Newest pop-culture icon

Glaucus said:
@Fluffy,

The fact that he made the cover isn't the controversy in and of itself (at least from what I've seen online). It's the photo that they chose.
Click to expand...
I suspect that for most of his life he wasn't blowing people up. Still, he's just a human being, a kid next door, more or less, but for happenstance. Perhaps people in other countries who have lost family to US soldiers also object to the heroic portrayal of those guys one magazine covers.
 
metalman said:


Ted Bundy was a serial killer, who also had the lady killer looks too
Click to expand...

Ted Bundy was pretty interesting in his own way. Had a weird family, never let the neighbours see inside the house apparently (I hear from someone I know who went to school with his brother).

Manson, on the other hand, is TRULY interesting. Lived with the Beach Boys for a while, then got into Dyanetics. He was always on about the coming race war - and he never actually killed anyone.
 
metalman said:
So why did they give him the Rock Star sepia cover?
its credited as "Illustration by Sean McCabe"
the cover of Rolling Stone, is essentially an place for manufacturing pop-culture icons.
Click to expand...
The photo is the same as the NY Times. And if it's too pretty then good that's scary! People should realize that terrorists don't always have the googlie eyes of Manson or death stare of McVeigh or haircut of the Unibomber. That terrorists aren't easily identifiable by skin tone and off-set features.

Media outlets know controversial things sell. The right-wing media head's blowing up telling you sheeple what to hate (as one recent Redrumloa post so eloquently stated). The result is sales. Heck I never would have read the article if it weren't for your hatred. Thanks. I found the article gave good insight into his life without being over sympathetic or placing blame on any one particular thing. Some good investigative journalism that's become all too rare in our media.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I suspect that for most of his life he wasn't blowing people up. Still, he's just a human being, a kid next door, more or less, but for happenstance. Perhaps people in other countries who have lost family to US soldiers also object to the heroic portrayal of those guys one magazine covers.
Click to expand...

Booooooo.
 
OZZY On ROLLING STONE 'Bomber' Controversy: 'I Wouldn't Put Him On A Roll Of Toilet Paper'

BLACK SABBATH singer Ozzy Osbourne has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine which features a cover photo of the Boston Marathon bombing suspectDzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Critics have accused the magazine of glorifying Tsarnaev like a rock star by depicting him in the same light as a young Bob Dylan or Jim Morrison.

Speaking to Mistress Carrie of the Worcester/Boston, Massachusetts radio station WAAF on Wednesday (July 17), Ozzy said, "I'm sorry, I wouldn't put [Tsarnaev] on a roll of toilet paper, let alone the front cover of Rolling Stone."

Regarding the city of Boston, Ozzy said, "It will take more than two idiots to stop Boston. Boston is a strong town, man. It's my kind of town."
Click to expand...
 
Scarily many serial killers and the like have their fans.
 
Even though the picture is recycled and some (Metalman) think him dreamy, the article was a good read.
 
metalman said:
images
Click to expand...

Many people are uncomfortable when their monsters look like regular people. This is unfortunate and dangerous. Psychopaths are often mistaken for charismatics, for example. It subconsciously frightens people that the bad guys don't have "monster" stamped on them somehow visible, and because they don't understand that what is going on inside a person doesn't necessarily show in what they look like.

The psychopaths are aware of this and love to play on it. When someone exposes the lie the psychopaths come out to complain that someone is tainting the image of psycho as scary person with crazy eyes - because if people faced the complexities of motives and psychologies independent of faces then the gig would be up for a lot of successful psychos.

The scary thing is not "glorification" on a magazine cover; the scary thing is that you could see this guy in a cafe and think he was pretty straight up good guy and have no idea you had just been in line with a terrorist.

The other thing that frightens some and undermines the authority of others is that life is complicated. Black and white thinkers who offer black and white answers to their flock don't like real life and nor do their followers.

No-one here will be surprised that I am not offended by this cover. I find it ironic and thought provoking and interesting - and I admit I also find it amusing how it messes with the heads of the simple folk.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Many people are uncomfortable when their monsters look like regular people. This is unfortunate and dangerous. Psychopaths are often mistaken for charismatics, for example. It subconsciously frightens people that the bad guys don't have "monster" stamped on them somehow visible, and because they don't understand that what is going on inside a person doesn't necessarily show in what they look like.

The psychopaths are aware of this and love to play on it. When someone exposes the lie the psychopaths come out to complain that someone is tainting the image of psycho as scary person with crazy eyes - because if people faced the complexities of motives and psychologies independent of faces then the gig would be up for a lot of successful psychos.

The scary thing is not "glorification" on a magazine cover; the scary thing is that you could see this guy in a cafe and think he was pretty straight up good guy and have no idea you had just been in line with a terrorist.

The other thing that frightens some and undermines the authority of others is that life is complicated. Black and white thinkers who offer black and white answers to their flock don't like real life and nor do their followers.

No-one here will be surprised that I am not offended by this cover. I find it ironic and thought provoking and interesting - and I admit I also find it amusing how it messes with the heads of the simple folk.
Click to expand...

time named this monster, man of the year...

images


bush_time_manyear15.jpg
 
robert l. bentham said:
time named this monster, man of the year...

images
Click to expand...
Hundreds of thousands dead, 3 nations slipped economically, birthed - Homeland Security, Monitoring of US citizen communications. Never underestimate the evil done under the guise of the nationalistic 'doing good'.
 
Bush is evil, thank God for Obama. He really got the country on the right track and is doing wonders for race relations.

Obama 2016.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I suspect that for most of his life he wasn't blowing people up. Still, he's just a human being, a kid next door, more or less, but for happenstance.
Click to expand...
That much is true. He was just another American kid. And that in some ways makes him that much scarier. Maybe that's what Rolling Stone was going after; the kid next door who became a terrorist.

The controversy is that there are those who actually do seem to idolize him and much of the reason for that are his looks. It's no secret that good looks can get you far and this may be just a case of that. If he was ugly and scary looking his supporters would likely be far fewer. Building up his good looks is likely only to continue that.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
@redrumloa

Ozzy was right. It took more than a couple of bombers to bring Boston to a standstill. It took the DHS and the police to do that.
Click to expand...
You would have been happier if they got away? Happier still if they bombed a few more people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top