Rick Rolled by Rolling Stone

Here if anything I should be doing a piece I've had in mind all year, "The Death Of Horror", how in this modern age horror cinema has been a horror show of a scene producing naught a single horror movie I'd care to designate as 'memorable for the year' not hardly once this decade. Shortly ago, I thought I'd go on the Google and pull up a list of 2016 horror films to break the streak.

And there it was at the top: Rolling Stone's "10 Best Horror Movies of 2016" list!

Rolling Stone has been covering entertainment for longer than I've been alive. What could go wrong, I thought. Upon opening the page, hoping that perhaps 2016 didn't bomb for horror flicks, I was effectively Rick Rolled. The page opened and to my sheer, unmitigated WTF it was as if an Antifa goon was bombing my attempt to diffuse my sentiment that this segment of entertainment has been effectively swallowed by the bloody bowels of BS.

In terms of sheer, unmitigated terror, it was hard to beat the shriek-inducing fright that folks woke up to on November 9th, as they realized that the nightmare they now faced wasn't make-believe. www.rollingstone.com/movies/lists/best-horror-movies-of-2016-w454569

And there it is. The opening line of their 10 Best Horror Movies of 2016 piece. You really have to see that page I can't stress this enough.

I mean, come oen. This isn't even about Trump, it's about being able to enjoy some entertainment without the real life nightmare known as American Politics. But if we're going to go there, as if having Hillary win wasn't polishing the brass on the Robb Zombie grindhouse edition of Titanic.

Is it possible to zone out into some good old fashioned entertainment without being journalistically Rick Rolled?

Perhaps the quality of the horror cinema scene last year was so gruesome that is was just easier for the cinema journalist to troll their own piece?

What if Hollywood is so convinced that you're a total popcorn butter sucker you'll still love them no matter how much they piss in your popcorn?

Or even scarier, might this be but another symptom that in the United States the state of journalism is so dead its as if its Freddy's claws are bulging out of the pages of Merrian Webster Dictionary when you flip to the J page that contains the word?

Did they not contemplate how all too often the audience considers the hacker & slasher movie villain is effectively the hero, before slashing the intellectual integrity of this piece with partisan hackery?

Whatever it may be, they've no doubt added bottomless Koolaid to the menu at the concession stand. Apparently they've always figured they've had suckers at the concession counter all along.

They certainly are playing at overstepping their bounds with this kind of behavior like a hillbilly stalker from some horror thriller film.

And if they knew film making they'd know not to spoil the remainder of a film with an opening that blows away the ending, assuming the shock value of Trump really is more skin curdling than the entire worth of their own industry slaughterhouse of 2016.

This is the magazine of Hunter S. Thompson, the original Doctor of Journalism. His style of reporting events, was to thrust himself into them. It was to report them with the the most astute level of perception of them. That's what he called "Gonzo Journalism".

Gonzo journalism is a style of journalism that is written without claims of objectivity, often including the reporter as part of the story via a first-person narrative. The word "gonzo" is believed to have been first used in 1970 to describe an article by Hunter S. Thompson, who later popularized the style.

That would seem to describe "all" "journalists" now a days. It's certainly the model the "journalists" over at Rolling Stone be rolling to.

It's too bad they left out the most important part of the description of Gonzo Journalism:

It is an energetic first-person participatory writing style in which the author is a protagonist, and it draws its power from a combination of social critique and self-satire.

If only Hunter's ashes hadn't been fired as a firework out of a massive mortar tube, he'd surely roll in his grave like Jason Vorhees getting struck by lightening during an open casket ceremony. Sure, I wouldn't expect he'd like Trump, but the idea that Rolling Stone is rolling over his legacy with a bastardized version of Gonzo across their publication all the time all in butthurt because it wasn't the Wicked Witch of the West, Hillary, no wonder he wanted to be blasted into the air as a firework. Hunter would have been as quick to butcher the idea of Hillary's goon squads stomping over America as anyone else.

