Speaking ill of the dead.

Unknown · June 2007

Over the last few weeks we have had several comments/threads about people who are either recently dead, or elderly and frail (Manning, Thatcher, Pinochet, Blair, The Queen et al).

Does anyone else find this theme disturbing? I can see why people are angry about the decisions these people took while alive, but to propose parties and dancing on peoples graves, well, it's distateful isn't it?

If one was to look hard enough, then I am sure that there would be people who would happily dance on your mum or dads graves, would you want it posted on the internet? Would you like to see messages hoping your mum or dad died slowly, painfully and alone? Times and fashions and politics move on, personalities (in the wider context) should be consigned to the history books and we should concentrate on ensuring any mistakes they made are never repeated.

Or maybe I am way off beam here, I just don't like to wish people dead, they have living relatives.

_______________________________________________________
"Finding a witty yet original signature is quite difficult isn't it?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26011722@N00/

zimzum42 · June 2007

Some people are just that bitter......

Thatcher haters are the worst, they complain more about her than people who have actually butchered millions.......

[:D] www.addiscombe.org [8D] [8D] www.darhotwire.com [8D] [8D] www.muzikmedia.com [:D]
My Bikes My Commute

redcogs · June 2007

It was such a sad moment when that nice Mr Hitler died, is this the sort of thing you are proposing?

Whatever is wrong with an honest reaction towards people who did or do bad things?

please look up to the stars.. ***

Melvil · June 2007

Check this out from the Guardianistas...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/st ... 26,00.html

Quite balanced, eh?

******************************************************************************
See Baby Elephants and more at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47331519@N00/

Unknown · June 2007

Redders, I never really had you down as a complete cock before. Maybe I need to revise my opinion.

No, it's much more about the living, people like that terrorist fucker Mandela, can't wait for him to shuffle off, boy what a party or that bullying sell-out merchant Scargill, the one with the big house and the small union, get the banners ready.

You know full well what I mean, people come and go in public life, times move on, is your life so consumed with hatred for the personalities of the past? Why not concentrate on the making things better for the future?

_______________________________________________________
"Finding a witty yet original signature is quite difficult isn't it?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26011722@N00/

redcogs · June 2007

Maggot, of course you've had me down as a complete cock in the past, you've said so several times. i've no problem with that, we don't agree on a few things. There is no mutual expectation that you will turn up at my funeral complete with a glowing eulogy.

Tell it as it is, why sanitise? for respectability? out of respect for the dead? They are dead FFS.

Give me the honest assessment any time, not the sickly sacherine falsehoods and platitudes from the vacuous minds of scoundrels.

please look up to the stars.. ***

billsters · June 2007

btw, Bernard Manning died in hospital today, his condition is described as "satisfactory".

(with tks to Peter Cook)

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Maggot

Over the last few weeks we have had several comments/threads about people who are either recently dead, or elderly and frail (Manning, Thatcher, Pinochet, Blair, The Queen et al).

Does anyone else find this theme disturbing?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. It's just a way that a few people who consider themselves to be caring, kind, moral and ethical individuals have of demonstrating to the rest of us just how caring, kind, moral and ethical they are. All very immature, but there's no real malice, just a desire to show off.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Maggot, I suppose it depends upon several things:

1. Your attitude to death;
2. The record of the person concerned;
3. The kinds of things being said by others about that person.

Since I don't want to get into a philosophical / cultural / religious argument about death and what it means (I suspect I have slightly different attitudes to many British people in this area), I'll just stick with the latter two.

When someone dies, it allows others the opportunity to assess their contribution to the world. Most people will have lived lives of no particular public note, but will have affected others personally, which is why people who knew them will remember them with affection and will be justifiably upset if people make unwarranted criticisms. Some people will turn out to have not been quite as nice as those who knew them in a passing way though...

But we are not talking about 'nice old Mrs Jones' here are we?

People who do things that have a larger effect, especially those in power, deserve to be judged on the basis of those effects and their use of that power. Simple sentimentality or respect for families doesn't cut it when you are talking about issues affecting millions. Of course then it's a question of scale and impact: and there is a tendency to overstate attacks on people who are political opponents, Thatcher and Blair being key examples - but to many people they represent betrayal of hope, which is one of the most soul-destroying things you can experience, so it's hardly surprising they generate such reactions. Neither are actually dead BTW, and Blair is hardly even 'frail'...

