolling stone will go online like most other publications.

Post: #21

(07-18-2013 09:24 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  Clearly you didn't READ the article. The article probes further into his personal life than anything out there at the moment. Am I bad person for being curious as to how something so horrific manifests itself? Is Rolling Stone immoral because they chose to dig a little bit deeper into the narrative and use a cover that makes you stop and pause for a moment?

It was an excellent piece of longform journalism and took me about 45 minutes to read.

No. It is important to know how easily and steeply someone can fall into madness. What shouldn't be done is glamorizing it. A more appropriate picture would be him shackled up in an orange jump suit, not made up to be looking like a member of a boy band.

Post: #22

The article behind the cover is something that is thought provoking. What makes someone turn evil is a fascinating question. The way they went about it however probably wasn't as smart. I don't think anything regarding the print/magazine industry hasn't gotten any attention like this in I don't know how long.

Post: #23

(07-18-2013 08:18 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  People should stop complaining and read the article. Wait, I forgot, most people are too lazy to slog through a 10,000 word article and would just rather take the easy way out and get outraged over the cover.

Post: #24

I'm also taking issue with the 'xxx failed him' part.

The US military has failed me, do I get to blow them up?

Society has failed me, do I get to go on a shooting spree?

One time Burger King got my order wrong, should I jihad against burgers?

One time a woman flaked on me, I guess it's okay to go Bateman on then now.


This whole western phenomenon of removing your own accountability for your own actions is a cancer. A sickness that must be stopped. The bomber's life has been candy canes and unicorn farts compared to many of my friends, and they still conduct themselves with honor and integrity. Trying to romanticize this wretch and portray him in a tragic light to sell consumables to misguided hamster vaginas makes me physically sick. This is why the West is on an irreversible death spiral.

Post: #25

(07-18-2013 09:54 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  I'm also taking issue with the 'xxx failed him' part.

The US military has failed me, do I get to blow them up?

Society has failed me, do I get to go on a shooting spree?

One time Burger King got my order wrong, should I jihad against burgers?

One time a woman flaked on me, I guess it's okay to go Bateman on then now.


This whole western phenomenon of removing your own accountability for your own actions is a cancer. A sickness that must be stopped. The bomber's life has been candy canes and unicorn farts compared to many of my friends, and they still conduct themselves with honor and integrity. Trying to romanticize this wretch and portray him in a tragic light to sell consumables to misguided hamster vaginas makes me physically sick. This is why the West is on an irreversible death spiral.

It has to be stopped for sure. The first thing they should be telling kids in school is that the world owes you nothing. But with contests with no losers and participation awards it's the birth place for this type of shit IMO.