I've been a fan of horror cinema since I was a young child.
It's been a long time since I've seen a good one.
I'm thinking if you want something done right you have to do it yourself.
CGI monsters and gore just don't work for me.
I like the good old practical stuff.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Here if anything I should be doing a piece I've had in mind all year, "The Death Of Horror", how in this modern age horror cinema has been a horror show of a scene producing naught a single horror movie I'd care to designate as 'memorable for the year' not hardly once this decade. Shortly ago, I thought I'd go on the Google and pull up a list of 2016 horror films to break the streak.

And there it was at the top: Rolling Stone's "10 Best Horror Movies of 2016" list!

Rolling Stone has been covering entertainment for longer than I've been alive. What could go wrong, I thought. Upon opening the page, hoping that perhaps 2016 didn't bomb for horror flicks, I was effectively Rick Rolled. The page opened and to my sheer, unmitigated WTF it was as if an Antifa goon was bombing my attempt to diffuse my sentiment that this segment of entertainment has been effectively swallowed by the bloody bowels of BS.

In terms of sheer, unmitigated terror, it was hard to beat the shriek-inducing fright that folks woke up to on November 9th, as they realized that the nightmare they now faced wasn't make-believe. www.rollingstone.com/movies/lists/best-horror-movies-of-2016-w454569

And there it is. The opening line of their 10 Best Horror Movies of 2016 piece. You really have to see that page I can't stress this enough.

I mean, come oen. This isn't even about Trump, it's about being able to enjoy some entertainment without the real life nightmare known as American Politics. But if we're going to go there, as if having Hillary win wasn't polishing the brass on the Robb Zombie grindhouse edition of Titanic.

Is it possible to zone out into some good old fashioned entertainment without being journalistically Rick Rolled?

Perhaps the quality of the horror cinema scene last year was so gruesome that is was just easier for the cinema journalist to troll their own piece?

What if Hollywood is so convinced that you're a total popcorn butter sucker you'll still love them no matter how much they piss in your popcorn?

Or even scarier, might this be but another symptom that in the United States the state of journalism is so dead its as if its Freddy's claws are bulging out of the pages of Merrian Webster Dictionary when you flip to the J page that contains the word?

Did they not contemplate how all too often the audience considers the hacker & slasher movie villain is effectively the hero, before slashing the intellectual integrity of this piece with partisan hackery?

Whatever it may be, they've no doubt added bottomless Koolaid to the menu at the concession stand. Apparently they've always figured they've had suckers at the concession counter all along.

They certainly are playing at overstepping their bounds with this kind of behavior like a hillbilly stalker from some horror thriller film.

And if they knew film making they'd know not to spoil the remainder of a film with an opening that blows away the ending, assuming the shock value of Trump really is more skin curdling than the entire worth of their own industry slaughterhouse of 2016.

This is the magazine of Hunter S. Thompson, the original Doctor of Journalism. His style of reporting events, was to thrust himself into them. It was to report them with the the most astute level of perception of them. That's what he called "Gonzo Journalism".

Gonzo journalism is a style of journalism that is written without claims of objectivity, often including the reporter as part of the story via a first-person narrative. The word "gonzo" is believed to have been first used in 1970 to describe an article by Hunter S. Thompson, who later popularized the style.

That would seem to describe "all" "journalists" now a days. It's certainly the model the "journalists" over at Rolling Stone be rolling to.

It's too bad they left out the most important part of the description of Gonzo Journalism:

It is an energetic first-person participatory writing style in which the author is a protagonist, and it draws its power from a combination of social critique and self-satire.

If only Hunter's ashes hadn't been fired as a firework out of a massive mortar tube, he'd surely roll in his grave like Jason Vorhees getting struck by lightening during an open casket ceremony. Sure, I wouldn't expect he'd like Trump, but the idea that Rolling Stone is rolling over his legacy with a bastardized version of Gonzo across their publication all the time all in butthurt because it wasn't the Wicked Witch of the West, Hillary, no wonder he wanted to be blasted into the air as a firework. Hunter would have been as quick to butcher the idea of Hillary's goon squads stomping over America as anyone else.

