Respect for the dead?


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Rysky wrote:

You're both beautiful and have excellent taste in headgear.

There. Argument settled.

*hugs Rysky, wearing her death ward*

Aww, you know me so well :3


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Why can't the strong emotions be jubilee?

Are you happy the person died? Or are you happy that the person wont influence future events?

There's a subtle distinction there, but it's an important one.

If you're happy the person died, you're also happy for the grief that their family and friends are going through. Is that the part you want to celebrate? If your goal is to live in a more respectful society, that doesn't sound like striving for that goal to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Why can't the strong emotions be jubilee?

Are you happy the person died? Or are you happy that the person wont influence future events?

There's a subtle distinction there, but it's an important one.

If you're happy the person died, you're also happy for the grief that their family and friends are going through. Is that the part you want to celebrate? If your goal is to live in a more respectful society, that doesn't sound like striving for that goal to me.

If I'm happy a criminal is locked up, am I also happy his family misses him and his little kids have to grow up without knowing him?

Shouldn't I be more respectful of their pain and sorrow?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:
I try to respect the dead, even if I disagreed with the person or didn't like them. I might not always succeed, as in a case of some truly evil POS. I try not to crow about it, however. Seems to me that would make me no better than those a*&~@$#s in the Westboro Baptist Church.

Someone who didn't deserve respect while alive doesn't somehow magically deserve it after they're dead in my view.

I might refrain from criticizing them after they're dead if to do so would be pointless.

And I might refrain out of respect or concern for their family's feelings, but if a person is particularly despicable I doubt their families are much better.

And in many cases criticizing them after they're dead is not pointless, particularly if their views or policies continue to influence us.

So after my smelly neighbor dies I have no need or desire to talk about how smelly he was, but if my neighbor was a lawmaker or Supreme Court Justice whose work I believe is still hurting our country, then I certainly will continue to criticize.

And yes, I think people in the public eye should be more open to criticism whether alive or dead. Particularly when talking about the elected leaders in a free society. And I include the officials appointed by our elected leaders in this group.


EDIT: Ah the vagaries of a limited internet connection via a phone. Sorry.

So, to clarify...

thejeff wrote:

If I'm happy a criminal is locked up, am I also happy his family misses him and his little kids have to grow up without knowing him?

Shouldn't I be more respectful of their pain and sorrow?

Rather, what you should be happy for the end of illegal actions, not for him getting locked up. Him being locked up is a tragedy - necessary, perhaps, but not a specifically desirable outcome. If, instead, he had repented and done well with his life, that would have been the outcome to genuinely celebrate.

Fortunately, he is still alive. This the tragedy is rather less. Prison is an unfortunate necessity, rather than a glorious celebration.

Like taxes. (This last is a joke. Sort of.)


JohnnyRelentless wrote:
And I might refrain out of respect or concern for their family's feelings, but if a person is particularly despicable I doubt their families are much better.

One of the major problems with this line of thought is that I have no idea what you, personally, consider "particularly despicable" (and, as this is the internet, it's difficult to understand what, precisely, people mean).

Beyond that, presupposing a person's family, who loved them, agrees with them, and are thus not much better is, in fact, a highly prejudiced and confused notion that lacks an understanding of the nuances of families and peoples' emotions in the first place.

I can disagree with <family member>, even extremely deeply about important issues, but still love them and mourn their passing.

EDIT: Arg. Weird forum stuff is weird. I wasn't able to recollect this part of the quote. Anyway...

JohnnyRelentless wrote:
And yes, I think people in the public eye should be more open to criticism whether alive or dead. Particularly when talking about the elected leaders in a free society. And I include the officials appointed by our elected leaders in this group.

... but there are better ways of going about it.

For example, criticizing the policies and discussing why those policies are bad, rather than tearing down the person who is gone. One actually tackles the problems, the other just tackles the emotions of those who cared about them (whether they agreed with the deceased or not) while making those who disagreed look bad due to their delight in the death of a fellow human being.

