What's wrong with the idiots in Boston getting mad at the Rolling Stone cover?
 

Let me start by saying that I am from Boston. I was born in Boston at Brigham and Women's hospital and I spent the first 18 years of my life 15 minutes down the highway in Wellesley, MA.

I am NOT saying that people in Boston are idiots. I AM saying that people in Boston who are pissed off about the magazine cover ARE idiots.

What the HELL is wrong with these people? I heard even the Boston MAYOR wrote a letter of complaint or something about the bomber being on the cover of Rolling Stone?

These idiots are not just figuratively judging a book by its cover, they are also LITERALLY judging a book (or in this case a magazine) by its cover! Isn't "Don't judge a book by its cover" like the first thing we're all taught as fucking toddlers?
These people got pissed before they (or anyone else) had even read the article! I hate people like that!

If you DO read the article it is CLEAR the magazine is NOT making him out to be a "Rock Star" at ALL!

It's called being still sensitive about something that happened less than 3 1/2 months ago, you retarded cunt :2 cents:

What? "Retarded Cunt"? Why was that needed?

Oh, right, you are a fucking keyboard warrior. In real life you are a pathetic loser.

If your loved ones were killed or had their limbs blown off by a terrorist bomber...would you want that prick's face staring out from the cover of an influential mag in every store across the nation?

As Harmon said - it's called sensitivity. I agree with those "idiots" in Boston who think it's sad and pathetic his face is on Rolling Stone.

Actually I DID have loved ones get fucked up in the blasts. As I said, I am from Boston. I have literally hundreds of friends and family living in Boston. And no I have NO problem with that prick's face being on Rolling Stone.

If the article INSIDE Rolling Stone praised him or idolized him in any way, yes I would be extremely pissed.

Would you be pissed if that same picture was on the cover of Time Magazine? Or NY Times? Hell, Bin Laden was on the cover of Time wasn't he?

What is your real issue here? Are you saying that Rolling Stone isn't allowed to evolve as a publication? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

My issue is the media giving exposure to those who do heinous things to other people. I don't call plastering a terrorist's face on the front cover of Rolling Stone - "evolution of a publication".

I call it further exploitation of a senseless tragedy in the pursuit of magazine sales.

1. Have you READ the Rolling Stone article?
2. Would you be pissed if the same picture were on the cover of Time?

1. No
2. Yes

1. Read it, please, and report back here.
2. WHY?

#2.? = idiots

I have no desire to read it - for the reasons stated above.

:(
:Oh crap
:pimp

bump for the answer

So you are fine being the type of person who judges a book by its cover?

This particular book...this particular cover.

Yes.

Well then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Safe to say.

My problem is - what about those borderline psycho nutjobs wandering around out there...seeing this bomber's face on the cover of Rolling Stone and thinking, "Damn...if I blew the shit out of a bunch of random people...I could be famous just like that."

And then there's the sensitivity of people's emotions surrounding an event that happened so recently. Now the people of Boston have the perpetrator's face staring back at them, taunting them from every newsstand...reminding them of the horror - keeping fresh emotional wounds open.

The media exploits, sensationalizes and capitalizes on the evil being done on a daily basis. It doesn't matter what the story within the pages of Rolling Stone says - the majority of people will only see the cover on the newsrack without buying the issue. They will form their opinions based on the cover's exploitation.

Do you think it was wrong of Time Magazine to put Bin Laden on the cover???

Based on what I said...what do you think?

I think that the answer is you DO think it was wrong of Time Magazine to put Bin Laden on the cover.

Am I correct?

Shut the fuck up you faggot twat. Go kill yourself.

Those are not productive comments.

so you're mad that people got mad about something you aren't mad about.

got it.

Nice edit, faggot :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

they want to sell magazines.
so like the news they use stuff like the video here

I am not really "MAD"

I just get very annoyed when people judge a book by its cover figuratively and literally.

The TV news covered this shit ad nauseum for weeks. It's not about sensitivity and it's not about exposure, because the television new media doesn't give a shit about either of those.

http://images.nationalgeographic.com...35_600x450.jpg

he was just a child

I love boston

Dayum dawg! He got no Skittles and shit!

Hahaha, who are you man? You make me laugh!:1orglaugh

For the past 46 years, the covers of Rolling Stone have depicted the great icons of popular culture, from John Lennon, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, and Madonna to Steve Martin, Uma Thurman, and Richard Nixon. Often it was an appearance on the cover that launched a performer’s legendary status in the first place. Having this kid on the cover was a slap in the face of the victims and the city of Boston whether they ripped him a new one in the article or not. That is why these "idiots" in Boston are mad.

You are being an idiot.

Nice comeback, what are you the McRib?

Yo! Nobody got time fo dat in Roxbury........Yeah!

Yes, I am the McRib.

Seriously dawg, take that shit down to Mattapan, kid!

you're a hypcrite, you start a thread judging others on what you read about them in the media.

that's judging a book by its cover.

fyi.

:)

That is RETARDED (I'm sorry to use that term derogatorily) logic.

ON THE COVER of the magazine printed in BOLD LETTERS:
The Bomber
How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster

Why the FUCK is Rolling Stone not allowed to evolve as a magazine and print SERIOUS fucking articles about REAL SHIT???
WHO CARES what the fuck "Rolling Stone" has 'stood for' in the fucking past?

QFT and increased size for emphasis and:
https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1115331

They're mad because the media as usual, gives the exposure to the bad guy.

So.... You want to become famous and get your face on the cover of one of the most popular magazines in the U.S.? Oh, just go kill a bunch of innocent people and you're set.

All too often the bad guys gets all the press, all the exposure. The bad guy is reported on, put in everyone's face, get's all the front page articles. The bad guy is everything in the media. There is a reason the majority of American's couldn't name one fucking victim or hero in any of these tragedies, however they could probably name every single person who committed the acts for every one.

Oh, and it doesn't matter what the context of the article or cover text is. His face is on the cover, period. If you're too dense to understand this, then hope is lost trying to explain it to you.

It was the SAME PICTURE the NYTimes used. Are you mad about the NYTimes too???

Yes. What don't you understand about my statement?

I am just confirming that YOU WERE PISSED THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES USED THIS PICTURE OF THE BOMBER.

I just want you to go on record confirming that's how you feel.

And if that IS how you feel, that's ridiculous and retarded (AGAIN, I'm sorry to use that word derogatorily).

lol fucking moron

I know you are, but what am I?


-Peewee H

Don't waste your time man. Best to just ignore anything this guy posts.

Why?
And who the heck are you DANK MAN?

ROFL, Yeah, cause the kids getting rich from the article eh? More famous ? NO