Hunter blew his brains out way too conveniently close to that whole thing where the Bush Jr. Administration let a male prostitute have a press pass for daily briefings and looked a lot like a kid that was kidnapped some 20-30 years before...
He was in the know. He wasn't some rebel. At first he was, but he got into the lifestyle of those he claimed to despise. Wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

THANK YOU!!

Thank you for a very entertaining and enjoyable post. Thank you for sharing your observations on how politics are seeping into every freaking post, comment section, TV show, news piece, FB post, interview where there should be no politics. This sh!ts getting old. Everything now seems to be some hit or dig on Trump. We get it, some people are upset about the President, but we don't need to be reminded EVERYWHERE you look. I totally get the OP's rant, they're definitely not alone in their frustration.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Hunter S. Thompson would not be rolling in his hole, or any other place, over anything that has been said or done about Trump, by anyone, for any reason.

He would not object to the way the piece hijacks the notion of a vivisection of the horror movie genre, to deliver an opinion piece on Trump. He would not object to shockers like a decapitated Trump, head held aloft in the hand of a comedienne, he would not object in the least, to any of it, for one simple reason.

People like Trump, and the people who witlessly follow him, despite the overwhelming evidence of his utter inhumanity and incompetence, are the reason that Hunter S. Thompson and people whose methods resemble his, exist in the first place. When surrounded by nonsense, Thompson was never able to refrain from commenting on it, either directly or obliquely, and that was his strongest point. For all that he was often amoral, mostly intoxicated with liquids and powders, tabs and pills, or the vapours of ether, he was never able to overlook BS, or refrain from commenting on it, his surgical dissections managing to be precise and to the point, even through the haze of his drug and booze fueled insanity.

Hunter S. Thompson might have done a better job of it, than whomever wrote this piece, but he would not have written a very different piece. I can well see him having done something very similar, so all you can really throw at this piece, is that it is not very original in style. But its the very sort of thing that he would have done.

a reply to: TrueBrit

As if a square could pretend to begin speak for Hunter.

Note I didn't mention celebrities and their absurdity.

I spoke to the one sided state of 'journalism' (elitist propaganda) in this nation.

And thats right journalistic integrity would also apply to entertainment categories; entertainment aren't inherently supposed to be a crock of BS.

If there were honesty in this piece it would have spoken to the nature of both candidates, to the election as a whole.

Not Pure Propaganda by the side of the situation that seeks a hot civil war with the other not even based on actual politics, but instead on the globalist elites shunning of an political outsider.

If you thin Thompson would have been in support of the partisan politics of the group that would have attacked him for speaking truth, for not being politically correct in speaking the NuFascism language, then the leftist social engineering program has infected you too.

He wasn't the cinema correspondent so dont act like he would have even been writing that piece. To say he'd have spun a piece he'd write as all about Trump and just no matter what piece he touched is awful presumptuous dont you think? THE POINT is Rolling Stone is a Pure Propaganda rag now. They didn't put that spin there because they were trying to be edgy. For the Hollywood elites to attack Trump it has nothing to do with being counter-culture. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. They're pushing the Ruling Establishment's agenda. And my point about this whole rant wasnt even about Trump, it was about the fact that it was just another piece in this autistic screeching lets start a civil war not against the political apparatus but instead against our political rivals designed liberal agenda. If Hillary had won the piece wouldn't have even said anything about the election. THAT IS HYPOCRITICAL PROPAGANDA. And Hunter would have something to say about that I must believe because while he was all about skewering politicians, but what you're suggesting is he was just a total moronic dolt like all the people whom insist the Clinton's even represented anything the liberals / SJW's act like they represent.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

A square?

How quaint. A supporter of the right wing, a full on submissive to the hyper-capitalist oligarchy, calling me a square?! I would scarcely credit it, had I not read it with my own eyes!

Leaving aside the personal attacks and nonsense in your post, lets just be real for a second shall we? First of all, I did not say that Thompson would have supported the Clinton fiasco, or any of the PC brigade. What I said was very clear, that given the same impetus, the same circumstances, Thompsons take on the piece would not have been very much different than the one which was written, and I stand by that entirely.