Beyond that, it's just tacky.

And, to be clear, using a dead person for your own political gain is tacky, at best, no matter what. Sometimes it can't be helped - things are the way they are and you're not going to replace someone you'd strongly disagreed with, with another person you strongly disagree with. That's a lot of "with" - I need a better way to phrase that. I hope it's clear. Sorry. That's just not good sense.

But using someone's death as a platform to talk smack about them, isn't a good thing, either. Specific victims should be free to speak of secrets if they need, but that is not taking political advantage, nor is it an attempt to celebrate death: it's an attempt of gaining freedom.

Celebrating the loss of someone is (generally speaking) a bad way of handling things and looking at anyone's death as a good thing is terrible. The end to their work is one thing, their actual death is another.


Tacticslion wrote:


JohnnyRelentless wrote:
And yes, I think people in the public eye should be more open to criticism whether alive or dead. Particularly when talking about the elected leaders in a free society. And I include the officials appointed by our elected leaders in this group.

... but there are better ways of going about it.

For example, criticizing the policies and discussing why those policies are bad, rather than tearing down the person who is gone. One actually tackles the problems, the other just tackles the emotions of those who cared about them (whether they agreed with the deceased or not) while making those who disagreed look bad due to their delight in the death of a fellow human being.

Beyond that, it's just tacky.

And, to be clear, using a dead person for your own political gain is tacky, at best, no matter what. Sometimes it can't be helped - things are the way they are and you're not going to replace someone you'd strongly disagreed with, with another person you strongly disagree with. That's a lot of "with" - I need a better way to phrase that. I hope it's clear.But using someone's death as a platform to talk smack about them, isn't a good thing, either. Specific victims should be free to speak of secrets if they need, but that is not taking political advantage, nor is it an attempt to celebrate death: it's an attempt of gaining freedom.

Celebrating the loss of someone is (generally speaking) a bad way of handling things and looking at anyone's death as a good thing is terrible. The end to their work is one thing, their actual death is another.

How about using the dead person for your own political gain by praising him rather than attacking him? Is that also tacky?

Because nearly everything said about any dead political figure has politics tied into it, whether it's praising your allies and vowing to carry on the work or whether it's praising the dead that you despised in order co-opt their legacy or at least make yourself look like the generous sort who always has a good word for his rivals.
It's all politics and it's all b%!!@~@#.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Why can't the strong emotions be jubilee?

Are you happy the person died? Or are you happy that the person wont influence future events?

There's a subtle distinction there, but it's an important one.

If you're happy the person died, you're also happy for the grief that their family and friends are going through. Is that the part you want to celebrate? If your goal is to live in a more respectful society, that doesn't sound like striving for that goal to me.

If I'm happy a criminal is locked up, am I also happy his family misses him and his little kids have to grow up without knowing him?

Shouldn't I be more respectful of their pain and sorrow?

How about we stay on topic?


thejeff wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:


JohnnyRelentless wrote:
And yes, I think people in the public eye should be more open to criticism whether alive or dead. Particularly when talking about the elected leaders in a free society. And I include the officials appointed by our elected leaders in this group.

... but there are better ways of going about it.

For example, criticizing the policies and discussing why those policies are bad, rather than tearing down the person who is gone. One actually tackles the problems, the other just tackles the emotions of those who cared about them (whether they agreed with the deceased or not) while making those who disagreed look bad due to their delight in the death of a fellow human being.

Beyond that, it's just tacky.

And, to be clear, using a dead person for your own political gain is tacky, at best, no matter what. Sometimes it can't be helped - things are the way they are and you're not going to replace someone you'd strongly disagreed with, with another person you strongly disagree with. That's a lot of "with" - I need a better way to phrase that. I hope it's clear.But using someone's death as a platform to talk smack about them, isn't a good thing, either. Specific victims should be free to speak of secrets if they need, but that is not taking political advantage, nor is it an attempt to celebrate death: it's an attempt of gaining freedom.

