Why Exactly is it Bad to Speak Ill of the Dead?

[evilkumquat]

This is not meant as a snarky question, or a belligerent post, but exactly why are the dead supposed to get a "free pass" from the living?

There have been several recent notable deaths of either very evil people, or people who helped enable evil people. For each of these passings, the threads have been full of posts gloating or chastising the gloaters.

Why exactly is it bad to acknowledge that the world is a slightly better place now that some people are gone, if for nothing more than a sense of justice?

"They aren't here to defend themselves" is a weak argument, since many bad people, while living, felt no guilt in attacking the defenseless.

"It's disrespectful" also does not work. What is it about death that automatically grants one the respect that many were not willing to grant them in life because of their evil deeds?

"Think of the family?" Did the deceased think of the families of those who they were hurting? Did the deceaseds' families try and prevent the evil done by their loved ones? Didn't the deceaseds' families usually directly benefit from the actions taken by their dead relations at the expense of someone else?

"It makes us look bad." Should we really care about what "they" think of us at this point? "They" have been working so hard for so long to hurt us; what they think of us should be the least of our concerns at this point.

So please, someone, anyone, give me a good reason why I shouldn't feel pleased when evil people die. I absolutely, sincerely want an acceptable answer to this.

[MercutioATC]

1. Because they will rise from the grave and eat your brains.

I saw it in a movie...

[Benhurst]

8. ...

:rofl:

[murray hill farm]

41. OMG

That is such a funny response. Lots of good stuff on DU today!

[malaise]

71. LOL

:rofl:

[tomreedtoon]

85. They want a meal, not a snack.

Do you know how many Republican brains it takes to make a nutritious zombie meal? Ya gotta hijack a bus going to Crawford.

[ZombieHorde]

111. Very true.

[starroute]

193. It's not a joke -- it's the actual reason

Most funeral customs have more to do with fear of the undead and their jealousy of the living -- or of the evil spirits that might emerge through the portal to the afterlife that a death opens -- than with anything like respect.

For example, we typically bury the bodies of the dead in a nice, deep hole with the heaviest stone we can find over their head to make sure they can't get out. Or else we burn them to dry ashes to make sure they won't regenerate.

Certain Jewish customs are even more explicit. Mirrors are covered over so that the souls of the living, which are considered to be present in their reflections, can't be seized by spirits. Doors are left unlocked so that no one in the house will have to open them and inadvertently invite in the undead.

The implication of the original Latin phrase "de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est" (about the dead, nothing should be said unless it's something good) was not so much a directive to say good things about the dead as a suggestion that it was best to avoid saying anything at all -- because mentioning their names, as with any spirit, was all too likely to call them up and could lead to very bad results. (This is also why Egyptian pharaohs, Japanese emperors, and so forth, were referred to by different names after death than in life.) Or at worst, if you couldn't totally avoid mentioning the dead, you should at least say something flattering so they wouldn't get pissed and come trouble you.

Of course, these days saying nice things about the dead is far more likely to keep them around giving you a hard time forever -- see, for example, the case of Ronald Reagan. But the earlier mindset has been around since the Paleolithic, and it isn't going to change so easily.

[babylonsister]

2. What's the point? They're dead and can't hear you. Best to do it

while they're alive, in a letter or e-mail; let them know why you think ill of them.

[tridim]

9. People like Tony Snow don't listen to us dead or alive.

IMO it's necessary to criticize BushCo enablers even in death.

[Zhade]

122. What's the point? Uh, how about not letting the truth die with them?

So we can't speak ill of, oh, Hitler or Stalin just because they're not around anymore?

Ridiculous.

[babylonsister]

156. Then you go ahead and speak ill of anyone you want; I think it's

an exercise in futility. There already are writers who have exposed the truth and will continue to do so. I just don't see the relevance of dancing on anyone's grave, especially when they have just passed.

[The Doctor.]

154. Maybe if more people knew they'd be remembered for the damage they did,

more people would seek to not be such assholes.

[SpiralHawk]

3. "Hell, we do it all the time. Smirk." - Commander AWOL

"Look where it's gotten us Have-More Homelanders. We gots America and the world by the short hairs. Heh, heh. Smirk."

- Commander AWOL,
Skull & Boner Occult Division
of the Vaunted Republicon Chickenhawk Brigade

[Warpy]

4. The best thing to remember about dancing on a grave

is not to do it until it's been filled in, else you want to risk a nasty fall.

[Orrex]

7. I believe that's what's known as a "grave mistake"

Or a dance macabre, I suppose.

[TexasObserver]

5. It's not really the dead who are honored, but their survivors.

I do not follow the admonition not to speak ill of the dead, if the dead are public figures who have taken policy positions that matter. Anyone who spent their life as an apologist mouthpiece for the Bush family was not a good person. Maybe a great dad, good husband, decent son, but a lousy human being.

[Orrex]

21. That's a good observation

And my sympathy for the survivors doesn't necessarily trump my disgust for the deceased. For instance, when a particular murderous asshole shuffles off his smug, mortal coil at long last, he won't even be cold on the table before I'm dancing in the streets and mocking his corpse, and I won't feel at all bad about it, survivors or no survivors.

[Raksha]

191. And you won't be alone either!

For instance, when a particular murderous asshole shuffles off his smug, mortal coil at long last, he won't even be cold on the table before I'm dancing in the streets and mocking his corpse, and I won't feel at all bad about it, survivors or no survivors.

That's pretty much what I just told the freeptards on another forum.

[noamnety]

6. for the same reason I'm against the death penalty

It's not that THEY deserve better.

It's that it diminishes us to be rejoicing at tragedy. Regardless of who it strikes.

I have no problem with criticizing them, and some see that as "speaking ill of them" - but I view that as speaking the truth about them.

It's the glee at someone's pain that cuts away at our own humanity.

[World Citizen]

13. and the main tragedy is...

that THEIR humanity was cut off before it ever started

[Zhade]

123. Well-said.

NT!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. You've hit the nail on the head

It is ok, I think, to talk about a public figure's legacy--but to be gleeful about a death is not being humane.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

25. Amen.

:radio: :-) :web:

[evilkumquat]

44. I am Against the Death Penalty...

...because it is arbitrarily applied and there is no parole from the afterlife.

Too many people have been acquitted after spending years on Death Row; therefore the whole Capital Punishment system is flawed way, too deeply to trust the State executing ANYONE.

This has only been my stance in recent years, however. When I was younger, I was all for the whole "eye for an eye" sense of retribution the Death Penalty offered.

Maybe if/when I get even older, I will change my mind even more and be completely against Capital Punishment for purely moral reasons.

[malaise]

77. When my youngest sister died it was not a tragedy

Her pain was finally over. Yes it was very hard for us and it still is, particularly when we have family reunions, but she was finally at peace.

I hate eulogizing people - it's as dishonest as brainwashing children about Santa Claus. We've been to some funerals in my time and when we heard some of those glowing tributes more than a few of us wanted them to open the casket to see if we were at the wrong funeral. What's wrong with telling the truth about people. It's all damn superstition because most people in Western society are terrified of dying.

In my world the only philosophical truth is that everything that lives dies. Just stop for a minute and think about how many people across this planet died as I typed this.

I'm not mourning for anyone who enabled the deaths of others. Sorry.

[noamnety]

93. No need to apologize to me.

I specifically said I didn't have a problem with truth-telling. And I don't ask you to mourn anyone.

All I said was that feeling glee in someone else's pain or tragedy lessens you, not them.

When you take away the humanity of another, you kill your own humanity.

[malaise]

108. I haven't seen anyone here feeling glee

All humans die - it's that simple.

[Frank Cannon]

116. The "glee at someone's pain"? Whose pain?

I wouldn't wish what Tony Snow had on my worst enemy, but he's not feeling any pain right now. And he can neither read nor care about what I have to say about him.

As far as his family is concerned, I feel bad that they're sad at his passing, but their husband/son/father was an asshole, and I'm not ashamed to say so.

[qazplm]

10. It's not about the deceased,

it's about the surviving family who arent responsible for the deceased's actions.

It's about reciprocity, you don't talk bad about my dead relative and I won't slander your dead relative.

It's about decency, there are some lines that aren't crossed, and speaking ill of the dead is one of those lines.

You can feel "pleased" all you want to. Just don't get all public with that pleasure.

[Zhade]

124. Even Hitler had relatives. You want to not bring up the Holocaust to avoid hurting their feelings?

Patent nonsense, this notion that the truth should be silenced because it's uncomfortable for some.

Dangerous, too.

Oh, and you don't get to tell others what to do. You have no right. Sorry.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. I have decided that about a week is enough time to remain respectfully silent.

After that, grave piss to your heart's content.

BTW: I hope it's hot down there in hell, Jesse Helms. Thank you for making the world a better place.....by dying.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. We do it for the living

Ever had a loved one die? Ever had someone come up to you and say something nasty about them? Now, from the speaker's viewpoint, that opinion is justified--but not to the person who truly loved the deceased. And at one of the most stressful times in a person's life (death of a loved one), does it make sense to add to that griever's stress?

[hfojvt]

48. Is it fair to be one-sided though?

The news has been all over about what a great guy both Russert and Snow were, and that seems to be a historical re-write as well as a reward for their loyal perfidity. The 'news' is supposed to be about informing people, providing them with information - facts. "Seven people were lost when their tour boat encountered a ferocious storm." Instead we get editorializing "If not for the courage of the fearless crew, the Minnow would be lost."

