Explosion in Boston?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Why you hate rebels Ween? Bad American. :nono

Public enemy were violent radicals according to some, punk when it started was going to destroy civilization, death metal, elvis presley all dangerous at there time........now we got lady gaga and justin bieber we got 12 year old girls being the group everybody wants to appeal to, and the rebels are long gone, you got a society that bases everything on looks and not alot else .....so when this kid looking like a cross between a young bob dylan and jim morrison turns up doing his rebel with a cause routine........what you think will happen?.....guy will be on t-shirts in 10 years, and thats capitalism and thats america baby!

...none of whom were terrorists (because that's socialism, baby).
 
I love rebels.....

james-dean-cause-front.jpg
 
James dean was acting ,the most deadly act of terrorism is inspiration and it comes from many different areas inspiration can lead to revolution and revolution can lead to change, and the real revolutionaries become immortal and there inspiration can last as long as peoples memories and go beyond generations and borders......who says they have to carry a gun, john lennon, bob dylan and countless others were treated and investigated by the so called powers to be of being dangerous, as for t shirts che guvera must be rolling in his jungle grave somewhere, and everybody wearing his t shirt dont hate americans they hate a certain type of american and everybody knows the type and its pretty universal.
 
you got a society that bases everything on looks and not alot else ...... and thats capitalism and thats america baby!


surfin isn't all wrong. This is society’s fault as much as it is Rolling Stone's. It's naive to pretend that there is such thing as agenda-less media. All media is a business and all of it is a form of entertainment. Obviously Rolling Stone is out to sell copies and they know exactly what they're doing with this. As controversial as the cover is, there will be way more people interested in picking up a copy then boycotting it, regardless of their feelings toward the choice of picture (for or against).

Natural Born Killers (one of my favorite movies of all time) is a parody of this exact situation. The message NBK sends is the media circus exists only because, and is fueled by, society's addiction to the "train wreck". We need to be flooded by play by play, not a beat skipped, graphic media coverage of all the details of horrific and tragic events. I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that it's a pretty twisted aspect of society’s nature. I'm not saying that I'm not guilty either; I'm as much a product of society as everyone else.

When I saw the RS cover I couldn't believe it. That photo completely sends the wrong message. It glorifies, celebritizes, and makes a sex symbol out of a twisted idealist and murderer. Immediately I associated it with images from NBK.












Those type of images from the flick were always really amusing to me, and I like the message they send as symbolisms in part of a parody of this matter. But to see it realized on the cover of RS was really disturbing to me.

You can say that the picture sends messages like, "the enemy looks just like you" , "it could be the boy next store" and all that kind of stuff. I agree that those are important points to convey, but they are way more tastefully done in written word as part of the article itself. Using that picture to convey these ideas is tasteless, insensitive and puts a whole different spin on the matter. I don't disagree with some of the messages the picture sends, I disagree on the delivery and approach.
 
You can say that the picture sends messages like, "the enemy looks just like you" , "it could be the boy next store" and all that kind of stuff. I agree that those are important points to convey, but they are way more tastefully done in written word as part of the article itself. Using that picture to convey these ideas is tasteless, insensitive and puts a whole different spin on the matter. I don't disagree with some of the messages the picture sends, I disagree on the delivery and approach.

Well said. I'm still making up my mind about how I feel about the cover tbh.
 
Few posts deleted.
Lets refrain from labelling an entire religion or nations of people using some quite radical statements shall we please.
Thanks.
x :peace
 
Last edited:
Well, it certainly gave them some publicity they haven't had in years. On one hand we want to punish the press for being provocative(offensive) but on the other we want them to be free. Let's face it, we have no stomach for debate. We're too far gone.
 
I still think it's incredibly insensitive!

My view on this will never change. I still see the cover as glorification and rewarding a killer scum bag!
 
Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

This is so pushing the boundaries just for the sake of being outrageous it is borderline a 'Sugar Ape' article from Nathan Barley.

Morons.
 
Isn't more upsetting that it labels him as a bomber before the trial, how is the guy going to get a fair trial if his face is all over the country with "the bomber" under it. Surely at this stage he's the accused and not the guy that did it
 
Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

This is so pushing the boundaries just for the sake of being outrageous it is borderline a 'Sugar Ape' article from Nathan Barley.

Morons.


Bingo. Having freedom is one thing but what you do with it is another.

There are a lot of meaningful messages behind this picture but they are far outweighed by the negative ones. Again, I feel that anything positive or noteworthy that this photo says was better off written in the article.

RS knew the controversy this would cause and they knew exactly what they were doing. They did roll the dice though. If the public REALLY took offence to this and made a stink about it then it would've blown up in their face.... and then we would have gotten an apology which of course makes everything better :rolleyes2

Media.



[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M9rssz6tIE[/ame]
 
Well, it certainly gave them some publicity they haven't had in years. On one hand we want to punish the press for being provocative(offensive) but on the other we want them to be free. Let's face it, we have no stomach for debate. We're too far gone.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. The majority seem to just want their own opinions reflected back to them and this controversy seems to align with that.


I still think it's incredibly insensitive!

My view on this will never change. I still see the cover as glorification and rewarding a killer scum bag!
Don't see how it glorifies him at all. To me he looks like a psycho. Maybe I'm projecting because I know what he's done, but I think either way it's effective.


Could someone please tell me what the article actually talks about?
Think the sub-header says it all: How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster.

Doesn't sound too sympathetic. If it's like any other marquee RS article I've ever read, it'll be well written and insightful. Not sure if I'll bother, myself, because I don't know how much interest I actually have in understanding why this guy cracked.
 
Back
Top