Celebrating the loss of someone is (generally speaking) a bad way of handling things and looking at anyone's death as a good thing is terrible. The end to their work is one thing, their actual death is another.

How about using the dead person for your own political gain by praising him rather than attacking him? Is that also tacky?

Because nearly everything said about any dead political figure has politics tied into it, whether it's praising your allies and vowing to carry on the work or whether it's praising the dead that you despised in order co-opt their legacy or at least make yourself look like...

The person will still be dead next week and politics will still be happening then as well.

That's all I'm saying. Wait a week to talk smack about the person. Let their body be put in the ground (or whatever the family decides to do). The person will be dead for a long, long time. If it's an important person, their life will be a valid topic for years, decades or even longer. Not everything needs to be said in the minutes/hours after their death. It can wait a week.

And just because someone else is talking like an ass and being opportunistic, does not make it okay for other people to do it. "But Billy did it too" is 3rd grade logic.


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Why can't the strong emotions be jubilee?

Are you happy the person died? Or are you happy that the person wont influence future events?

There's a subtle distinction there, but it's an important one.

If you're happy the person died, you're also happy for the grief that their family and friends are going through. Is that the part you want to celebrate? If your goal is to live in a more respectful society, that doesn't sound like striving for that goal to me.

If I'm happy a criminal is locked up, am I also happy his family misses him and his little kids have to grow up without knowing him?

Shouldn't I be more respectful of their pain and sorrow?

How about we stay on topic?

It is on topic. Its comparing negativity expressed when someone dies to negativity when someone goes to jail. It affects family similarly, so why is negativity acceptable for one contemptible person but not another?


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:


JohnnyRelentless wrote:
And yes, I think people in the public eye should be more open to criticism whether alive or dead. Particularly when talking about the elected leaders in a free society. And I include the officials appointed by our elected leaders in this group.

... but there are better ways of going about it.

For example, criticizing the policies and discussing why those policies are bad, rather than tearing down the person who is gone. One actually tackles the problems, the other just tackles the emotions of those who cared about them (whether they agreed with the deceased or not) while making those who disagreed look bad due to their delight in the death of a fellow human being.

Beyond that, it's just tacky.

And, to be clear, using a dead person for your own political gain is tacky, at best, no matter what. Sometimes it can't be helped - things are the way they are and you're not going to replace someone you'd strongly disagreed with, with another person you strongly disagree with. That's a lot of "with" - I need a better way to phrase that. I hope it's clear.But using someone's death as a platform to talk smack about them, isn't a good thing, either. Specific victims should be free to speak of secrets if they need, but that is not taking political advantage, nor is it an attempt to celebrate death: it's an attempt of gaining freedom.

Celebrating the loss of someone is (generally speaking) a bad way of handling things and looking at anyone's death as a good thing is terrible. The end to their work is one thing, their actual death is another.

How about using the dead person for your own political gain by praising him rather than attacking him? Is that also tacky?

Because nearly everything said about any dead political figure has politics tied into it, whether it's praising your allies and vowing to carry on the work or whether it's praising the dead that you despised in order co-opt their legacy or at

The person will still be dead next week and politics will still be happening then as well.

That's all I'm saying. Wait a week to talk smack about the person. Let their body be put in the ground (or whatever the family decides to do). The person will be dead for a long, long time. If it's an important person, their life will be a valid topic for years, decades or even longer. Not everything needs to be said in the minutes/hours after their death. It can wait a week.

And just because someone else is talking like an ass and being opportunistic, does not make it okay for other people to do it. "But Billy did it too" is 3rd grade logic.

In the mean time, we should let the political views get unfettered support? Bull s@+$.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Why can't the strong emotions be jubilee?

Are you happy the person died? Or are you happy that the person wont influence future events?

There's a subtle distinction there, but it's an important one.

If you're happy the person died, you're also happy for the grief that their family and friends are going through. Is that the part you want to celebrate? If your goal is to live in a more respectful society, that doesn't sound like striving for that goal to me.