As for the rest of YOUR propagandist waffle, your lies, ignorance and inaccuracies are no better than those of the people you most oppose.

You do not speak from a platform of moral superiority on this topic, and just so we are clear on our definitions here, supporting your President even though he has the raw IQ of a baked potato, and significantly less charisma, leave alone lacking any real justification for his policy choices other than "It will make great ratings and my supporters love it", makes you a MASSIVE narc.

Josh Gannon? I think that was his name.
I'm also not entirely convinced Thompson didn't hunt "the most dangerous game" at one time or another.
The guy took the easy way out. Whether by his own hand or coerced into doing so.
It took the heat off of the whole situation almost immediately in the msm.
One of those things where we'll never have the answers and conspiracy is born from.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes. A square. You think I've forgotten your un-First evidence for higher state of consciousness found work? The ultimate naysayer, whom believes that the highest state of consciousness to be found is in the bottom of a pint. Your points that had come in uninspiring, lacking depth & breadth, with you dodging directly answering the bulk of the deep thinking everyone was oozing with at that juncture. If you think you could hang in Thompson's world of surreal, dream on slush puppy.


Is being called a square a personal attack? Clearly how you came storming in here that's not what has you so:

I did not say that Thompson would have supported the Clinton fiasco, or any of the PC brigade. What I said was very clear, that given the same impetus, the same circumstances, Thompsons take on the piece would not have been very much different than the one which was written, and I stand by that entirely.

So you're saying he would have been all about the petty pissing and moaning, crybaby BS from the left? That his name not mentioned, he would have scoffed at my scoffing of Rolling Stone being Ruling Establishment smut peddling their spiteful butthurt imperative of division? That every piece in Rolling Stone that isn't on topic politics one sided propaganda whoring also just must have their BS journalistic Rick Rollery method?

I call BS. And what are you so mad about anyways? Did you even open the RS piece?

I call out this butthurt rags petty Rick Roll shenanigans for what it is and here comes Capn' Lefty. Since it was a horror movie theme I was stylizing with, when I had been drinking and they Rick Rolled me just trying to watch a horror movie, it was some unique sort of Rick Roll Journalism I was observing, and as it was once the home of Mr. Thompson the god of surreal journalism I just had to worker it all in there as an F you RS you're petty games make you not H.S..

As for the rest of YOUR propagandist waffle, your lies, ignorance and inaccuracies are no better than those of the people you most oppose.

Interesting allegations. Can you name one single thread, one single post of mine in this site that for all of your apparent closet loathing of my work so far you've had nothing but fear in challenging any of it. I cant recall where in one of my hundreds of political / social threads where you've ever taken me head on. My threads where the general theme is calling out propaganda techniques used to distort and divide us mind you.

So do you have a thread example?

How about this one:
DARK ELECTIONEERING: How the DNC-MSM-RNC Work Together In Lockstep To Subvert The Nation
Or maybe this one:
CENSORSHIP: The Universal Language of Dictators
Better yet maybe this:
Dark Mind Sciences: The Cult of PC
You know what, if you really want to see my powder the buttocks of the right wing you really ought to check out this gem from 2007:
Neoconservative (Nazi) Mind Control was used by Bush

People like Trump, and the people who witlessly follow him, despite the overwhelming evidence of his utter inhumanity and incompetence, are the reason that Hunter S. Thompson and people whose methods resemble his, exist in the first place. When surrounded by nonsense, Thompson was never able to refrain from commenting on it, either directly or obliquely, and that was his strongest point. For all that he was often amoral, mostly intoxicated with liquids and powders, tabs and pills, or the vapours of ether, he was never able to overlook BS, or refrain from commenting on it, his surgical dissections managing to be precise and to the point, even through the haze of his drug and booze fueled insanity.

You do not speak from a platform of moral superiority on this topic, and just so we are clear on our definitions here, supporting your President even though he has the raw IQ of a baked potato, and significantly less charisma, leave alone lacking any real justification for his policy choices other than "It will make great ratings and my supporters love it", makes you a MASSIVE narc.

