In the name of decorum...

wretcheddomain

It's considered unfashionable and rude to speak ill of the dying or the dead. I despise this attitude because it means that in the name of being politically correct you have to suppress otherwise perfectly legitimate criticisms. Consider the latest case of Ariel Sharon. This individual has been in a coma for the past eight years and according to latest news reports, he hasn't got long left.

Herein lies a problem though. When Sharon committed his almost genocidal policies from the 1980's onwards, these criticisms were deemed perfectly warrantable but this legitimacy evaporates if the individual is either in the process of dying or has died. Why the double standard? Isn't it dishonest for many people to ask you to hide your real views, views you held at every other time in that individuals life? I think this decorum business has gone too far and merely makes hypocrites out of everyone.

Obviously, I don't want this thread to turn into an anti-Sharonian thread but would prefer if people expressed their views on respect for the dying or dead, particularly if they have committed a vast amount of serious crimes.

Nodin

I had no respect for him when he was healthy and I've none now. I don't grave dance, however. Usually people have finished doing what ill they might before they die, and with him it was in 2006.

wazky

Shure isn't everyone wonderful and great when their dead?

wretcheddomain

wazky wrote: »

Shure isn't everyone wonderful and great when their dead?

It's a great excuse for revisionism, yes.

kneemos

Generally people like to show a bit of respect for the dead or dying,it's not the time for criticism.Call it tradition,good manners or karma or something I suppose.

wazky

kneemos wrote: »

Generally people like to show a bit of respect for the dead or dying,it's not the time for criticism.Call it tradition,good manners or karma or something I suppose.

Do some people deserve it though?, or is it a universal standard regardless of past actions?

wretcheddomain

kneemos wrote: »

Generally people like to show a bit of respect for the dead or dying,it's not the time for criticism.Call it tradition,good manners or karma or something I suppose.

Tradition means nothing. I mean, it's tradition to do many things but it doesn't automatically make the reasons for the tradition right.

If Hitler was captured by the Allies and held within the confines of a cell for fifty years, began dying, would you show a bit of respect due to tradition, or would you condemn him equally as when he was alive?

Where do you draw the line...

Nodin

wazky wrote: »

Do some people deserve it though?, or is it a universal standard regardless of past actions?

Some do. This head isn't one of them though.

Miss Lockhart

I don't think it is considered rude to speak ill of the dead or dying - only to hijack tributes, whether by posting in RIP threads, pontificating on radio/TV tribute programmes or interfering with the actual funeral.

kneemos

wazky wrote: »

Do some people deserve it though?, or is it a universal standard regardless of past actions?

There's time for criticism when they're dead and buried.If they were a raging terror people can hold their tongue for a while.

wretcheddomain

kneemos wrote: »

There's time for criticism when they're dead and buried.If they were a raging terror people can hold their tongue for a while.

Holding our tongues means we're forced to give respect to those whom we have no respect for.

Would you say the same thing if it were Hitler on the death bed?

poundapunnet

Yeah, it's amazing even on a lower level where people actually know the deceased. They could have spent the past 50 years giving out about them but as soon as they're dead they're a saint.

But, that said, maybe when you face the prospect of actually losing someone it puts things into perspective and their faults seem a bit more forgivable. There's many's the deathbed reconciliation been made.

And, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything. I've had to adopt that approach at a couple of funerals where the above "Oh sure he was a great lad, never a bad word for anyone, pure generous and decent" starts getting trotted out and I know it's not true. But if you're surrounded by people who are genuinely grieving for the person it's not the place to start calling bullsh1t.

Zab

Since when is criticism of his policies considered rude? I think you've fashioned a position that almost nobody has taken in order to argue against it. Or perhaps you just want it mentioned in every article about him, "Ariel Sharon, alleged war criminal, in critical condition". That'd be fair enough, but it's hardly constructive as he's clearly out of the political sphere for good. You could question why they'd bother reporting it, but then here we are talking about him so the newspapers would win that argument.

Victor

It's not about the deceased, it's about the family. Let them grieve in peace.

wretcheddomain

Zab wrote: »

Since when is criticism of his policies considered rude? I think you've fashioned a position that almost nobody has taken in order to argue against it. Or perhaps you just want it mentioned in every article about him, "Ariel Sharon, alleged war criminal, in critical condition". That'd be fair enough, but it's hardly constructive as he's clearly out of the political sphere for good. You could question why they'd bother reporting it, but then here we are talking about him so the newspapers would win that argument.

You've missed the point of my introduction. I offered up Sharon as an example as it's the nearest to hand. And yes, you will find those, including some already in this thread, who argue that criticism should only come after they've died. It's a very real issue that I raised and it's more widespread than you believe.