If I'm happy a criminal is locked up, am I also happy his family misses him and his little kids have to grow up without knowing him?

Shouldn't I be more respectful of their pain and sorrow?

How about we stay on topic?
It is on topic. Its comparing negativity expressed when someone dies to negativity when someone goes to jail. It affects family similarly, so why is negativity acceptable for one contemptible person but not another?

Did I say it was acceptable or unacceptable? Let me check. Nope. I didn't respond to the content of the post at all.

It's veering us off into a related, but different topic. It introduces a large number of additional variables that we will then argue over, and use analogies to explain those variables, then we will argue about the analogies. Then someone will make an analogy to explain an analogy, but we'll argue about how that one is right/wrong as well.

It's a rabbit hole that only serves to pull us away from the topic at hand.


thejeff wrote:
How about using the dead person for your own political gain by praising him rather than attacking him? Is that also tacky?

What do you think,

Tacticslion wrote:
And, to be clear, using a dead person for your own political gain is tacky, at best, no matter what.

... which you quoted, actually means? I'm curious, because I thought that was pretty clear, especially since I contrasted that bit with the bit where I talked about tackiness in negative speech for political reasons.

But the way you phrase your response seems to take umbrage with the idea that I think only disparaging them is tacky.

That is not the case. "No matter what" means exactly what it says.

thejeff wrote:

Because nearly everything said about any dead political figure has politics tied into it, whether it's praising your allies and vowing to carry on the work or whether it's praising the dead that you despised in order co-opt their legacy or at least make yourself look like the generous sort who always has a good word for his rivals.

It's all politics and it's all b$+***++.

No, no it is not.

You can remember them for who they were, good or ill, and speak of the good things.

Then you can talk about policies without the people attached.

This isn't that hard.

"Such and such is a bad policy, and needs to change." is totally valid, and an important thing to keep talking about, when dealing with politics. "So and so is a bad man, I'm glad he's dead." is tacky, lacks empathy, and makes you look like a jerk.

EDIT: Nope. Not going there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
In the mean time, we should let the political views get unfettered support? Bull s&+@.

Are you required to attack dead people to address political views? How did you talk about political views before the person died?

Confront the political views, just leave the dead person out of it... for like a week. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying you have to be completely silent.

But if you want a world where people are respected, perhaps it's best to actually be respectful of people.


Irontruth wrote:
Caineach wrote:
In the mean time, we should let the political views get unfettered support? Bull s&+@.

Are you required to attack dead people to address political views? How did you talk about political views before the person died?

Confront the political views, just leave the dead person out of it... for like a week. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying you have to be completely silent.

But if you want a world where people are respected, perhaps it's best to actually be respectful of people.

When the dead person is being used to champion those political views, it is pretty hard to not address them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it possible to address someone, without celebrating their death? Or are you taking the position that it is impossible?


Damon Griffin wrote:
Anything beyond that makes one a miserable excuse for a human being.

I don't feel any need to celebrate anyone's death, but I must say it seems ironic to me that you'd be so quick to demand civility for a distant dead man, then be so rude to someone who's still around to hear it and moreover who is here.


More broadly, I'm not too inclined to observe a grace period where nothing critical of such a person is appropriate.

Doubly that for politicians. "But he's not around to defend himself" doesn't ring very true to me.

I mean, that's what Brutus thought, but Mark Antony taught him otherwise, right? Scalia the person may be dead, but as for Scalia the politician, well, politicans can have a pretty vigorous afterlife.

I do however draw back from the idea that his death is an occasion for celebration.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
Damon Griffin wrote:
Anything beyond that makes one a miserable excuse for a human being.
I don't feel any need to celebrate anyone's death, but I must say it seems ironic to me that you'd be so quick to demand civility for a distant dead man, while being so rude to someone who's still around to hear it and moreover who is here.

I don't find Irontruth's comments rude, but I DO find other comments (even in this thread) incredibly offensive.

I'm not even really participating, but some of the comments in how people treat their dead really make me wonder what type of morality the world is coming too.