And what is my platform exactly? Can you specify? Am I just a mindless drone for calling out RS on this divisiveness that they couldn't even leave out of one trying to forget about politics for a minute and try to enjoy a horror flick?

Where are my Trump cheerleader threads? Can you name one all year? Was I cheerleading when I took the unpopular position of crucifying this North Korea sabre rattling BS?

You talk about calling out insane BS, well what do you think the bulk of my time spent in this site has been all about? The regressive liberals are literally insane at this point, and their BS is tearing a hole in the fabric of Western society. They're so far over the rainbow, truly gone fishing (with race bait no less) that the Republican's for a moment they sound like vices of reason. Too bad I'm the first to constantly harp that either side after 8 years of POTUS turn this place into a mad house, that the Two Party System and the MSM machination that perpetuates them all needs to be chopped down like the evil clown brigade that they are.

And what do you think Trump has been doing? Why do you think I like him? He's where he apparently doesn't 'belong' (in this supposedly democracy) as since he got started we've seen him cause the RNC+DNC+MSM+CIA collectively eat themselves alive in trying to stop him. Not bad for an "inhumane" "incompetent" 'low charisma' chump, eh? You sure do hold some serious grudge against him. You sure you aint butthurt Hillary lost?

All in good clean fun of course.

Although I am perplexed by you calling me a "narc". Apparently you have no clue how that word is used, what it means. So much for not being a square.

Even in Canada they (journalists, comedians, radio/talk show hosts...) stomp on Trump every chance they get, and as you say, incorporating it in subjects not even related to politics.
They began at the same time the US elections began.

We have laws in Canada that prevent news services from lying, but... they had the same agenda as their American journalists siblings and were saying the same things, in the same terms. Sometimes, we could hear the desperation in their voices to try and convince us. Because I began hearing about beliefs of journalists even politicians about a subject, I saw that facts and objectivity was gone.
They played people on the fact that journalists knows more, therefore their beliefs must be factually based...

I took it as conditioning for the masses so we don't try, in Canada, to elect someone with a more conservative approach ever again.

I stopped watching TV and listening to the radio. They ''irrelevanted'' themselves by showing their true colors.

Anyways, for years now, I got my news from the net, from sites such as ATS, and I learned of worldly events sometimes up to a month before it was even addressed by the media, if ever.
When people around me tell me the news they heard, I can point to them where to look for the most informative piece about a given subject, and they are surprised. Especially when they hear the other side of the story, not filled with ''It's Trump's fault!'' embedded in it from the start.

Journalists, reporters... They're almost all the same now, bought and paid for.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

First, my response to the thread you linked to, does not make me a square. Being detail oriented, and knowing the difference between activity and functionality, does not make me a square. Believing that a claim must be backed up by exacting and specific detailed observation, and demonstrable, repeatable examples of the claim being vindicated by those observations, from an objective point of view, not a biased or chemically affected one, does not make me a square.

It makes me possessed of common sense, the very same common sense that means that I can light fires to cook on and sit by, without risking setting fire to my surroundings, whether those surroundings be a garden in an urban area, or the deepest woodland. This is the same common sense which allows me to reason out how best to refinish a tool, rather than dispose of one, to the detriment of the environment, prevents me from wasting the resources I have at my disposal. The same common sense, scientific approach which ensures that, simply by way of being careful and considerate, no goose or other bird has ever become entangled in a beer ring that I have left un-severed, or choked on chemicals I disposed of in an irresponsible manner, that I have never been responsible for the eradication of any species of insect by way of use of pesticides.

So no, I am not a narc.

And as for you, you are either absolutely clueless as to where you stand, or a chameleon. You cannot possibly decry the entire left wing over the actions of a minority of morons, given the far greater problem of Trump and the fascist, hyper capitalist right, unless your actual belief is that Trump is right, that the right is right. The reason for this is simple. Trump is the one in power. The left have none, nothing. They have no control over any of the main seats of power in government. They have no power in congress, they have little play in the senate, and no one in the White House who cares worth a damn what is even sensible, leave alone what the left thinks.

