Everyone is up in arms over this Rolling Stone magazine that seems to be the cover art from an album by some exciting young folk musician. Especially up in Boston. What, did he say Aerosmith sucks or something? Let us read about this guy and his awesome brand of...oooooh, we get it.
I'm also going to respond to you, many hours after your original comment, because I've been away for a couple of days.
I&#039;ll start by agreeing with you that the cover pic was at least partly a cynical, publicity-driven decision. While I think that it&#039;s <i>possible</i> that it was partly motivated by a desire to demonstrate that personal appearance doesn&#039;t correlate to personal reality, I also believe that the known publicity value of controversy played a part in deciding to go with it.
Where I disagree with you is in the notion that RS should not have done this article at all, but should perhaps have done a story on the victims. This is, BTW, a proposition advanced by some of the tweeters Rebecca cited. You mention that you haven&#039;t read it, but that sources suggest that it offers nothing new.
I haven&#039;t read it either, and am unlikely to, but I&#039;m willing to stipulate that it doesn&#039;t contain any new insights. If we somehow managed to prohibit all writing that fails to offer novel perspectives on well-covered topics, we would put all print publications, and virtually all blogs, out of business.
If I am reading Rebecca correctly, she is criticizing the folks who are calling for censorship because they think the cover photo is too pretty. In this, I agree with her. If you are offended by the cover, don&#039;t buy the magazine. If you are <i>really</i> offended, there is certainly nothing illegal about trying to persuade others to not buy, or sell, the magazine; but you may be making a mountain out of a molehill. Unexpected side-effects are a bitch.
FWIW, for me the worst part of the cover isn&#039;t the photo, but the text, which makes it sound like this was all something that was done to the motherfucker, rather than something he participated in.
But but but, Rolling Stone! My lifelong training has obviously been to desire/emulate those people on the covers of magazines! You&#039;ve gone and messed with my Pavlovian responses! You expect me to learn to exercise judgment?!
Can we take a brief respite from blaming Amanda Palmer to recognize what insufferable douchecanoes the Daily Mail are, and how her response to them was <a href="http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/music\/us-news-blog\/2013\/jul\/13\/amanda-palmer-song-daily-mail-breast-bra" target="_blank">actually kinda cool</a>?
If BAA is the company previously known as British Airports Authority, I would expect terrorists to be more interested in the half marathon than they were in the full marathon.
Okay, now you&#039;re getting close to old. (I was in college).
See how easy it is to mistype that?
Would upfist your comment more, because actual sarcasm, except there cannot be a comment.
And we could stare into the vacuum of his eyes.
Certainly much better organized than the poem we mock. And who could resist the closing line?
I&#039;m also going to respond to you, many hours after your original comment, because I&#039;ve been away for a couple of days.
I&#039;ll start by agreeing with you that the cover pic was at least partly a cynical, publicity-driven decision. While I think that it&#039;s <i>possible</i> that it was partly motivated by a desire to demonstrate that personal appearance doesn&#039;t correlate to personal reality, I also believe that the known publicity value of controversy played a part in deciding to go with it.
Where I disagree with you is in the notion that RS should not have done this article at all, but should perhaps have done a story on the victims. This is, BTW, a proposition advanced by some of the tweeters Rebecca cited. You mention that you haven&#039;t read it, but that sources suggest that it offers nothing new.
I haven&#039;t read it either, and am unlikely to, but I&#039;m willing to stipulate that it doesn&#039;t contain any new insights. If we somehow managed to prohibit all writing that fails to offer novel perspectives on well-covered topics, we would put all print publications, and virtually all blogs, out of business.
If I am reading Rebecca correctly, she is criticizing the folks who are calling for censorship because they think the cover photo is too pretty. In this, I agree with her. If you are offended by the cover, don&#039;t buy the magazine. If you are <i>really</i> offended, there is certainly nothing illegal about trying to persuade others to not buy, or sell, the magazine; but you may be making a mountain out of a molehill. Unexpected side-effects are a bitch.
FWIW, for me the worst part of the cover isn&#039;t the photo, but the text, which makes it sound like this was all something that was done to the motherfucker, rather than something he participated in.
Just to keep the momentum going, RS should put Dick Cheney&#039;s mug on the next cover.
Or would that be <i>too</i> scary?
But but but, Rolling Stone! My lifelong training has obviously been to desire/emulate those people on the covers of magazines! You&#039;ve gone and messed with my Pavlovian responses! You expect me to learn to exercise judgment?!
Can we take a brief respite from blaming Amanda Palmer to recognize what insufferable douchecanoes the Daily Mail are, and how her response to them was <a href="http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/music\/us-news-blog\/2013\/jul\/13\/amanda-palmer-song-daily-mail-breast-bra" target="_blank">actually kinda cool</a>?
My guess is that guy is doing pretty much everything wrong.
so very funny.
This is an OUTRAGE!!!1!!!1!
No, Rolling Stone, not another article about Jay-Z!
For the love of Pete, take a break. Give it a rest.
Rolling Stone?
You mean this isn&#039;t the al-Qaeda edition of Teen Beat?
If BAA is the company previously known as British Airports Authority, I would expect terrorists to be more interested in the half marathon than they were in the full marathon.
I&#039;m surprised that they remember that much.
Why is a young Bob Dylan on the cover?