"The right-wing media's lies create a world in which no one needs to feel any obligation to anybody else. It's a worldview designed to comfort the comfortable and further afflict the afflicted." Al Franken "Lies:"

So they can be praised publicly for doing so, but not called on it?

[Zhade]

127. Fanfuckingtastic point. You absolutely NAILED it.

I agree, this one-sided hagiography of the likes of Russert and Snow is insulting to the truth.

[pleah]

144. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[iamjoy]

14. Define Evil

Also, define speaking ill.

If you are talking "evil" like Genghis Kahn, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. mass murders and child rapists, etc. I really have no problem with anyone calling them what they were.

If you are defining as "evil" people who disagreed with your political and social philosophies, or people who were annoying and occasionally petty, well, I don't think it is right. To call "because they aren't here to defend themselves" a weak argument is essentially saying that two wrongs make a right.

Actually, I think it is "karma." You don't speak ill of the dead because when you die, you don't want people speaking ill of you. Of course, if you don't believe in karma, that argument is no more valid than the others.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. The dead don't get a free pass, but...

to understand it goes back to when religion was taken more seriously than now. The idea is that when they're dead, it's time for God to judge them, and well past time for anything that we could do to them. Even without God in the picture, there's always that mean ol' Karma that can get em.

One way or the other, though, the rotten bastid is dead and we can't really do anything to him any more, so remember the crimes but let the criminal go on to his whatever.

Even more than all that, though, I suspect there's so much superstition about death that somewhere we got it into our heads that Karma will come back and nail us if we don't respect the dead. Or, even if they don't suck our blood and eat our brains, they will haunt us.

[RayOfHope]

17. It seems speaking the truth is also confused with speaking ill of the dead.

which is too bad.

[Orrex]

19. That is exactly correct

Good point.

[Phred42]

18. Because DU mods will delete your posts

[Robeson]

24. And there it is. The OP's question has been answered.

[krispos42]

102. And have been!

Didn't know DUers could parse the definition of "gravedancing" so fine...

[pitohui]

20. because we the living are supposed to eat any kind of shit apparently

tony snow is an evil man, i remember well when he announced that bush would be following a "soft dollar" policy -- a policy that has utterly destroyed the value of our savings and means that my husband can't project any circumstance where he will be able to retire after a lifetime of work

if we can't speak ill of such a monster, who has cheated us of something precious, i would like to know just who we're allowed to speak ill of

you cannot libel or slander the dead, the dead have no more interest in our conversation, but we the living have every interest in frank HONEST discussion

when frank honest discussion of evil is not allowed because one of the evil doers has passed away, i have to raise an eyebrow

[graywarrior]

22. I don't know, but I hated that fucker Reagan.

[leftofthedial]

23. it makes no sense to give the recently dead a free pass

it allows vermin like raygun to be glorified beyond all reason and canonized by those who would perpetuate the evil they did in life. The other side keeps ratcheting the bar of acceptable evil up and up and up every time one of their little mini-demons kicks the bucket.

I think it is a mistake for a moderately liberal site like this to quash open discussion of the actual records and accomplishments of the recently dead and the likely consequences of their death. But Skinner owns the joint and gets to make the rules.

I don't think the living owe any artificial respect to the dead that we didn't owe them when they were still living. In the case of recent dead neocons, we certainly owe more respect to the families of their victims (millions of people).

I don't think speaking the truth or just our minds makes us jerks or "less than human" (which I was called for pointing out that Russert was a corporate media whore--duh!--like that was news).

If their families don't want to hear it, they should not read websites or publications that didn't like the "dearly departed." I doubt the families of neocon corpses like Russert or Snow would visit DU anyway looking for sympathy (or for any other reason).

Some living people seem to be so cowed by the very concept of death that they view it as some sort of get out of evil free card.

[nancyr]

26. Death does not change what a person was.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. There are several reasons

EDITED for a missing word.

First of all, your idea of "good" and "evil" people reads like a bad B-western. The real world is a Dostoyevsky novel. The people in it are all morally ambiguous, without exception. There is no saint without his vices and no sinner without his virtues.

When Jerry Falwell died about a year ago, somebody tried to take me to task for asserting his moral ambiguity. I stood by it then, and I do now. His public legacy may have been wanting when weighed in the cosmic balance, but no public figure, no matter how much bad karma he produces, is without his virtues. In Falwell's case, the virtues were all private. It should be worth mentioning that even people of different political stripes who knew Falwell, such as Senator Kennedy and Rev. Sharpton, found him warm and hospitable and called him a friend.

That leads to the next point. It is disrespectful, not to the dead (who could care less), but to the living who are left to mourn for him. Was there no one to mourn for Falwell or Helms or whomever you deem evil? These men, in spite of themselves, were beloved of their wives and children. They had friends. Let those people have some space to mourn.

The final point I will make here is that in no way is the dead immune from having his legacy critically examined. In the case of a public personality, such as Falwell and Helms, there is a great deal to discuss. But what's the rush? That legacy will still be there to examine next week, next month and next year. Do we have to start in immediately with with a vicious attack? Do we have to dance on a grave before the dead is buried?

Furthermore, dancing on some one's grave is not a critical examination of the man's life. It is nothing but an expression of hate, and thus brings the dancer down to the level of the supposed demon who lies buried. True, we can be glad that Hitler is dead, but it is better to examine his life to determine why he elicited such a reaction from his fellow humans. That Hitler is dead is nowadays unimportant; had he escaped to Argentina, as some baseless rumors had it following World War II, he would now be 125 years old and a safe bet to be dead any way. But what of that for which he stood? Murderous racism that justifies one man killing or enslaving another over his ethnic origins is still with us in places like Dafur and east central Africa. That the state should be used as an instrument to eliminate undesirables is an idea that survives to this day. Kill that, if you can, and I'll dance on that grave.

[enlightenment]

32. Thank you, Jack.

Nicely stated.

[PatSeg]

34. Well said

People should remember that there were people who rejoiced when JFK and Lincoln were killed. I would prefer not to be associated with that kind of mentality.

[leftofthedial]

45. nothing counts or matters

it's all just an ambiguous muddle

no one is "bad"

no one is "good"

Everyone is just kind of there, all doing the backstroke in the same mildly rancid cesspool of not-really-good and not-really-bad goop. And if the next generation of neofascist mouthpieces is even more evil than the recently departed, it's none of our business. They're just ambiguously semi-moral-semi-amoral regular guys plodding along just like the rest of us. No real harm there, surely. Out of respect, we can wait until the fascists in the media have had their drooling lovefest over the corpse and framed the recently departed's legacy in a gold frame, with ribbons, bows and no trace of the ambiguity you have zeroed in on, much less the actual evil they perpetrated. That way, in a few weeks, when we politely start to become mildly critical of the recently departed's actual record, our criticism along with his evil and the fascist machine's praise will be safely sucked into the muck of all-pervasive ambiguity. And we all know that ambiguity trumps evil, don't we? A few weeks after that, the muck will crust over, providing an elevated foundation from which the next blathering fascist can tell even bigger lies. Then that one can die, rotted out from the inside by their crimes, and we can remain polite and allow the "floor" to be raised another notch.

We should judge not lest we be called jerks.

BUT, MISTER RABBIT, how can you condemn "murderous racism?" Murderous racists aren't all bad, by your own definition! To try to hold them accountable for their murderously racist deeds is just not fair to their families and does not account accurately for the good things they do like giving flowers to their mom and shit. Your condemnation of them is just as absurd as calling Falwell a "fat bigoted piece of shit," which of course I never would do.

[Pamela Troy]

No, it has to do with a little something called "nuance."

Ever heard of it?

[leftofthedial]

109. I know all about it.

It is my stock in trade.

"Truth." Ever heard of it? "Right and wrong." Ever heard of them?

Promoting torture, death and suffering for a living is not "nuance." It is wrong.

[Pamela Troy]

166. How is "nuance" your "stock in trade?"

[leftofthedial]

172. I'm a professional songwriter

[Pamela Troy]

174. LOL! And that makes nuance your "stock in trade"....how?

[leftofthedial]

176. In every important way.

Navigating the listener's defenses and reaching "inside" to evoke or touch powerful emotions almost always requires subtlety and nuance. One clumsy step can destroy the fabric of the song like a clumsy cook destroying a souffle.

[Jack Rabbit]

79. I don't think you understood a word I said

Hitler's death did not put an end to racism, murderous or otherwise. Even in the wake of World War II, many Arab states ethnically cleansed themselves of their Jewish populations. Apartheid was the official policy of South Africa until the mid-nineties, and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories has too often been a display of brutal racism. Even while fighting Hitler, Stalin saw nothing wrong with purging the Soviet state of "counterrevolutionaries," which usually meant anybody who pissed off his sick, paranoid ass. Afro-American citizens were terrorized and in many cases murdered by members of the Ku-Klux Klan in a white supremacist reaction against the civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties. In the post above I mention Darfur and the genocidal terror that started in Rwanda and spilled into neighboring countries and continues to this day. Milosevich's Balkan wars were premised on ridding the area of Bosnians and Kosovars to make room for Serbs. Osama bin Laden issues a fatwah to kill Americans and Jews wherever they can be found; hop over to Freeperville and discover the dark world of misguided souls who think a proper response to the September 11 attacks is not a war on Osama or a war on terror but a war on the Islamic faith in all its manifestations.