Memes such as Hitler, Stalin, and others who completely celebrated and even promoted the death of those whose opinions they did not agree with.

The reason we don't celebrate the death of those whose opinions (political or otherwise) immediately after the death is because it comes FAR too close to the appearance of promoting the execution of those whose opinions we don't agree with. It is not too far a stretch for those who celebrate the death of those whose opinions they want silenced, to promoting the silencing of those opinions by death.

For those who love freedom, such an approach to quelling the freedoms of others is always appalling, and ALWAYS seems rude.

It doesn't matter if one is liberal, conservative, or otherwise politically slanted, promoting the silence of opinion through death can appear very rude and if brought to the conclusions some have brought it too in the past...scary.

At least wait until the body is in the ground, at least typically.

We talk about Stalin now, but even at the time of his death, the US's most hated enemy at the time...was at least somewhat spoken of respectfully. Later, historical perspectives and truth can be discussed.

It is better to tackle issues with discussion and discourse in the present, rather than the promotion of silence through death.

Anyways, I'm out for the moment on this conversation after this, but I wanted to clarify ONE of many reasons why it is so rude to declare celebratory items in political slanted opinions immediately after someone's death.


Yeah. I said it better here, so I'll link that and Kobold Cleaver's follow-up and peace out.

I hope the lot of you have long, healthy, reasonably happy lives! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Damon Griffin wrote:
Anything beyond that makes one a miserable excuse for a human being.
I don't feel any need to celebrate anyone's death, but I must say it seems ironic to me that you'd be so quick to demand civility for a distant dead man, while being so rude to someone who's still around to hear it and moreover who is here.
I don't find Irontruth's comments rude, but I DO find other comments (even in this thread) incredibly offensive.

I actually parsed it as an allusion to the OP of the other thread, not to Irontruth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:
We talk about Stalin now, but even at the time of his death, the US's most hated enemy at the time...was at least somewhat spoken of respectfully. Later, historical perspectives and truth can be discussed.

I dunno man. I can see a downside to putting a temporary shield around the politics of a dead politican. Since Stalin & co. was the example you preferred (no love for Romans? :( ) here's another perspective on Stalin's aftermath:

Solzhenitsyn wrote:
By an unexpected turn of our history, a bit of the truth, an insignificant part of the whole, was allowed out in the open. But those same hands which once screwed tight our handcuffs now hold out their palms in reconciliation: No, don’t! Don’t dig up the past!

[...]

Quote:

When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations. It is for this reason, and not because of the ''weakness of indoctrinational work," that they are growing up "indifferent." Young people are acquiring the conviction that foul deeds are never punished on earth, that they always bring prosperity.

It is going to be uncomfortable, horrible, to live in such a country!

Not sure everyone thought it was a great idea to keep postponing those discussions so as not to hurt feelings.

So yeah. I won't be dancing and singing on any graves. But I'm pretty ambivalent about the idea that a dead man's politics get shielded too, even a shield that is (intended to be) temporary.


All I will say is that I don't care one bit if anyone celebrates when I die.

I'll be dead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Regarding the recent thread about Supreme Court justice Scalia's death that got locked, I found parts of it to be interesting reading. So, I would like to try to continue the decent part of that discussion: What duty do we have to respect the dead? How should we speak of someone we despised who has died? Does someone being famous change any of it?

Please, I implore you guys, don't keep discussing Scalia. I understand full well why Paizo is not comfortable with that.

The way I see it, there are two things that usually cause people to act differently about dead people.

1. They recognize that there are people grieving and are aware of this (typically meaning putting aside the opportunity to badmouth someone, even if it's true or needed, because that person still probably has a mother, father, or someone who is pained by it).

2A. Because the person can no longer speak up to defend themselves (which can make it feel like you are literally beating a dead horse, as there's no way for them to refute anything that the person says) and some people don't feel good about doing that and would rather let dead dogs lie.