Simply put, having no power, despite the noise they are making, means that they are of bugger all concern. What is of concern is that you have a President who lies more than seventy percent of the time, and is mistaken a good bit of the rest of the time. And before you mention that all politicians are liars... first of all, this man told your country he was different. He lied, but was believed. He told you that violent crime was up, but it was not, and yet he was believed. He told you that bans on certain people coming into the country, would prevent terrorism, but he lied, and was believed. He told you that putting up a wall between Mexico and the US could be one affordably and be paid for by Mexico... he was talking absolute tosh, but morons believed him, lapped it up. THAT is a problem, HE is a problem, the far right, who are actually a part of government now in this "bright new age of American politics" that your beloved idiot has ushered in, are a problem.

It does not matter who runs the FBI or the NSA or the CIA or any other organisations you can think of, when the President is a puppet for fascists and oligarchs! It does not matter what their affiliations are, because they are not the boss! What matters is how your President is aligned and what kind of people he is going to appoint to work in government, and if current status is anything to go by, he is going to employ the least reasonable, least noble, most questionable persons in the entire Republican set up, to the very positions that they should NEVER be permitted to even approach, leave alone occupy. Look at Sessions, a man who has no moral authority at all, being placed in control of matters of law and justice, Pence, a man who decries all science, being placed at the head of a new, more militarily focused space corps, the EPA head is a man who wanted the organisation shut down, and there are oil tycoons, literally the figures that everyone wanted the influence of ejected from politics, sitting pretty in positions of direct control over state affairs.

This is what a problem looks like. You think the left has gone mad? You are absolutely right... BUT THEY BLOODY WELL SHOULD BE! Psychopaths and oligarchy have fully taken control of the country they live in! That is the precise, absolute and total opposite of what anyone who is genuinely left leaning stands for, because only the people, the mass, the whole of the population, should EVER have the power which has been vested in these individuals! It was bad enough when the best the left could hope for was that their President would at least be a GOOD liar, as opposed to a poor one, that the government would at least pretend to be acting in the interests of the people, rather than of the corporate entities which own the government, that its centre right politics would at least be dressed up as having some social justice interest, a right leaning governance it may have been, but wearing a leftist frock.

But THIS? This situation SHOULD get people out in the streets, SHOULD be causing uprising, SHOULD be a problem for those Americans who a) love freedom and liberty and b) understand what those things ACTUALLY mean, rather than subscribing in any small part to the idea that right wing, hypercapitalist, corporatist methodology has ever, or will ever benefit the people in any small regard, with respect to freedom and liberty.

I have nothing but loathing for Hillary Clinton and everything that smells like her, because she is precisely the sort of corporatist dirt, liar, cheat and scoundrel that everyone in Christendom could accuse her of being, as well as the affront it causes any genuine socialist to be associated (falsely) with her approach, but she does not MATTER anymore, do you understand that? She has no power now, do you understand that? She has no relevance to anything, anymore... is that clear, or would you like a Goddamned diagram? The issue now is that rather than a hidden hand, Trump is going about doing the very things that will damage peoples lives, IN THE OPEN! AND PEOPLE ARE ASKING HIM TO DO IT AND LAPPING IT UP!

The correct result of the last election you had in the states, should have, if people were being critically minded and were even slightly aware of what was good for them and their country long term, been the total obliteration of both the top two candidates on moral grounds, preferably at the end of a cannon, followed immediately by a re-run, but no... The people of the US were duped by a man so unbelievably dense, that he believes that bigly is an appropriate word to use in his official capacity as President. That poses a massive problem for the left, not the power left, but the people in the streets. The people who stand to lose out on healthcare, despite working harder for their nothing than the man who took it away from them does for his billions. The people whose public services will be even more poorly run than before, but cost more because the President is a terrible businessman, but a fantastic con-artist. The people who are disadvantaged by matters totally outside their control and used to be recognised as such, but will now be treated with more coldness and derision than ever before. If you speak out against those who oppose this, then you support it. Simple as.