The whole world danced on Hitler's grave and even hanged his henchmen, yet none of these subsequent Hitler-like crimes or sentiments were prevented. The point is that grave dancing is of little value other than for the dancer to express his hatred. That's cathartic, perhaps, but also disgusting.

That the next generation produces its own agents of evil or "fascist mouthpieces" is very much our business. I don't see where dancing on graves is any more useful at preventing man's inhumanity to man on a large scale than capital punishment is at preventing common street crime, including murders, on a small scale.

We should judge not lest we be called jerks.

I suggested nothing of the sort. On the contrary, I explicitly stated that the deceased is not exempt from a critical examination of his legacy, especially in the case of a public personality. Judging the deceased is not what is going to get you called a jerk. However, just uncorking the champagne at the demise of a mass murderer or kleptomaniacal imperialist and proclaiming a hearty "good riddance to bad trash and fuck him all the way to Hell" isn't rational criticism. It's a primal howl and it doesn't take a human being's advanced mind to do it; after all, my cats, who have no idea what tyranny is, do it whenever they're horny. So while judging won't necessarily make you a jerk, grave dancing will.

(H)ow can you condemn "murderous racism?" Murderous racists aren't all bad, by your own definition!

That's easy. Murderous racism is always bad, but the racist is a human being and consequently much more complex than a set of acts he has committed that we condemn and rightly condemn. If some one who saves a baby from a burning building, we praise the hero
and the mayor gives him a medal. Is that heroism diminished because the hero might have committed an atrocity in war at some time in his life? Is the praise for the heroism embodied by the medal tainted because the mayor is a Nazi? If you are going judge a human being by his acts, take all of his acts into account. If you are going to abstract from his acts those that are vicious from those that are virtuous, then condemn the vice and praise the virtue. They are still the acts of the same person, and that makes that person neither good nor evil but morally ambiguous.

Just learn to deal with it.

After all, it is not only Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi who can be called morally ambiguous, but those less remarkable like you and me.

[krispos42]

100. Nicely done

A big :thumbsup:

[leftofthedial]

110. Hitler? Okay. Hitler died way too late.

Given the circumstances of his death, it is likely his days of murderous racism were over anyway. That doesn't make his death a bad thing. The moral ambiguity of a monster like Hitler, who liked dogs and was kind to children, does not make him "okay." It does not mean I (would have) had to pretend he was an "alright guy" for a few weeks after he played extra crispy with Eva before mentioning his little failings, you know, like six million dead Jews and tens of millions of dead people, and the destruction of much of Europe.

"Ambiguity" is a refuge for someone with an inadequate commitment to social justice.

Some schmoe who rescues a little old lady from a fire by day and then cheats on his taxes by night may be morally ambiguous. That's not what we are talking about here. Snow's job--the reason we ever heard his name--was to tell lies in order to promote policies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, uncounted victims of torture, the theft of trillions of dollars and the virtual destruction of the US Constitution. That's not "ambiguity." That's pure fucking evil. Him dying doesn't change it. He was a BAD man.

[pitohui]

120. thank you leftofthedial

you have written the very best posts i've read anywhere on the internet today or for that matter this week

thank you

[leftofthedial]

146. my pleasure.

:blush:

[tabasco]

129. Great post!

I am so sick of this bullshit. If someone is a rat-fucker, dying doesn't change a fucking thing. The only thing it changes is that the rat-fucker never redeemed his rat-fucker life.

Treating these criminal motherfuckers like they're simply "political opponents" is amorality.

[Jack Rabbit]

141. Response

Given the circumstances of his death, it is likely his days of murderous racism were over anyway. That doesn't make his death a bad thing. The moral ambiguity of a monster like Hitler, who liked dogs and was kind to children, does not make him "okay." It does not mean I (would have) had to pretend he was an "alright guy" for a few weeks after he played extra crispy with Eva before mentioning his little failings, you know, like six million dead Jews and tens of millions of dead people, and the destruction of much of Europe.

No one would expect you to pretend that Hitler was an okay guy for any length of time. Under the circumstances of his death, there was little cause for sadness. After all, it meant the war was over. No tears need be shed for the bastard who started it.

Nevertheless, you are at least starting to get the idea. Hitler, who was capable of great evil, was also kind to children and loved animals. In the end, his evil outweighs his good.

"Ambiguity" is a refuge for someone with an inadequate commitment to social justice.

Of course, I disagree. Moral ambiguity is the human condition and has nothing to do with social justice. As a freethinker, I reject the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. However, just because man is not "wicked" by nature does mean that the other extreme is true. In fact, it is demonstrably false. If it were true, there would neither Hitler nor even Willie Sutton, a relatively harmless criminal next to a mass murderer.

Some schmoe who rescues a little old lady from a fire by day and then cheats on his taxes by night may be morally ambiguous. That's not what we are talking about here. Snow's job--the reason we ever heard his name--was to tell lies in order to promote policies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, uncounted victims of torture, the theft of trillions of dollars and the virtual destruction of the US Constitution. That's not "ambiguity." That's pure fucking evil. Him dying doesn't change it. He was a BAD man.

When all is said and done, those who lied to start an imperialist war against Iraq, costing hundred of thousands of lives, who covered their crimes by shredding the Constitution, will be judged harshly by posterity. Nevertheless, you are still confusing the acts with the actor. It is the acts that are pure evil. The actor is more complex and is capable of acts of kindness and charity as well as act prompted by selfishness, greed and hate. The act may be pure evil, and certainly speaks to the actor's capacity for evil, but the actor transcends the act. The actor, because he is morally ambiguous, is capable of acts of varying moral qualities.

[leftofthedial]

147. what acts did snow or russert or any of these wads do

that make up for one frigging day of the occupation of Iraq. I'm pretty familiar with their bios and I don't see any redemption.

they were bad guys. I wish they'd have died before committing so much evil.

[Jack Rabbit]

150. "they were bad guys."

It sounds like your reviewing a bad B movie.

Blaming Snow, much less Russert, for the evil that is the Bush regime is like blaming Baghdad Bob for the evil that was Saddam's regime. They are responsible for this travesty of American values? My, to say nothing of Dick Cheney.

To judge Tim Russert as harshly as you might judge a real policymaker like Cheney shows your judgment on these matters is badly out of balance. I think it comes from this overly simplistic view of humanity you espouse, where the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Perhaps you've known people as simple as such caricatures. I haven't.

[leftofthedial]

175. I'm "reviewing" reality.

Take your "B movie" sophistry to the local art rag.

The reality is they were bad people who did seriously bad things. EXTREMELY seriously bad things. Crimes against humanity-type bad things. Did they ever commit good acts? Were they kind to their grandchildren? Did they help their neighbor fix his lawnmower? Maybe. I would imagine so. Regardless, it would not obviate their roles in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the elimination of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, the implementation of torture as SOP and thousands of other crimes committed under the neocon regime of which they were an important part.

I judge no one as harshly as Cheney. (First you resort to "Hitler" and now "Cheney" like they were some sort of trump card. What's up with that?) But Cheney is so transparently amoral and incapable of masking his venal intentions that he would be an impotent old gasbag if he didn't have professional mouthpieces like Russert and Snow lying to the public for him and his "cause." Are the propagandist disinformation functionaries "as bad" as Cheney? In some ways yes and in some ways no. (The world is not as black and white as your own caricature.) But it doesn't matter. They are plenty bad enough on their own.

I do not espouse a simplistic or caricature view of people. I never said the world or people are black or white, so stop putting words in my mouth.

[Jack Rabbit]

195. I'm going to let this drop after this

When all is said and done, we're on the same side of the barricades, so this argument is purely academic.

You are contradicting yourself. You want to reduce certain public figure to pure evil, yet you admit that they are capable of good acts. That is exactly my point. All people, without exception, are morally ambiguous. No one is born evil. You were even the one who pointed out Hitler's good points. We could add to those that he was charming in small, informal groups and temperate to a fault. There are many DUers who would find his diet a sign of great virtue, although to me that's neither here nor there. Yet those things did not keep him from being a mass murderer, responsible for 11 million non-combatant deaths.

Rejecting the notion of moral ambiguity as you do makes it very easy for you to make a moral judgment: Hitler (or Cheney or Charlie Manson or whatever name we use to fill in the blank) is evil because "he is a bad person who does bad things." That is overly simplistic, whether you recognize it as such or not. It doesn't speak to motives, it doesn't speak to any moral choices they might have made. There is the moral relativism (that horrid idea the Christian fundies don't like, but can't escape) of one's upbringing and personal beliefs. Is abortion murder? Is outlawing abortion a violation of a woman's right to make her own medical decisions? There is no absolute answer to questions like that.

Hitler was overly simplistic in his racial theories. Aryans are "good" and non-Aryans in varying degrees are "bad." It isn't much more complicated than that. It's why Mein Kampf reads like child's temper tantrum. Of course, once one examines Hitler's racial theories, the problems he presents melt away into nonsense. But once we reject Hitler's acts of mass murder as founded on absurd, even demonstrably false, racial theories, do we leave open any justification for mass murder? Stalin was building a socialist utopia, he said, and allowed 20 million Russian and Ukrainian peasants to starve. Chairman Mao must have found that reasonable, since he allowed 40 million Chinese peasants to starve 30 years later.