But since you've asked me about policies, that's not considered rude per se, but if someone commits certain crimes you'll find certain labels attached to said individual. Those labels are deemed impolite.

ProudDUB

There is a very, very big difference in agreeing/disagreeing with the polices of a deceased political figure, whose decisions can impact the lives of millions of people & having a go at your maiden aunt when the ink is barely dry on her death certificate.

I have a cousin who had no time at all for his uncle when he was alive & ranted and raved about him every chance he get. But once he was dead, he couldn't shut up about how great he was. I'd think much better of him if he just kept his mouth shut and observed a respectful silence whenever the uncles name came up. The way he is going on now, just makes him look like a hypocrite of the highest order.

wretcheddomain

ProudDUB wrote: »

There is a very, very big difference in agreeing/disagreeing with the polices of a deceased political figure, whose decisions can impact the lives of millions of people & having a go at your maiden aunt when the ink is barely dry on her death certificate.

I have a cousin who had no time at all for his uncle when he was alive & ranted and raved about him every chance he get. But once he was dead, he couldn't shut up about how great he was. I'd think much better of him if he just kept his mouth shut and observed a respectful silence whenever the uncles name came up. The way he is going on now, just makes him look like a hypocrite of the highest order.

I'd agree with that. That's why my introduction focussed specifically on political/military figures who have massive potential for human destruction. I still find it shocking that some people believe it's permissible not to critique an individual who commits genocide just because it's the individual that's dying this time.

kneemos

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Holding our tongues means we're forced to give respect to those whom we have no respect for.

Would you say the same thing if it were Hitler on the death bed?

Well when you look at it Hitler was seriously mentally disturbed,would he not deserve a bit of respect when he was biting the Cyanide pill?

wretcheddomain

kneemos wrote: »

Well when you look at it Hitler was seriously mentally disturbed,would he not deserve a bit of respect when he was biting the Cyanide pill?

Ehm....no. Shocked that you can even pose such a question... :eek:

kneemos

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Ehm....no. Shocked that you can even pose such a question... :eek:

If you believe in Fate are any of us reasonable for our lives?

poundapunnet

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'd agree with that. That's why my introduction focussed specifically on political/military figures who have massive potential for human destruction. I still find it shocking that some people believe it's permissible not to critique an individual who commits genocide just because it's the individual that's dying this time.

Time and a place though, no matter how terrible a person is they still have family and people who care deeply about them. when they're preparing for or recovering from the death of the person, hearing or reading opinions on what a war-mongering piece of sh1t they were would be awful. I agree it's insane to start saying nice things about someone immediately before or after their death; but refraining from criticism for that short period isn't going to cause any more warmongering, and airing your negative opinion of them isn't going to save any lives- but it could cause distress to their families and friends.

wretcheddomain

kneemos wrote: »

If you believe in Fate are any of us reasonable for our lives?

Christianity forum --->

wazky

poundapunnet wrote: »

Time and a place though, no matter how terrible a person is they still have family and people who care deeply about them. when they're preparing for or recovering from the death of the person, hearing or reading opinions on what a war-mongering piece of sh1t they were would be awful. I agree it's insane to start saying nice things about someone immediately before or after their death; but refraining from criticism for that short period isn't going to cause any more warmongering, and airing your negative opinion of them isn't going to save any lives- but it could cause distress to their families and friends.

So even if the family still stand by someone who commits horrendous atrocities they deserve time to grieve etc?

poundapunnet

wazky wrote: »

So even if the family still stand by someone who commits horrendous atrocities they deserve time to grieve etc?

Yes, I'd rather make the basic assumption that everyone deserves time to grieve than presume I have the moral authority to start picking and choosing who does. Grieving is an incredibly difficult and unpleasant process, it doesn't do any harm to anyone to hold your tongue for a little while and extend the basic human kindness and decency to them that they and the deceased failed to extend to others, and it doesn't do any good to rush to condemn the dead and dying just in case someone might be unaware of an opinion you have.

kneemos

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Christianity forum --->

Scientists tend to agree.

It would be quite human to give Hitler some respect he never gave others.I'd be more disrespectful of some of his henchmen who seemed to relish their role.

wretcheddomain

kneemos wrote: »

Scientists tend to agree.

It would be quite human to give Hitler some respect he never gave others.I'd be more disrespectful of some of his henchmen who seemed to relish their role.

Scientists agree that Hitler deserves respect? That's a new one to me.

ProudDUB

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'd agree with that. That's why my introduction focussed specifically on political/military figures who have massive potential for human destruction. I still find it shocking that some people believe it's permissible not to critique an individual who commits genocide just because it's the individual that's dying this time.

