^^^Yup. There's your rockstar. With a red dot on his head.

TedSheckler;1475059 wrote:^^^Yup. There's your rockstar. With a red dot on his head.

If Rolling Stone was bound and determined to put this asshole on it's cover, I'd prefer it was one of these pics.

I assume people are upset because they think this glorifies the bomber. However a picture can't glorify anything. That can only be done by people looking at the picture. The small minority of people out there who allow their opinion to be swayed by this picture are too stupid to worry about in the first place.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1475256 wrote:I assume people are upset because they think this glorifies the bomber. However a picture can't glorify anything. That can only be done by people looking at the picture. The small minority of people out there who allow their opinion to be swayed by this picture are too stupid to worry about in the first place.

You do understand there are countless meetings about what picture a magazine puts on it's front cover right? You think they happened to pick one that looks similar to say Jim Morrison by accident? They picked it because they knew it would get people talking because no one gives a shit about Rolling Stone. The could have easily put his mug shot on there. A picture can most certainly glorify something. I also don't think the picture is meant to sway any opinion.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1475256 wrote:I assume people are upset because they think this glorifies the bomber. However a picture can't glorify anything. That can only be done by people looking at the picture. The small minority of people out there who allow their opinion to be swayed by this picture are too stupid to worry about in the first place.

You ever hear the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"? Of course a picture can glorify something, and it can denigrate something as well. Also, people can have an opinion about something without being swayed by it

Generally one doesnt glorify someone...while calling them a monster.

People actually read this rag?

vball10set;1475261 wrote:You ever hear the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"? Of course a picture can glorify something, and it can denigrate something as well. Also, people can have an opinion about something without being swayed by it

Sure you can have an opinion about it. I do - I don't think they did it for any other reason than to try and make their magazine a little more relevant for a few days. My point was that people who are angry about it should not worry about it changing the public's perception of this guy - dumbasses aside. So if it doesn't change the way anyone feels, is there really anything to be upset about when being upset gives the magazine the attention it was hoping for.