That line of reasoning gets us much closer to the root causes of evil acts than one that says that some people are just plain evil and that's why they do evil deeds. Or is some people do evil deeds, and that makes them evil? Do we know what an evil deed is? Are they deeds committed by evil people? If Mao allowed 40 peasants to starve during the Great Leap Forward, he must have been an evil man. Were his educational reforms therefore evil? Under his leadership, China's literacy rate increased dramatically. That is a good thing, isn't it? So if an evil person is one who commits evil deeds, then isn't a good person one who commits good deeds?

So, what is your moral judgment on Chairman Mao?

It's not so easy, is it? Perhaps we would do better to recognize his moral ambiguity. He was a remarkable man capable of remarkable things, some of which resulted in millions of people learning to read and write and others that resulted in millions of people starving.

That doesn't give any one a neatly packaged answer, but it gives an answer from facts. That is an examination of reality.

After reading your posts that neatly package mundane people like Tony Snow and Tim Russert as beings residing in Milton's Pandemonium, I feel no more enlightened about questions morality than I was before. Perhaps my way of looking at doesn't always yield absolute, neatly packaged answers. That's fine with me. There aren't any such simple answers.

[leftofthedial]

197. I never said I want to reduce anyone or anything to "pure evil."

I'm not the absolutist you claim.

Some acts are evil. Some are good. Most people commit more than a few of each.

When a person commits enough evil acts, it deserves comment on their passing. The same standard applies to you, me, Tony Snowjob, Tim Russert, Ronald Reagan and Chairman Mao.

[pleah]

145. Standing ovation!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[evilkumquat]

49. Using Your Argument, No One is Ever Truly "Evil"

Membership in these forums should be acknowledgment enough that everyone here accepts shades of grey. However, pure black and white still exists in this world from time to time. Sometimes a person really is "evil", and no better aspects of their character should be enough to excuse this fact.

My original post purposely avoiding anyone by name, but hypothetically, if one was willingly working for an administration responsible for the deaths of thousands for no better reason than personal wealth or ideological demagoguery, especially when being in that position gives one the benefit of knowing just how bad things really are, how is that person not truly "evil"?

Plenty of people have left the Bush Administration and military because they saw what was happening; anyone who stayed and took advantage of the situation for personal gain are either directly guilty by their actions or passively guilty by their tacit approval of the actions of their "superiors".

[Jack Rabbit]

80. pure black and white still exists in this world from time to time

You and I simply disagree on that.

In the end, Rev. Falwell's penchant for Southern hospitality doesn't excuse his his penchant for using scripture to incite hatred against gays or to attack the civil rights movement, but neither do his vices undo his virtues.

It works both ways.

The Falwell we have come to condemn is Falwell the public man. We are right to condemn that part of him. But it wasn't the whole man.

[evilkumquat]

115. Would a Better Question Be: Is the World Better or Worse Off?

Maybe that should be the measure of an individual's evil?

Take your example of Falwell. Would the world be a better place had he never been born and put in a position where he was able to help steer this country so far to the right it can see the back of its own head?

Yeah, I think enough time has passed where most of us would agree that Falwell, despite any "private" good of which he was allegedly capable, made the world that much worse for the rest of us.

[Jack Rabbit]

143. That's more llike it

Even then, I have a problem with saying the world would have been a better place if Falwell had not been born. There are still others who use Scripture to justify hate, and there were many before Falwell. There will be others after our time. Looking at it that way, Falwell himself wasn't very important.

[BlooInBloo]

61. (shrug) Some are less ambiguous than others.

[Jack Rabbit]

81. True.

However, extracting the good from the bad in a person is a rational exercise.

[architect359]

171. Awesome post in this thread

Thanks!

[hyphenate]

28. I think that the wrong wing has lost a lot

of the icons of their party over the past 7 years, but people die, regardless of who they are. There are very, very few people I actively (mentally, at least!) wish were dead. On the other hand, I grew up with the attitude that we must conduct ourselves with some measure of propriety, and I believe this translates to comments made after someone passes away.

Do we REALLY want to sink to the level of the wrong-wing and blatantly say nasty things about another human being, despite how bad they appear in our eyes?

It used to be a superstition that if one criticized someone who has died, their house would be also visited upon by tragedy. There likely isn't any truth to this, but I think that some people, including myself, prefer to keep glee and satisfaction in check for reasons like this. It's like the Golden Rule--talk about others only in the context of how you, yourself, would like to be treated. No, it's not a commandment, an amendment, or anything as concrete as any sort of law, but as an actual "humane" human being, I find I live a little easier when I don't incorporate all that bitterness into how I think of those on the wrong-wing.

To be frank, I have mainly followed one rule of thumb in my discussions of those who have died who have been an influence on, or have been influenced by, this administration: I ignore them in death just as I have tried to ignore them in life. People give credence to many of these people when they die, giving them more press dead than alive. Is that how we want to look at the denizens of terror and evil, work ourselves up in a lather and obsessing about them after they have gone?

I think that simply making them non-entities after their death is a healthier and appropriate way to deal with them. And not because we need to spare anyone, or not because they didn't deserve to die, or any other such bullshit. We all die, and everyone dies in their own manner. It's best to note their passing, and move on to other things.

[EFerrari]

29. In part because one measure of a person's character is how they treat

the vulnerable and the dead are entirely vulnerable to what is said about them in that they can't defend themselves.

[lonestarnot]

30. Ugh, I think it is a defense issue.

:shrug:

[pleah]

31. Does anyone here actually think that some rethugs widow is reading anything

that is posted on DU?

I'm reminded of some words that were spoken some time ago by a guy many people believe in, Jesus,"Let the dead bury the dead".

All I feel when people like Helms and Snow pass on, is relief.

I was very disappointed in the censorship on DU. But, then again it is their website.

[Pamela Troy]

40. Interesting post, considering your online name.

How do you think Jesus (who, indeed, wasntafascist) would react to the idea that it's okay to mock the suffering of someone because you dislike their politics?

[pleah]

42. I never said that, maybe you should read my post again.

And, as far as my on line name is concerned, I won't explain why I chose it. If you want to know, look it up in some of my previous posts. I have explained it at least three times.

[Pamela Troy]

46. I read it the first time. Do you really think referring to Snow's bereaved wife

as "some rethug's widow" is something Jesus would do?

[pleah]

54. I really don't give

a cold hard one what you think Jesus would or wouldn't do. I never claimed to be a Christian on my post or at any other time posting on DU.

I will not post again to you and will not get into any further debate about religion with you. I don't care what anyone believes re: religion. What someone believes is their business and I won't be brow beat into believing something I chose not to believe in.

Find someone else to pester.

[Pamela Troy]

56. I was asking what YOU thought.

Apparently, it's not something you want to contemplate.

Maybe you should reconsider taking Jesus' name in vain.

[Zhade]

131. It's a statement of fact - would this alleged Jesus guy frown on stating facts?

NT!

[Pamela Troy]

159. Yeah, and every Freeper who defends Coulter's disgusting comments

about the 911 widows insists that Coulter was just telling the "truth."

[MonkeyFunk]

33. Because it's hurtful

When Jimmy Carters dies, freepers will say shitty things. And people here will pretend to be outraged by it. The same people who rejoice at the death of conservatives.

It's hard to decry actions taken by others that you yourself engage in.

[U4ikLefty]

113. No, I laughed (heartily) at the deaths of hate-filled racists like Helms & Falwell.

Carter was a statesman, not a hate-monger.

Do you know the difference?

[MonkeyFunk]

130. You put too much faith

in your own opinion.

The fact is, to many others, Reagan, for example, wasn't an evil hate-monger, and Carter isn't a saint. I disagree with those people, but it doesn't mean that you get the right to mock the deaths of their hero will objecting to them doing it to your heros. That's just an extremely egocentric view of how things work.

[Pamela Troy]

35. Okay. Here's my answer.

“Should I feel guilty because I’m glad he’s dead? If I feel like liberal democrats are American traitors, isn’t that a logical response?”

Comment made in the wake of Paul Wellstone's death on Lucianne.com

First of all, let's make something clear -- the announcement by the moderators about removing inappropriate comments in the wake of Snows death was NOT prompted by mere criticism of Snow's career. It was prompted by ugly "jokes" that were posted here in the wake of news about Snow's relapse several months ago. Some people here are trying very hard to pretend that the moderators are overreacting to "thoughtful criticism" of Snow. That's not what it is about. It's about people mocking the man's suffering, and the suffering of his family.

Now, to answer your questions:

Why exactly is it bad to acknowledge that the world is a slightly better place now that some people are gone, if for nothing more than a sense of justice?

In most cases it takes a rather staggering freight of hubris and malice to declare unequivocally that the death of an individual human being has made the world "a slightly better place." Making this assumption in the context of politics isn't just arrogant and malicious -- it's dangerous. The notion that the death of certain human beings will make the world a better place is what has driven institutionalized mass murder on both the right and the left.

"They aren't here to defend themselves" is a weak argument, since many bad people, while living, felt no guilt in attacking the defenseless.

Whether or not the person in question felt guilt about "attacking the defenseless" is completely beside the point. Moral and decent people do not take their cues on morality and decency from the immoral and the indecent. A system of "ethics" that's applied ONLY to people you like is not a system of ethics.

"It's disrespectful" also does not work. What is it about death that automatically grants one the respect that many were not willing to grant them in life because of their evil deeds?"

It's not just Tony Snow's death. It was just as disgusting when people were mocking him for his terminal illness when he was still alive.

"Think of the family?" Did the deceased think of the families of those who they were hurting? Did the deceaseds' families try and prevent the evil done by their loved ones? Didn't the deceaseds' families usually directly benefit from the actions taken by their dead relations at the expense of someone else?