2B. Because the person can no longer speak up to defend themselves (which means that you can say whatever you want and frequently get away with it, as the dead horse cannot refute anything or try to set the record strait) and some people enjoy this opportunity as it's the perfect time to strike when they will receive little to no resistance.


Okay, what Alignment would you be if you criticized Scalia now?
I vote for unWaffle ChaoticPankakeNeutral.


There is nothing wrong with criticizing another person's views or their politics, whether that person is alive or dead. That, however, was not the issue of the previous post. The issue is that there is a difference between respect and taking delight in a person's death and wishing for them to suffer beyond the grave.

Especially when that's the subject of the very first post. Even after the Mods purged most of the replies, that stain still remains as an example of how not to be.

But... that is simply the nature of scavengers. The scent of death always draws such jackals--they just can't help themselves. The most ironic part is when said people call the object of their hate 'evil'. Such is the height of hypocrisy.

I stand by my statement that any who die and receive such treatment are, by definition, in a better place--simply because they are not in the same place as the carrion-eaters who delight in their suffering.

You don't like the person or their politics? Cool. Say so and be done. Realize that, now that they are no longer in this world, they can't oppose you, and be happy in that. Don't write things that look like they came from some sleezy tabloid as you dogpile on a corpse with the rest of the jackals.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Name calling doesn't make this a better discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, I'd like to discuss this, but I feel like my utter contempt for Scalia's beliefs, and my utter contempt for the words of those who supported him, make it really hard for me to grit my teeth and stand with the latter in saying "Maybe being glad about someone being dead doesn't mean you have to taunt them over it."

Because some people (not me) are happy that people like this are dead. To use an example very far removed from the current one, many people were really joyful that Saddam Hussein died. And were they wrong to be?

I personally don't want to delight in death, because I believe that killing is an act of necessity, not a "just" or "righteous" act. It is well that someone like Saddam is gone. It is not well that he is dead.

It does sort of rankle, though, when the people saying "Have some respect" also support the death penalty (and I would imagine plenty of them in the Christie case, though not necessarily any on this forum, do—not unlike Christie himself, correct?). Apparently respect for the dead is more important than respect for life with some people.

To be clear, I don't want to celebrate a death, because, in a nutshell, I believe death itself is bad. But I can absolutely respect being glad that someone is no longer making policies or ruining lives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:

There is nothing wrong with criticizing another person's views or their politics, whether that person is alive or dead. That, however, was not the issue of the previous post.

The Previous Post wrote:

Okay, what Alignment would you be if you criticized Scalia now?

I vote for unWaffle ChaoticPankakeNeutral.

Mm

Mmhm

Yes

True


Irontruth wrote:
Name calling doesn't make this a better discussion.

And, considering all the rhetoric about carrion, it's somewhat ironic that the worst stink is being made by the "jackal" critics. Let's keep this discussion fresh.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

*Lies awake in bed at 2:00 am, musing to self*

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It does sort of rankle, though, when the people saying "Have some respect" also support the death penalty (and I would imagine plenty of them in the Christie case, though not necessarily any on this forum, do—not unlike Christie himself, correct?). Apparently respect for the dead is more important than respect for life with some people.

*Thinks back on "respect for the dead" argument*

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It does sort of rankle, though, when the people saying "Have some respect" also support the death penalty (and I would imagine plenty of them in the Christie case, though not necessarily any on this forum, do—not unlike Christie himself, correct?). Apparently respect for the dead is more important than respect for life with some people.

*Thinks about the nature of death and our role in life*

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It does sort of rankle, though, when the people saying "Have some respect" also support the death penalty (and I would imagine plenty of them in the Christie case, though not necessarily any on this forum, do—not unlike Christie himself, correct?). Apparently respect for the dead is more important than respect for life with some people.

*...*

*S*@* I WROTE IT AS CHRISTIE DIDN'T IT WHY AM I ALWAYS GETTING THOSE TWO MIXED UP NOW I GOTTA GET UP AND CORRECT THIS S%%% S&~* S@#$*


Aaaand back to bed.