Of the others you mention, Pinochet I find surprising that you put him on the list and then get offended that Redcogs compares him to Hitler. This is one occasion on which the mention of Nazis or Stalin etc. is more than rhetoric. He was a vile military dictator who overthrew an elected government, liquidated his opponents, caused people to 'disappear', in the name of an ideology. The fact that this might be an ideology that some people here support, and that he was aided by the USA and Britain at the time, or was done in the name of the fight against communism, doesn't make it any better. And you are worried about what his relatives might think? What about the relatives of those he had killed?

Bernard Manning - well, he's hardly in the same category, but given the nature of his material, he could hardly have expected cozy obits. I think he's getting better than he deserved, considering.

The Queen - well, it all depends on your view on the monarchy and being ruled by people who have no qualification other than being born into the right family, really. Personally, I have no respect for any royal or aristocrat who does anything other than renounce their lands, wealth and titles and live in the same way as the rest of us...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

ankev1 · June 2007

It's easy to understand a vitriolic response to the death of someone like Pinochet, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin etc who caused loads of death and misery themselves. The bereaved might feel cheated that each of those gentlemen died without getting their comeuppance as in trial followed by execution etc.

There's then a second tier of people who had a widespread effect but who can hardly be put in the same class as the moral ogres above e.g. legitimate politicians and agitators such as Thatcher, Regan, Blair, Scargill etc. There are many politicians whom I dislike intensely but I wouldn't lower myself to express this loathing with infantile slogans like "dance on his/her grave" etc. This is surely inexcusable in any public discussion and in any event it implies a lack of ability to string together a counter argument to what those people did.

While trying to be objective, it does seem to be a fact that most of this pathetic rhetoric comes from the left, a grouping whose ideology has been largely rejected, at least in W Europe. This rejection seems to have led to spoilt brat syndrome which then leads to the infantile outbursts. I would suggest a general return to a more dignified way of doing things all round, otherwise you end up being about on a par with the crowd at a Palestinian funeral.

Unkraut · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Maggot

Over the last few weeks we have had several comments/threads about people who are either recently dead, or elderly and frail (Manning, Thatcher, Pinochet, Blair, The Queen et al).

Does anyone else find this theme disturbing? ...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This bothered me, so you are not the only one. At the very least, it is in bad taste. I wonder if your reaction against it is because it seems to deny a basic level of human dignity to each individual, simply as a person, regardless of what they have done. To criticise is fine, including posthumous criticism, especially for those in the public eye who have done controversial things, but to rejoice in their death just has to be wrong.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

I would have said exactly the same about Manning 2 weeks ago as I would now. The fact he is dead makes no difference to me. I wouldn't go and dance on his grave though as I am not into that sort of thing and I would never say I am happy about someone dying (just not that unhappy!)

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Maggot

Over the last few weeks we have had several comments/threads about people who are either recently dead, or elderly and frail (Manning, Thatcher, Pinochet, Blair, The Queen et al).

Does anyone else find this theme disturbing? I can see why people are angry about the decisions these people took while alive, but to propose parties and dancing on peoples graves, well, it's distateful isn't it?

com/photos/26011722@N00/

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Agree completely.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

It's just a way that a few people who consider themselves to be caring, kind, moral and ethical individuals have of demonstrating to the rest of us just how caring, kind, moral and ethical they are. All very immature, but there's no real malice, just a desire to show off.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Very insightful and well put.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Whatever is wrong with an honest reaction towards people who did or do bad things?

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So it's OK to shoot a burglar if that's how you feel?

ankev1 · June 2007

Spire,

I think you're going off at a bit of a tangent there. That is surely a separate issue. (FWIW I think the shooting of burglars is a wonderful idea.)

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

Spire,

I think you're going off at a bit of a tangent there. That is surely a separate issue. (FWIW I think the shooting of burglars is a wonderful idea.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Reductio ad absurdum!

ankev1 · June 2007

Spire,

I never had latin at school, but does that mean that you think I've reduced the idea to it's absurdist level? If so, why? I can't for the life of me see anything wrong with householders shooting burglars. (I know it's illegal but I'm talking about morality.)

Unknown · June 2007

Can any on the left point to examples of such vitriolic behaviour by the right to any of their icons? For example, is the Daily Mail full of comments about dancing on Scargill's grave? Or, is this rather childish behaviour confined to left wingers?

spire · June 2007

Ankev

I was taking redcogs point and reducing it to absurdity i.e. it's OK to behave in a bad way if it's an honest reaction.

(Reductio ad absurdum is also a term/technique used in mathematics, so it's not just Latin scholars that come across it.)