I had no idea you knew Snow's family so well and on such a personal basis that you can make such a confident assertion. That said, I can only repeat: Moral and decent people do not take their cues on morality and decency from the immoral and the indecent. A system of "ethics" that's applied ONLY to people you like is not a system of ethics.

"It makes us look bad." Should we really care about what "they" think of us at this point? "They" have been working so hard for so long to hurt us; what they think of us should be the least of our concerns at this point.

Inasmuch as "they" are not just Freepers and right-wingers, but other liberals and Democrats who loathe Freeper-like behavior whether it comes from Freepers or DU-ers, yes, we should care. This is a POLITICAL BLOG. Much of politics involves not engaging in such repulsive behavior that you alienate the very people you are trying to convince and embarrass those who would otherwise be on your side.

I've written a great deal about this kind of malice, and how destructive, how ugly it is. In most of my writings, I've used the many, many examples available from the right side of the aisle.

So I'm not going to bite my tongue when I see Democrats and liberals engaging in similar mockery of the personal tragedies of Republicans and Conservatives.

I really have to say I'm astounded by the emotional stake so many DUers seem to have in hatred. Some of you clutch it to your chests like an alky hugging a bottle. Is reserving a group of people you can despise unreservedly so very important to you guys? Is everything truly spoiled for you if you DON'T have someone whose sufferings you can mock? I'm reminded of the people who become outraged at the prospect of prison inmates NOT being mistreated, NOT being abused, NOT being raped or tortured.

Is that nasty tickle you get when contemplating the pain of someone whose politics you dislike so very, very important to you?

[evilkumquat]

126. Feeling Hate Toward the Hateful is Human

To deny the strong feelings we have against those who have wronged us is just as hypocritical as any number of acts Bush has perpetrated during the last seven years.

I would wager that no one who comes to these forums are saints, whose first thought upon hearing about the death of anyone who has caused such hurt in the world is "Oh that poor man. I hope his family will be okay." If one is honest, one will admit to that first blush of satisfaction, no matter how fleeting. Some of us either feel it more warmly or are less ashamed to admit it. Perhaps the many here who complain the loudest about the grave-dancing posts are merely disturbed as to how close to their own innermost thoughts such comments are (much like how all those Conservative nutjobs hate gays so much because they are reminders of how they secretly want to gobble on some knobs themselves).

Honestly, my first thought when Falwell went was "Thank God. It's over with THAT one," an acknowledgment that his narrow-minded, bigoted, racist, homophobic movement lost a powerful, possibly irreplaceable component. Sure his followers are still a force with which to be reckoned, but without him as their spiritual "guide", they were made that much weaker. I am not advocating violence against those kinds of people, but I realize how much easier it will be for many, many more of us now that they are gone.

Please understand that, as an Atheist, I do not believe in "eternal judgment". THIS life is the ONLY chance we have to make criminals like Bush, Cheney and the rest of their regime pay for their crimes. Sometimes, the only justice we will ever see is when they die, and that is bitter, hollow justice indeed.

[Pamela Troy]

167. Ho-hum. The usual rationalizations. If I had a dime for every Freeper,

racist, bigot, and hater who exclaimed, "but I'm only being HONEST...."

[evilkumquat]

181. Careful...

I had a post deleted once for using the "F" word.

[Pamela Troy]

186. Can you deny my point?

[evilkumquat]

189. As Near as I Can Tell...

...your point is "don't descend to THEIR level".

In almost all respects I would agree. In fact, it is because of that belief that I feel Democrats who get caught in scandals should be tarred and feathered, if for nothing else to show we ARE better than the GOP.

However, when it comes to acknowledging satisfaction that someone evil has made the world a better place by leaving it (like an obnoxious party guest getting kicked out or rude co-worker being fired), we keep the high ground simply because we ARE better than the Freepers.

If we cannot accept that fact, what is the point of any debate?

[Avemedea]

185. As usual, Pam, you nailed it

And the responses generated remind me particularly of this point:

"I really have to say I'm astounded by the emotional stake so many DUers seem to have in hatred. Some of you clutch it to your chests like an alky hugging a bottle."

It shouldn't be astonishing, but it is. Just as it is difficult for me to believe that any of these twits actually read your points and STILL want to go down defending their vitriol.

We're not talking about political criticism; we're talking about hatred, people. What distinguishes you from freepers if not a rejection of hatred as a value? You're no better than the most rabid of Ann Coulter's fans if you can't grasp the difference between criticizing a person's stance and seeking to inflict pain.

[librechik]

36. If St Peter hears us talking about the sins of the dead, he might not let them thru the Pearly Gates

"Somebody" is always getting their panties in a twist when the Left says something that might outrage the mainstream. It's horrible, anti-intellectual and intolerant. We are all about free speech, until somebody says something that might get us in trouble with Strict Daddy.

[elocs]

37. I think especially after a person first dies it is a basic sense of decency and fair play.

Let's say that there is this person whom you detest and hate everything they have done or for which they stand. You are then able to tie them up and gag them and in a fit or oratorical brilliance you verbally destroy them. When you are finished you then feel totally noble and righteous as you strut and declare how bad you are, that you destroyed them and they didn't even say a word to defend themselves.

Because they can't! You have them bound and gagged and when somebody is dead that is the ultimate bound and gagged. We sit behind our anonymous usernames here on the internet and in our infinite wisdom and intelligence and confidence that we are absolutely right about everything so we feel free to pass judgement on other's ideas, actions, and who they are as a person. Passing judgement on somebody's ideas or actions is not inappropriate, but so often I see the tendency to make those with whom we disagree to be evil incarnate and personified and so that especially gives license to trash them as a person when they die.

What's the point? I am sure there are many Republican senators who disagree with almost everything that Ted Kennedy stands for, but they still respect him as a person. When he dies they will not dance with delight. I am sure there would be many people who would behave that way and we would think that would be despicable, so why do we feel so free and justified to behave that way when it is somebody whom we don't like dies? Is it because they do it? For myself, I don't want to be like them. I don't want to be bitter, small, petty, and narrow minded. I don't want to do to anyone else what I would not want to be done to somebody I love, admire, or support in regards to them as a person.

[islandmkl]

38. i (somewhat begrudgingly) agree that the respect for the loved one's trumps...

any 'statement' that could be of any timeliness...

on the other hand, leaving tony snow out of it...

were there actually any TRUE mourners for jesse helms?...

seems like it was probably okay to vilify him at the time of his death and forever after...

after all, there might not really be a hell...

[alfredo]

39. My grandmother told my aunt that after she dies she will claw her way

out of the grave and haunt her.


We buried her face down.



After I die, I won't give a shit what people say about me.

[madmom]

43. What if the family/loved ones of the deceased are living off the

ill gotten gains of said deceased? aka the bush "family fortune", limpballs cache of what ever it is he stashes away, cheney's money he made as CEO of haliburton, I think you get my drift. If they use these to make an easy life for themselves ,aren't they just as guilty?

[Pamela Troy]

47. It's still wrong.

Do you teach your kids to take their moral cues from immoral people?

[madmom]

64. No I taught my kids to be themselves, but I don't understand what you are saying what is still wrong

[Pamela Troy]

65. I'm saying that nobody deserves to die in pain.

Even if that somebody is someone whose politics you dislike intensely. Even if that somebody has themselves mocked people in pain and been uncaring about them.

NOBODY deserves to die (or live) in pain.

[madmom]

67. I didn't say anything about deserving to die in pain, but he does NOT deserve my respect!

I didn't respect him when he was alive, I will not be a hypocrite and pretend to respect him or his family now.

[Pamela Troy]

74. My apologies. I briefly confused you with someone in another discussion.

You responded to the question about why someone shouldn't speak ill of the dead with "what if..."

The answer is, it doesn't matter whether or not the survivors are, in your opinion, living off of "illgotten gain." You still don't "speak ill of the dead" as some here have, or express pleasure that they have died. How they behaved doesn't enter into it.

[hfojvt]

50. there are, of course, various shades of 'they'

As far as the 'it makes us look bad' argument. There is the 'they' of FReeperland, who will think we look bad rushing into a burning orphanage to save babies, and say so loudly. But there are also various shades of moderates to the left or right of center, who could either be pulled and persuaded to go further left, or they could be repulsed and disgusted.

Secondly, some of your argument reduces to "they are just as bad" and begs the question, as other people have probably said, "Are you basing your standards on them?"

You cannot help it probably, if you feel pleased, but you can discourage such thoughts and feelings, and also keep from voicing your pleasure.

[Cleita]

51. "This is not meant as a snarky question, or a belligerent post....."

Sure it is. Why don't you just tell us what your answer is?

[Evoman]

52. It's the revisionist history I can't stand.

It's the only thing that makes me speak up about anybody who has recently died.

Look...I could honestly care less about Tony Snow. He's dead...whatever. And if people just left it at "Someone having to suffer like that is terrible..I feel for his family" then there would be no point in speaking up or doing any "grave dancing". It's cool...we'll chill, wait till he's buried, wait even longer..then keep criticizing.

But I'll be damned if I let somebody raise these people to deity status upon their death without a good check. They go to fucking far...they forgot what a man was before his death and praise him to ridiculous lengths, forgotting all the harm (and sometimes plain evil) they committed while alive.

