tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555298467456245376.post1905021426167751519..comments2024-01-10T17:24:31.730-06:00Comments on Hot-For-Jesus Former Fundie: That's NOT Jesus on the cover of Rolling Stone. It's Jim Morrison. Christine Vyrnonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15125525692093575724noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555298467456245376.post-26628359869104202412013-07-28T20:20:58.147-05:002013-07-28T20:20:58.147-05:00So... #1 by your logic, every picture of every cro...So... #1 by your logic, every picture of every crook, mobster, rapist, dictator, despotic pope/pastor/politician on the cover of any/all media front pages, covers... just encourages more asshole behavior... because front page photos will be the thing that pushes the already mentally unstable over the edge to do heinous crimes? It doesn't work that way... nor does the press work that way. Show me the evidence to the contrary... that any/all media coverage encourages sin/crime/murder/rape/murder. You might as well tell journalists to ignore the bad guys because reporting their crimes just glamorizes all crimes. And yes... I am dismissing this "cover of Rolling Stone glamorizes subject and will cause people to do crazy and horrible things" with a wave of my hand... because I still trust YOU, Max, to make the decision to not buy it and voice your disgust without having someone you and I don't know make that decision for you. <br /><br />And as for #2... why are you even bothering with reading anything online, much less this blog, if it is all too much out of your control and causes so much stress? Wouldn't it just be better if someone just blacklined everything online or that shows up in your Twitter feed, your google searches, your Facebook feed that gets your panties bunched up so you don't have to worry about any of this?? You seem to have just allowed 3.5, maybe 4 minutes of your life to be sucked away into something you don't care about, don't want to read about, don't want to think about. Maybe it would have been better if someone else had sheltered you from this blog from the get-go. Yes? <br /><br />Which brings us back to #1... I guess I trust your decision to get upset with my waving of the hand about all of this moreso than a third party basically telling you that me and my opinion doesn't exist.<br /><br />The essence is... I am insulted that someone thinks you and I and even "crazy" people can't be trusted with the picture of a murderer on the cover of a magazine... any magazine. And I hope you would be insulted too.<br /><br />Christine Vyrnonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15125525692093575724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555298467456245376.post-84283125798212749822013-07-26T12:38:43.637-05:002013-07-26T12:38:43.637-05:00I've no doubt that people are reacting negativ...I've no doubt that people are reacting negatively to the picture on the cover of Rolling Stone for a variety of reasons, but my reaction is for two:<br /><br />1. Media attention encourages others psychopaths to follow in their footsteps. You seem to dismiss that with a handwave, but I think it is a serious problem. This guy killed innocent people, and because of that made the cover of Rolling Stone. Yeah, I can see that being something other mass murderers will aspire to, if only to help spread their message.<br /><br />2. I don't want to see it. I don't want to think about it. Shit happens. It gets reported. Fine, we should be aware of our world, and people should get involved in changing the things they want to see changed. Otherwise, please stop reminding me of something depressing that I can do nothing about. And it's all the more depressing for the fact of reason #1.<br /><br />Infamy is a type of fame, and people want fame. I don't care if the very thoughtful article paints him as Satan incarnate, just putting his face on the cover of the magazine is lifting him up to heights that he doesn't deserve, and it is not a good thing for anybody.Max Wildernoreply@blogger.com