Amanda Marcotte's post | Latest updates on Sulia
Here's what I think it going on with people coming up with "reasons" the RS cover is "bad".
1) They saw it and it made them queasy. Of course, it was meant to: The point of the cover is to force the viewer to confront our own internal prejudices about people's looks and the quality of their character.
2) People don't like being made to question themselves! They prefer to feel that they are perfect and never have an irrational prejudice.
3) So they get angry.
4) Rolling Stone is to blame for their discomfort and anger! Now to make up reasons that they're in the wrong!
5) Fill in weak rationalizations for why this is RS's fault and not yours for being unable to emotionally handle being reminded not to judge a book by its cover. Take your pick: Pretending not to know RS routinely does political/news coverage, using the word "glamorizing" or "idolizing" incorrectly, pretending not to know that making people tense was the point of the image.
6) There, you've rationalized away any discomfort about yourself and your prejudices caused by the RS cover. Luckily, drugstores will be hiding it away, so that you aren't occasionally reminded again that you may, gasp, harbor an irrational prejudice or two about looks vs. character.