Message...message is always important. You repeat a message enough times, people start to believe. You offer no resistance to their false messages, you might as well give up....the first message, the strongest message, is the one that sticks. It's human nature. That's why this deification of people after this death is just plain harmful. People actually start to believe their own bullshit after awhile.

[Pamela Troy]

57. Do you understand WHY the moderators felt compelled to make an announcement

about removing inappropriate posts on Tony Snow?

[Evoman]

69. Knowing how fair the mods are, I suspect it was really bad jokes or making fun of him having cancer.

Although, I am not sure really.

What does that have to do with my post though?

[Pamela Troy]

75. This thread and many others right now are related to that decision by the moderators.

[Evoman]

83. And?

I don't get it...are you or are you not responding to my point above?

[Pamela Troy]

86. I believe I am responding to your point.

What prompted the moderators to make their announcement -- and in turn prompted this thread -- was the nasty mockery that appeared here in the wake of the news of Snow's relapse some weeks ago. The responses I've seen in this thread or others have confirmed my belief that it's about not being able to "dance on his grave." I've not seen much "revisionism" here. I've certainly not seen him "elevated to deity status." It is not posting "revisionism" or elevating Snow to a deity to say you're sorry to hear the man died so young. It's not even "revisionism" to say he battled cancer courageously, whatever your opinion might be about his politics.

[Evoman]

95. Fair enough...now let me ask you something.

What inspires you to say things like "he battled cancer courageously, whatever your opinion might be about his politics."

What inspires people to say he was " a good man" or "great man"?

What inspires people to say "He will be missed and was a funny man and brought life to washington" *not an exact quote by any mean*

I mean...there are plenty of people, better people who battle cancer every day. Why single out a man who has caused harm to you and others and then go on and on about their courage and how bad you feel for their families.


I remember when pinochet died, someone took me to task for REALLY pissing on his grave. As they did for Reagan, because I had a good piss on that one too. People where doing the same damn things as know....like they had fucking tears in their eyes while they reminsced on the "great communicator".

When one of you anti-grave dancers pmed me for pissing on their graves, I kindly explained that I was half chilean, and that family and friends of family disappeared during the pinochet regime. They were probably tortured before they were killed. And Reagan and his flunkies supported the "economic growth" of that totaliterian regime and were big supporters of that evil.

The problem, I feel, is that you and other like you don't have first hand knowledge of the suffering these people cause. You sit in your high chairs and tell us how courageous these people are, these people that killed our family and their defenders, and you admonish us for our relief.

I will reiterate...I don't give a shit about Tony Snow. You won't see me dancing on any graves, because he was a non-entity to me. I haven't posted anything about him yet, and I won't again. I'm not sorry nor happy the man died young. I don't care. And honestly, I haven't felt the Tony Snow comments were over the top yet, so at least there is that.

[Pamela Troy]

98. I didn't say "he battled cancer courageously, whatever your opinion, etc..."

I said that saying so doesn't qualify as "revisionism" or elevating him to a deity. For the record, I have no idea whether or not Snow battled cancer courageously. It's not something I feel very strongly about.

I suppose people say he was a good or great man because he did something they liked. So what?

I'm very sorry to hear about your family in Chile. No, I do not, thank God, know what it's like to lose relatives in that manner, though I have made a point of becoming as well informed as possible about Pinochet -- partially because I've written about his regime, and taken on Pinochet revisionists and apologists.

Your victimhood, or your family's victimhood makes your reaction to Pinochet's and Reagan's death understandable. It doesn't, however, make grave-dancing okay.

So far online I've been called "insensitive" and denounced as lacking in understanding for victims because I have:

Said that prison inmates should be protected from rape
Said that prison inmates should not be mistreated
Opposed torture
Opposed the War in Iraq
Questioned the guilt of the McMartin Preschool defendants
Opposed the death penalty for children
Opposed trying children as adults
Opposed the PATRIOT Act
Denounced the treatment of Jose Padilla
Denounced recent attempts to rehabilitate Pinochet
Denounced recent attempts to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy
Denounced recent attempts to rewrite history by claiming Hitler was a liberal

So I'm afraid your telling me I'm being insensitive because I consider grave-dancing inappropriate doesn't impress me much. It just gets it added to the above list.

[Evoman]

101. I agree with your list and would defend any of those points.

I've taken a beating for being anti-death penalty and for being for the just treatment of prison inmates. Defending the truth and defending the powerless is important.

But admonishing people for relief (and even expressions of that relief) after someone who caused harm to them has died, is not something I care to do. The dead are dead....and it might be because I am not religion nor spiritual in any way...but I see nothing sacred about the dead. Nor do I see anything owed to the living who supported that person.

[Pamela Troy]

104. Feeling relief at the death of a public figure responsible for the death of a relative is one thing.

Posting a piece online declaring your relief that they died, and then denouncing other people for expressing sadness at the death is quite another.

Sorry, but I don't for one moment believe that every person here who was posting disgusting "jokes" about Snow's cancer or equating his death with the death of an historical mass murderer like Hitler were people who had lost relatives to death squads. They were doing it -- and would like to continue doing it -- because some people find hatred exhilarating. It makes them feel strong, smart, and in control.

In reality, of course, it indicates the exact opposite.

[Evoman]

106. I don't know...I just can't make myself care.

I mean...I think making fun of cancer specifically is pretty gross, especially since there are other DUers who have gone through, and are going through, that sort of situation. But I just can't make myself mad at people who say things like "good riddance" or "I'm glad he is dead". Even "Tony Snow was an asshole" doesn't bug me.

As for people who liked him....I mean, where were all these people when the guy was alive. That shit could get you banned when he was alive. I think we can make special dispensations now that he is dead for people to express these positive feeligs. But damn...how can we just let this shit slide now that he's dead, when we wouldn't if he were alive.

[Pamela Troy]

107. Do you get mad when Freepers do it about liberals?

I do. And I've written about how rotten it is. Therefore, I can't sit here at my desk sucking ice and not saying anything when I see identical behavior here.

No, I can't let it slide.

[Zhade]

134. False analogy. Freepers celebrate the death of decent people.

We don't.

Huge difference.

[Pamela Troy]

158. LOL! A Freeper would look at some of the comments here about the deaths

of recent public figures and say exactly the same about us. "DUers celebrate the death of decent people. We don't."

[Evoman]

183. Except we are right. If we didn't think so, we wouldn't be here.

There were freepers that actually supported pinochet. I won't cry when those fuckers die either. And that's that.

Moroever, who gives a shit who the freepers bad mouth. If they want to dance at the death of progressives...good for fucking them. How can some people be so outraged....and how can I just plain old not give a shit? Who knows.

[Pamela Troy]

187. "Except we are right!" insist the Freepers.

You just don't get it, do you?

[Evoman]

194. Your simplistic moral relatavism argument....yeah I get it.

I just don't care.

There are people who would be sad if Hitler died, and rejoice if Al Gore died.

There are people who are sad that Pinochet died, and rejoice that Paul Wellstone died.

They think they are as right as I do. They might even use some of the same emotional language I do. They think I am wrong.

La de fucking da.

I don't give a shit. They are wrong. I could go further into the ignorant freeper mind set and justify my position. But why should I bother. I'm not going to change your mind, am I? You are going to be just as hard headed as I am and claim you are being more moral by not dancing on graves.

I don't care that freepers think they are right like I am. Furthermore, I don't care if they dance at the death of progressives. I've not emotionally invested in the morality or "correctness" of the living rejoicing at the dead. All I know, is that I have rejoiced, and will continue to rejoice, when someone who hurts me and hurts the world, dies. I won't hurt living people, I won't even make fun of the dead or dying...but dead men feel no pain and I won't be sad if a bad man dies.

[Zhade]

133. Damn, Evoman, I had no idea.

You have my condolences - and support for every word you just wrote.

[Evoman]

184. You should talk to my grandparents.

They actually HATED americans. I was just a little kid when that stuff happened, so I obviously don't feel it as viscerally as they do.

I've had many conversation with them...and to a large degree, have tempered that hate to just a hate of American leaders. But they still refuse to buy anything American unless they have to.

A lot of people, I think, are ignorant of just how much American policy affects people of other countries.

[Arugula Latte]

117. Good post, Evoman. I agree completely. nt

[Twist_U_Up]

192. Cheers.......Well said.

[The Straight Story]

53. You have their whole life to bitch at them, in death you can let the issues die with them

:)

[Contrary1]

58. Ditto. n/t

[Zhade]

135. "let the issues die with them" - you can't be serious.

That's the kind of thing a Holocaust denier would say.

[Fox Mulder]

55. I don't think it's bad to speak ill of the dead.

I felt pleased when the evil people died recently.

[Pamela Troy]

59. Hey, looks like you have a soul-buddy!

“Should I feel guilty because I’m glad he’s dead? If I feel like liberal democrats are American traitors, isn’t that a logical response?”

Comment made in the wake of Paul Wellstone's death on Lucianne.com

[Fox Mulder]

60. Except that Paul Wellstone helped people...

he didn't hate anyone or help Bush enable illegal wars.

I'm not going to bait you. I see what you're doing.

[Pamela Troy]

62. In short, you LIKED Paul Wellstone and DIDN'T like Tony Snow.

Do you understand that ethical behavior is not ethical behavior if it's only applied to people you like?

[Fox Mulder]

63. You're not going to change my mind on this issue.

[Pamela Troy]

66. Then why are you so afraid of actually looking hard at the issue?

[madmom]

68. So who are you to say want is and isn't ethical?

[Pamela Troy]

76. A human being who considers ethics important.

Don't you?