Unkraut · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

Can any on the left point to examples of such vitriolic behaviour by the right to any of their icons? For example, is the Daily Mail full of comments about dancing on Scargill's grave? Or, is this rather childish behaviour confined to left wingers?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Interesting point. The Left allows the individual to become submerged in the State, so I suppose it doesn't matter if you want to dance on their graves, the individual doesn't count for much, only the collective. Further, because the State is seem as all important, those who run it - in this case often Mrs Thatcher - are seen as having had power and influence over the population quite out of proportion to what she actually exercised, and is correspondingly demonised.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Woosh... that's the sound of serious and sensible consideration going straight over the heads of spire and co. (sometimes I wonder why I bother...)

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

redcogs · June 2007

People who are voluntarilly in the 'public eye', most especially those with a political role, are, it seems to me, appropriate targets for honest assessment, even what many may consider cruel assessments.

Like plenty of my age, i've been to a few funerals in recent years.

i've never derived much satisfaction from 'christian' based ceremony, where very little honest accounting has taken place, just soft and sickly platitudes regarding the good side of the deceased. On the other hand, the humanist based events often attempt to describe the deceased in non patronising and honest terms, with the good and not so good side of their character being sketched. Everyone is encouraged to contribute should they wish, and i've heard some really blistering attacks on the dead in these circumstances.

It isn't dancing on graves, it is rather, a display of integrity and an opportunity to put the record straight - good or bad, right or wrong.

Bernard Manning was a deeply unpleasant 'comedian' who peddled disgusting stereotypes for money, and who lacked the sensitivity and intelligence to recognise that he was encouraging a fragmented society when what was need was a good stiff dose of inclusion.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

I suspect that much of the behaviour is because the far left have very little influence on mainstream politics and feel very marginalised. If you are largely confined to nooks and crannies of the internet, you feel bitter and this manifests itself in childish and nasty behaviour.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

Can any on the left point to examples of such vitriolic behaviour by the right to any of their icons? For example, is the Daily Mail full of comments about dancing on Scargill's grave? Or, is this rather childish behaviour confined to left wingers?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know, Maggot just called Nelson Mandela a terrorist... Ghandi was described as such at the time, too. The Evening Standard was still calling the ANC terrorists in the early 90s along with a group I used to belong to. The Daily Mail constantly slanders entire groups of people - and that may be the main difference. Lefties may pick hate-figures, the right pick on groups (usually foreigners or the weak or the poor). The accusations may use different language, but vilification has no political colours. It's naive to think otherwise.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Woosh... that's the sound of serious and sensible consideration going straight over the heads of spire and co. (sometimes I wonder why I bother...)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It is for the intended recipients to say whether they find it sensible or not... "There is a good service operating on the Jubilee Line today" "Oh, really? We will be the judges of that".

Personally, I'm more interested in the meaning of death than all that other stuff.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

Can any on the left point to examples of such vitriolic behaviour by the right to any of their icons? For example, is the Daily Mail full of comments about dancing on Scargill's grave? Or, is this rather childish behaviour confined to left wingers?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know, Maggot just called Nelson Mandela a terrorist... Ghandi was described as such at the time, too. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's somewhat different. Here, we're talking about "I want to dance on his grave" ethos of the left. Was there a mass outpouring of this by the right on Ghandi's death?

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Patrick - if I'm going to reply to you, you should at least try to address the substance of my argument, rather than leaving out the difficult bits.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Woosh... that's the sound of serious and sensible consideration going straight over the heads of spire and co. (sometimes I wonder why I bother...)

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

An arrogant and rude remark about a reply not addressed to you.

I also sometimes wonder why you bother.

Is woosh your posh way of saying whoosh?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Patrick - if I'm going to reply to you, you should at least try to address the substance of my argument, rather than leaving out the difficult bits.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I didn't think they were particularly difficult - just not particularly relevant to this rather narrow issue. The left do go in for demonising groups. I recall one Labour politician rather earnestly defending Nye Bevan's description of the Tories as "vermin" on the basis that they were regarded as vermin.

No, what we are discussing is the rather distasteful way in which the left exult over the deaths of their political rivals. And this seems to be a peculiarly left wing trait.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Patrick - if I'm going to reply to you, you should at least try to address the substance of my argument, rather than leaving out the difficult bits.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

FM is definitely having his monthlies today![;)]

ankev1 · June 2007

FM,

I read Maggot's remarks about Mandela etc as ironic and simply to show the effect which such remarks can have.

Maggot, would you care to clarify?

Speaking ill of the dead.

Comments

Categories