Scarab Sages

JohnnyRelentless wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
I try to respect the dead, even if I disagreed with the person or didn't like them. I might not always succeed, as in a case of some truly evil POS. I try not to crow about it, however. Seems to me that would make me no better than those a*&~@$#s in the Westboro Baptist Church.

Someone who didn't deserve respect while alive doesn't somehow magically deserve it after they're dead in my view.

I might refrain from criticizing them after they're dead if to do so would be pointless.

And I might refrain out of respect or concern for their family's feelings, but if a person is particularly despicable I doubt their families are much better.

And in many cases criticizing them after they're dead is not pointless, particularly if their views or policies continue to influence us.

So after my smelly neighbor dies I have no need or desire to talk about how smelly he was, but if my neighbor was a lawmaker or Supreme Court Justice whose work I believe is still hurting our country, then I certainly will continue to criticize.

And yes, I think people in the public eye should be more open to criticism whether alive or dead. Particularly when talking about the elected leaders in a free society. And I include the officials appointed by our elected leaders in this group.

And, hey, look at that! I never actually said "don't criticize someone". I said I try to respect the dead and not crow about their death. That means I try not to celebrate it, in case you were wondering.

You want to criticize someone's policies and actions? Be my guest. It's a free country. Hell, I do it all the time, just not around here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To misquote Clarence Darrow: "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."

The actual quote is

Quote:
All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.

Which is less pithy, but covers it better.


Arturius Fischer wrote:

There is nothing wrong with criticizing another person's views or their politics, whether that person is alive or dead. That, however, was not the issue of the previous post. The issue is that there is a difference between respect and taking delight in a person's death and wishing for them to suffer beyond the grave.

Especially when that's the subject of the very first post. Even after the Mods purged most of the replies, that stain still remains as an example of how not to be.

But... that is simply the nature of scavengers. The scent of death always draws such jackals--they just can't help themselves. The most ironic part is when said people call the object of their hate 'evil'. Such is the height of hypocrisy.

I stand by my statement that any who die and receive such treatment are, by definition, in a better place--simply because they are not in the same place as the carrion-eaters who delight in their suffering.

You don't like the person or their politics? Cool. Say so and be done. Realize that, now that they are no longer in this world, they can't oppose you, and be happy in that. Don't write things that look like they came from some sleezy tabloid as you dogpile on a corpse with the rest of the jackals.

Your assuming the people didn't vocally delight in the person's demise while alive.


Caineach wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:

There is nothing wrong with criticizing another person's views or their politics, whether that person is alive or dead. That, however, was not the issue of the previous post. The issue is that there is a difference between respect and taking delight in a person's death and wishing for them to suffer beyond the grave.

Especially when that's the subject of the very first post. Even after the Mods purged most of the replies, that stain still remains as an example of how not to be.

But... that is simply the nature of scavengers. The scent of death always draws such jackals--they just can't help themselves. The most ironic part is when said people call the object of their hate 'evil'. Such is the height of hypocrisy.

I stand by my statement that any who die and receive such treatment are, by definition, in a better place--simply because they are not in the same place as the carrion-eaters who delight in their suffering.

You don't like the person or their politics? Cool. Say so and be done. Realize that, now that they are no longer in this world, they can't oppose you, and be happy in that. Don't write things that look like they came from some sleezy tabloid as you dogpile on a corpse with the rest of the jackals.

Your assuming the people didn't vocally delight in the person's demise while alive.

Making vague sort of "would be great if he dropped dead" comments actually seems more acceptable than celebrating someone's death after the fact.

Real, actionable death threats are a different story of course.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The problem that I have with the whole idea of 'respect the dead' is that it's not just the dead that deserve this respect. The same kind of respect that is being fought for on this thread for the dead the living should also have. Every person, alive or dead, deserves respect just because they are a person. We can criticize someone's actions, we can criticize someone's beliefs, we can speak honestly about the consequences of something, but we should never speak badly about a _person_. It's OK to say of a person, even the classic examples like Hitler and Stalin, that 'this person did horrible, monstrous things' but I don't believe it's ever ok to say 'this person is horrible' or 'this person is a monster'.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As Solon showed Cresus, you can only fairly assess someone when they are dead


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Great, now I wanna get my nails done! Wait, which salon are you talking about.