[madmom]

89. Yes but whose ethics mine or yours? Not all people consider the same things as

unethical or ethical. Just the same as morality, whose morality mine or yours?

[Pamela Troy]

91. There's something called "common decency."

It includes not mocking the suffering or the early death of other human beings.

You've not taught your children this?

[madmom]

103. This has nothing to do with what I taught my children, It has to do with whose

ethics and morality do we judge people by. I don't judge people at all it's not my place, but some think they have the answer to everything "decent".

I don't think it mocking some one to say what they are whether they are dead or alive, I think it's called not being a hypocrite.

[Pamela Troy]

105. If you consider ethics so relative that you don't understand

why people should have and express opinions on the ethical or non-ethical behavior of others, how can you teach your children about them? If you don't "judge people at all," do you refrain from criticizing the policies of the current administration on the Iraq War? Torture? The treatment of dissenters?

It is inappropriate to publicly declare that the world is better off because an individual has died young, as Tony Snow did. If you feel relief at his death that's one thing. Announcing that relief publicly is quite another.

[madmom]

112. Why does what I say about him or any one bother you or any one else, it's my opinion, I'm

entitled whether, you like or agree with it or not.If he or his family didn't want people saying things like this maybe they should have thought about his actions while he was doing them, and the people he was harming by doing them.

Again my children have nothing to do with this. You say "people should have and express opinions on the ethical or non-ethical behavior of others" I say the exact same thing BUT you are trying to say what you believe is ethical should be the standard for what everyone believes is ethical, I on the other hand say to let someone like Tony Snow off the hook just because he died is unethical. My children didn't get on tv every day and tell lies and cover up corruption and "unethical" if not treasonous/criminal practices of this administration.To not speak the truth about this is immoral,unethical and hypocritical and enabling them to write the history books as they see fit. Tony Snow was an enabler to this administration, so that makes him just as bad as they are.

[Pamela Troy]

114. So are you teaching your children to celebrate when someone you don't like dies?

[madmom]

118. Why are you so hung up on what I teach my children? I'll but my ethics and morals up against most of

the so-called christians I know!

[Pamela Troy]

119. What you teach your children about ethics goes straight to the heart about what

you believe about ethics.

Do you teach them to celebrate when someone you dislike dies?

If not, why not?

[madmom]

125. My youngest is 24, I taught them to be true to themselves, where do you see that

I am celebrating simply because I refuse to be a hypocrite and say nice things about somebody I did not respect, if anything that would teach them to lie.
You are moving the goal posts again.

[Pamela Troy]

160. Every person I've ever met who spews malicious and hateful garbage

defends it by saying they don't want to be a "hypocrite."

[madmom]

179. So you are saying that for me to tell the truth is malicious and hateful while you

tell lies is the "christian" thing to do? First you don't have a fucking clue what I have said or didn't say about any one second I could not care less if he is dead or alive he was a prick! To say other wise is lying and in my book that makes you just as bad as him.

You must be one of these people who sees everything through rose colored glasses, for me, I'd rather have the truth, thank you. Now go read your bible some more!

[Pamela Troy]

188. I'm saying that mocking the death of another human being,

whether it's by joking about a terminal illness, or declaring the world a "better place" because that individual is gone is hateful and malicious.

And I repeat -- every hater I've ever met, whether it's some racist crowing over MLK's death or some bigot sneering at the suffering of the 9/11 widows, is positive that what they are spewing is nothing more than the "truth."

[madmom]

190. Show me where did I "mock" or "joke" about his death? Obviously you talk to a lot

of hateful people, I never said anything other than I will not say good things about him after he died because I found nothing good to say about him when he was alive, that would be hypocritical.Look at ronald reagun everyone has forgotten what an ass he was because no one was allowed to talk about what he really was or did, now he's a saint! What about joseph gobbels he was hitler's spokesperson, should he be given a pass also? I think your version of speaking the truth and mine are quite different. Tony Snow spewed right wing neo-con propaganda and it has caused irreparable harm to thousands of people, what can you or any one say to make that sound good, he was a spokesman for freedom and democracy? he only wanted what was best for the citizens of this country? even Scott McClellan got a clue and quit and there were others who left, but old tony boy jumped right in to take up the slack. That to me is/was not a redeeming quality.

[Zhade]

140. Hear, hear! It's unethical for the poster to demand that you accept their opinion as your own.

NT!

[Pamela Troy]

162. So is it unethical to argue when someone's opinion includes advocating torture?

[Evoman]

196. Well, the freepers tell me that torture is good and protects us from the enemy.

And they can give me lots of facts to why it is. Why shouldn't we believe them? They think THEY are right just like you do.

/sarcasm

[Zhade]

139. Once again, in your opinion.

NT!

[Pamela Troy]

161. And that means...?

[Zhade]

138. IN YOUR OPINION.

MY sense of decency demands liars and criminals NOT be given a pass just because they happen to die.

[Pamela Troy]

163. And some people's twisted sense of "decency" demands that we torture.

Is it unethical to argue with them too?

[BlooInBloo]

70. More idiotic relativism.

[Pamela Troy]

78. How does saying that it's as wrong to mock the suffering of a right winger

as it is to mock the suffering of a left winger qualify as "relativism?"

Do you understand what "relativism" is?

[BlooInBloo]

88. Did you get those goalpost wheels cheap?

[Pamela Troy]

90. In what way do you feel I "moved the goal posts?"

And you still haven't explained what in my posts qualifies as "relativism."

[BlooInBloo]

92. Oy.

From original: "I don't think it's bad to speak ill of the dead."

To the moved goalposts: "to mock the suffering of a right winger"


Nobody but you is talking about mocking. Nobody but you is talking about mocking *suffering*. The original only talked about saying of a shitty person, that the person is shitty.

[Pamela Troy]

94. And that person went on to say

that s/he'd "felt pleased when the evil people died recently." I then posted an almost identical quote some right-wing idiot had made on Lucianne.com in the wake of Paul Wellstone's death.

If you don't think it's mocking human suffering to declare yourself glad that someone has died young because they were "evil" I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.

Are you ever going to explain where I've been guilty of "relativism?"

[Zhade]

136. It's a provable fact that Wellstone helped people, while Snow helped people - Iraqis - be murdered.

You're completely out to lunch on this.

[Pamela Troy]

168. And every Freeper I've ever argued with has insisted that "provable facts"

make it okay to celebrate the deaths of Wellstone, Ruzicka, Corrie....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. partly because its cowardly, if you call me a slut after i die, i wont be able to retort

with "and damn proud of it too"...

[tabasco]

128. Yeah, it's cowardly to call Ted Bundy a murderer.

I mean, he's dead and all so everything is forgiven and I don't want to be a coward calling him what he was.

[bean fidhleir]

73. In other cultures, it's self defense. Nobody wants angry ghosts hanging around.

So the cultural practice is to say only nice things, so that the ghost will leave them alone.

[WillowTree]

82. I like it when people speak their true minds...

....regardless of if ti's about the living or agout the dead or about the loved ones that the dead leave behind. It makes it so much easier to see which people have such qualities as class and/or compassion and/or empathy and which don't. Threads such as this one are very illuminating indeed.

[MiniMe]

84. There is nothing wrong with being critical of the dead, it is rejoicing in his death that is wrong

Snow, as much as I disagree with his politics and the enabling of the Bush Administration, was loved by some people and had his good points to many. I am glad that he is no longer in his job as press secretary. He died of a horrible disease, nobody deserves that. IMHO say what you want about his policies and his spin, that's fair game. But I am not glad that he died of colon cancer. Compassion in matters such as those that make us progressive.

Arlan Specter has recently announced that he disease had returned. He is obviously undergoing treatment again, he looks absolutely horrible. Do I disagree with his politics? Absolutely, he talks a good game but doesn't vote the way he talks when it comes down to it. Am I glad that his cancer returned? Hell no, it is a terrible disease. I will not be glad when he is dead.

Last think is to take Teddy Kennedy as an example. I think he is a great Senator. He has had his share of adversity and risen above it and truly seems to care about the people. It upsets me to no end that he has been diagnosed with brain cancer. I do think that this disease will eventually take him, I only hope it is a long time away. But you notice that when he came back to the Senate the other day to cast his vote for Medicare, that every Senator in the Senate, both Republican and Democrat, gave him a standing ovation. There are many on he right who hate Teddy as much as we love him. I can only hope that the freeps will not show some of the venom towards Teddy as I have seen here about Falwell and Helms.

[Zhade]

142. Yeah, all those Jews celebrating Hitler's death was just so wrong.

:sarcasm:

[Pamela Troy]

169. You know, at one time I would have said that, given the stunning scale

of Hitler's crimes, celebrating his death is okay.

But after watching the celebration of Hitler's death being used to justify celebrating the death, not of another mass murderer, but of some right-wing spokesman who just died painfully of colon cancer n his early '50s, I'm beginning to have doubts. Maybe it's NOT okay to celebrate Hitler's death. Too few of you seem able to grasp the difference between a Hitler/Stalin, etc and some right wing public figure you dislike.

[madmom]

199. He was not JUST a right wing public figure..He was a propaganda minister

[MiniMe]

200. Nothing wrong with saying that either

Criticism is fine. I agree, he was a propaganda minister supreme. That doesn't mean I am glad that he died a horrible death from cancer.

[alphafemale]

157. Ted Kennedy is a good analogy. He's the right wing's favorite whipping boy.

And many were expressing joy at his disease.

It's just not the best of human emotions.

[dems_rightnow]

87. Because generally....

....... it reflects more on you as a person than it does the deceased.

[book_worm]

96. because I like to think we are a little bit better than they are

We know on some sites the glee there will be when, for instance, somebody like Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter dies. They will dance on their graves and I'd like to think we are better than that.

[ileus]

97. why do people get upset when not allowed to make fun of the dead.

not meant to be a snarky reply, or belligerent comment.

be happy when evil people die...

[Pamela Troy]

99. Because hating goes down sooooooo smooooooooooth for some people.

[Zhade]

121. It's not. At all.

I mean, it's crazy - if they did terrible things, do we bury the truth? NO!

[0rganism]

132. for most of the same reasons we shouldn't speak ill of the living

To be critical is not necessarily to speak ill; one may examine the legacy of a dead person and find it wanting without dancing on a grave, and one may criticize the living without calling names.

Your arguments otherwise amount to so much posthumous "tu quoque" fallacy. Just as it was not okay when the subject of your death-gloat attacked the defenseless, or disrespected others' lives, or brought pain to the families and friends of others for the benefit of their own, it remains not okay when you do so now at their expense.

To rejoice in glee at someone's passing demeans the rejoicer far more than the one of whom they "speak ill". One has a priceless opportunity to engage in reflection and contemplation, yet squanders it in the whorehouse of schadenfreude.

[crikkett]

178. I think yours is the best answer. n/t

[mitchum]

137. Sentimentality and superstition

[Pamela Troy]

164. Yeah, imagine all those sentimental superstitious types who actually

OBJECT to the badmouthing of Rachel Corrie and Marla Ruzicka.

[devilgrrl]

148. I'd like to know how much restraint we're to use when Cheney kicks it.

:popcorn:

[many a good man]

149. Oh man! DU should just shut down for a month when that happens!

Personally, I take no joy when any of them passes. Just a sick feeling in my gut mixed with relief that they can't harm anyone else.

[treestar]

165. True enough. Their basic philosophies live on

And there is always someone to take their place. The kind of hatred they espoused is still around; one of them dying does nothing to change that in the least.

[orleans]

151. people are afraid of ghosts? they fear the dead will come back to haunt them? n/t

Dying To Be A Nicer Person
by Kate Melville
The phrase "don't speak ill of the dead" appears to be more than just good manners according to an upcoming article in Human Nature. Professor Jesse Bering of the University of Arkansas has been working on a series of experiments that show people tend to upgrade their valuations of another person when they think that person has died.

For one experiment, Bering presented a group of subjects with facial photos of several different people. The subjects made assumptions about the people's personality traits - were they friendly, kind, hardworking, outgoing, - based only on the photos. At a later date, the subjects were again presented with the photos, but this time they were told that some of the people had died since the first experiment. Bering found the subjects tended to upgrade their guesses about the people who they thought were dead, providing the first scientific evidence that people really don't like to speak ill of the dead.

"It's like we want to remind these people who've died how good and nice they are, so they won't hurt us," Bering said. "None of this is conscious, of course, but it doesn't have to be, so long as it works in nature."

As part of his research, Bering examined how subjects were affected by the perceived presence of a dead agent. He had three separate groups of subjects take a computerized test where the highest score earned a $50 prize. The subjects were told that the computer program had a glitch in it - sometimes the correct answer to a question would pop up on the screen with the question. This presented them with the opportunity to "cheat" at the task. By pressing the space bar, the subjects were told, they could delete the correct answer before they read it so they could respond truthfully. One of the groups read a made-up memoriam before the test, stating that the fictional graduate student who developed the test had died. Another group also read the memoriam, and were casually told that the graduate student's ghost had been spotted in the very room where they were taking his test. Those assigned to the third group heard nothing about a dead graduate student. Bering found that the subjects who were told about the ghost were generally less likely to cheat, because the subjects hit the space bar more rapidly than those in the other two groups.

"Cross-culturally, we're seeing evidence of a belief in the absolute causal power of people who've died," Bering said. "If I perceive that someone is evaluating me, whether it be my dead grandmother or God, I'm less likely to commit a transgression, possibly because I'm afraid of the consequences." Bering's findings led him to one of the questions he'd like to be able to answer: Is that belief an odd byproduct of regular social cognition or an adaptive trait that serves a moral policing function?

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041029001814data_trunc_sys.shtml

[BigBearJohn]

152. Isn't it enought that they are DEAD... do you need to drive a stake thru their heart as well?

They are dead and gone and you are still alive. Be glad it's not you.

[ToeBot]

153. I'm not going to let a little thing like their being dead stop me from bad mouthing anyone.

They were shit-holes in life, now they are dead shit-holes. So what.

[comtec]

155. Wait... snow died?!

WHERE is his grave so I can join the piss-party!!!
This .... THING is SCUM!!!!
dead from brain cancer, STILL too good for him!
He has SINGLE HANDEDLY caused the deaths of THOUSANDS by blithely passing on the KNOWN LIES of the * admin!
His death could NOT have been painful enough!
Hes dead.. GOOD!

*breaths deeply*

Ahhh good got that out of my system

THAT is why grave pissing is healthy!
We can say out peace then be done with it.
He's gone, let US have OUR wake, let US grieve for all those dead because of HIS actions
I PISS ON HIS GRAVE!
I SPIT ON HIM!


and then im done.
I can make my peace, and be at piece.
Sometimes we have to scream and yell and curse and damn, before we can start the process of forgiveness.

it's now in the hands of god.
like helms, and the other scum.

I was glad they no longer pollute the airwaves with their evil.
i'm glad snow can no longer do the devil's work (at least on earth)
and that's that.

It makes me MORE human to release these deamons, this hate, let it out, howl, bay at the moon, scream for justice denied, then let it go.

I always hear "but we;'re better than that" which is posted here more than enough.
But are we>
Should we?
at least in this instance.
there are more than enough people on the other side who will praise him as a saint
messenger of saint *
at least we can be honest and cathartic.
unlike them... we do let go after a time.
they seems to hold onto their anger, and hate, and bile like it's precious.
we're not like them because we at least accept our worst sides, we want to examine it, and then send it away.
we WANT to be better, and n that honest pursuit, we are better.

so, moral police, allow us our catharsis (catharsii?) because another one got away.

[LanternWaste]

170. Objective criticism is fine

"This is not meant as a snarky question, or a belligerent post, but exactly why are the dead supposed to get a "free pass" from the living?"

Objective criticism is both well within the acceptable tolerance of society and may actually be edifying in some cases based on context. But why waste precious time allowing anger, frustration and ill-will to overcome those better and more ennobled emotions of ours over what is by definition, now ineffectual?




"They aren't here to defend themselves" is a weak argument, since many bad people, while living, felt no guilt in attacking the defenseless."

That appears to be valid if and only if your actions and reactions are based on and predicated by the actions and reactions of others. Thus I do not happen to believe it is a weak argument.

"Why exactly is it bad to acknowledge that the world is a slightly better place now that some people are gone, if for nothing more than a sense of justice?"

Again, objective criticism is fine, as it educates us. Yet there is a precise and relevant difference between objective criticism and subjective blame and judgment.




""Think of the family?" Did the deceased think of the families"

Again, my own actions and reactions are not predicated on the actions of the now deceased.



""It makes us look bad." Should we really care about what "they" think of us at this point?"

Regardless of whether it appears to bring us down to their level, the question (I think) should be, "does in actuality bring us down to their level-- appearances aside?" Since I think it does, I refrain.




I cannot speak to whether or not these are either acceptable to anyone or not, and if they are indeed Absolute and/or Good answers. But they work well enough for me as "speaking ill of the dead" is nothing more than a waste of time (at its very best)... :shrug:

[bigwillq]

173. I don't mind if

someone talks ill of the dead if that person has been consistently talking ill of the recently deceased when they were alive.

It just seems like whenever a person dies all of the vultures come out on DU just to talk ill of that person. Where was the outrage before? :shrug:

Ok, there were some negative Russert threads through the years here on DU but when the poor man dropped dead there were literally hundreds of anti-Russert threads.

What's the point? The man's dead; he can't do any harm anymore.

I feel there really is no need to talk ill of the dead. If you didn't like that person just be grateful they're dead but I feel grave dancing doesn't accomplish anything; nor does it promote liberal values and, frankly, it just makes us look bad.

[crikkett]

177. Because they'll haunt your ass. n/t

[SidneyCarton]

180. Read John Donne...

Feel pleased at the death of whoever you will, just remember that you will join them in death eventually, and when you do, the way you comported yourself in life will determine how you are remembered in death.

What you reap is what you've sowed.

[LeftinOH]

182. When Joan Crawford died, Bette Davis said: "You're not supposed to say

bad things about some who has died, only good. Crawford has died. Good!"

[Dukkha]

198. nothing wrong at all

Death does not exonerate the evil ones from their deeds. I couldn't care less about the 'nice things' a public figure does in private, nor would I ever offer fake condolences to their families. If that's such an issue to them then perhaps they should have done something about their evil relative when he was alive.

The smug self-righteous pandering against the so-called 'grave dancing' is an obvious and very transparent attempt to impress some strangers on a public forum, that your somehow above the natural human reaction of Schadenfreude. So just drop the pretense already you're not impressing anyone. We all know how you really feel.