The Raven Black wrote:
As Solon showed Cresus, you can only fairly assess someone when they are dead

Which is kind of why death is not something we should cheer for—it represents the end of the opportunity to change and grow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berinor wrote:

There are several factors here. I think the most salient one is that there are still-living people who respected that person and who will miss their absence. It's classy to stay out of the way for a little while while they grieve and remember that person.

It's not so much that there are people in mourning for Scalia the person, as much that there are vocal established crusaders for Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBT, and a bunch of other anti-progressive crusaders who saw Scalia as their main champion and are looking their greatest fear... that a President they utterly despise has the potential to appoint a replacement that will tip the majority in the other direction.

As much as you might wish otherwise, the political dimension of Scalia's death is not escapable. It' the 800lb gorilla who won't leave the room that this topic invokes.


Redelia wrote:
The problem that I have with the whole idea of 'respect the dead' is that it's not just the dead that deserve this respect. The same kind of respect that is being fought for on this thread for the dead the living should also have. Every person, alive or dead, deserves respect just because they are a person. We can criticize someone's actions, we can criticize someone's beliefs, we can speak honestly about the consequences of something, but we should never speak badly about a _person_. It's OK to say of a person, even the classic examples like Hitler and Stalin, that 'this person did horrible, monstrous things' but I don't believe it's ever ok to say 'this person is horrible' or 'this person is a monster'.

I kind of agree with that, but from a slightly different angle. Declaring that some people are monsters is comforting because it others them, it puts distance between them and the rest of us. "They were a monster, but we're not. We're just regular people."

The problem is that much of the "monster" is very much a part of our common humanity.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Berinor wrote:

There are several factors here. I think the most salient one is that there are still-living people who respected that person and who will miss their absence. It's classy to stay out of the way for a little while while they grieve and remember that person.

It's not so much that there are people in mourning for Scalia the person, as much that there are vocal established crusaders for Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBT, and a bunch of other anti-progressive crusaders who saw Scalia as their main champion and are looking their greatest fear... that a President they utterly despise has the potential to appoint a replacement that will tip the majority in the other direction.

As much as you might wish otherwise, the political dimension of Scalia's death is not escapable. It' the 800lb gorilla who won't leave the room that this topic invokes.

When they say, "He was such a great man. He protected our values." Then you should stand aside and let them. If it could be taken as a "Thanks for all you did for us" rather than a "And now we need to redouble our efforts in his absence", leave it alone.

There's a line and celebrating his death is clearly over that line. Depending on the level of the actions, expressing relief that the harm will stop may be acceptable - ruthless dictators that's probably not unreasonable (even if you're not a direct subject), your cranky boss you should probably keep that to yourself.

Scarab Sages

Redelia wrote:
.....I don't believe it's ever ok to say 'this person is horrible' or 'this person is a monster'.

There was this guy...he doesn't post much here anymore....name was....Sebastian......

Liberty's Edge

That was no guy.

Sebastian was (is/will be) a pony with a law degree.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I can pass a message if anyone would like me to.


"Sebastian,

You are a monster.

XOXO,

Kobold Cleaver"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I always got confused. Is Sebastian the same person/horse as Li'l Sebastian?


He is significantly more popular in certain parts of the world. Wrongly.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I want "he was a monster" on my tombstone. Right beneath the part about saving my family from a sinking battleship and right above the part damning to eternal punishment all who read my tombstone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Morality aside...

Glorying unduly in the demise of another human being is just not something I do. It's friggin' tacky.

Sound silly?

So does crowing about the death of someone else.

Feel free to say you are not sorry someone is dead. That's simply being honest. Just save the clapping of hands and releasing of balloons.

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Respect for the dead? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.