Who says it not permissible? If you were to walk into any pub in Ireland right now and strike up a conversation about him with any other interested parties, no one is stopping you from doing so. You aren't going to be arrested or thrown out. As long as you keep it civil, you are perfectly free to talk about what ever you want. Do the same thing in a bar in the West Bank and you may find yourself in a more contentious and argumentative environment, but again, no one is stopping you from doing so, if you so choose.

When a political figure dies, news organisations tend to take a more respectful tone about the persons life, as opposed to doing hard hitting analysis and critiques. That is not the same thing as no one being permitted to do hard hitting critiques, ever. It doesn't take long for it to change once the political historians, commentators and journalists take over. Then the man in the street usually decides to have a go and & it soon becomes a free for all for any and everyone who has an opinion, as it should.

When Charlie Haughey died, there weren't many people in Ireland who thought they were not allowed to express their opinions on him, just because he had gone to meet his maker. His cronies and family probably thought he should be left alone in peace, but they would be hugely, hugely in the minority.

Czarcasm

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Ehm....no. Shocked that you can even pose such a question... :eek:

Especially when wretcheddomain you're using examples that absolutely nobody can relate to on a personal level and posing questions in the same vein, fairness now...

My own philosophy on the whole idea of not speaking ill of the dead is basically whatever you thought of them, there's a time and a place, whatever they did in their lives, they were human beings. None of us are perfect, and none of us will die having been able to please everybody all the time.

The reason I wouldn't speak ill of the dead at the time of their death is basically because nobody else wants to hear it. I personally would find it rather childish and immature if somebody couldn't temper their displeasure and maintain a sense of decorum and self-respect before shooting their mouth off. I'd see it as only embarrassing themselves.

wretcheddomain

ProudDUB wrote: »

Who says it not permissible? If you were to walk into any pub in Ireland right now and strike up a conversation about him with any other interested parties, no one is stopping you from doing so. You aren't going to be arrested or thrown out. As long as you keep it civil, you are perfectly free to talk about what ever you want.

I agree with all of that with the exception that those who deem it impermissible can not only be found in this thread (references the poster above who believes Hitler deserved respect at death), but there are many around the country who share this view. Of course I'm not suggesting they're in the majority but they're in sizeable enough numbers.

wretcheddomain

Czarcasm wrote: »

Especially when wretcheddomain you're using examples that absolutely nobody can relate to on a personal level and posing questions in the same vein, fairness now...

My own philosophy on the whole idea of not speaking ill of the dead is basically whatever you thought of them, there's a time and a place, whatever they did in their lives, they were human beings. None of us are perfect, and none of us will die having been able to please everybody all the time.

There's that phrase again. Go to the politics forum on the discussion of Ariel Sharon and you'll find that the censorship brigade is very much in control. I don't care about grannies, nannies or uncles, as this thread was opened to argue against that, because as you rightfully said, that would be petty and childish.

But the same doesn't hold true of political figures in my view.

poundapunnet

Czarcasm wrote: »

My own philosophy on the whole idea of not speaking ill of the dead is basically whatever you thought of them, there's a time and a place, whatever they did in their lives, they were human beings. None of us are perfect, and none of us will die having been able to please everybody all the time.

I think the other thing is that there's a sense that it's unsportsmanlike or something, criticising someone who can't defend themselves. It's like talking behind someone's back. It's a bit ridiculous, but it's another way where I can see why it's considered distasteful to give out stink about somebody in the time around their death.

WellThen?

Look if somebody was a dickhead when they were alive, I see no reason why they shouldn't be remembered as one. Obviously I'm not going to bad mouth them once they are gone, but I certainly would not praise them. That would make me a hypocrite and a liar.

FunLover18

kneemos wrote: »

Generally people like to show a bit of respect for the dead or dying,it's not the time for criticism.Call it tradition,good manners or karma or something I suppose.

There's a way of criticising while being respectful.

poundapunnet wrote: »

Time and a place though, no matter how terrible a person is they still have family and people who care deeply about them. when they're preparing for or recovering from the death of the person, hearing or reading opinions on what a war-mongering piece of sh1t they were would be awful. I agree it's insane to start saying nice things about someone immediately before or after their death; but refraining from criticism for that short period isn't going to cause any more warmongering, and airing your negative opinion of them isn't going to save any lives- but it could cause distress to their families and friends.

Criticising a deceased political leader does not infringe on the mourning of loved ones unless said loved ones are stupid enough to come on here. As I said earlier there is a way to criticise while being respectful, I wasn't a fan at all of the 'ding dong the witch is dead campaign' however if people were willing to express their criticisms and dislikes of Thatcher in a respectful manner I had no problem with that. Family and friends are going to be far from ignorant of their deceased's faults and as I said they're unlikely to be going through boards to see what nice/horrible things people have to say about their loved one.

Super-Rush

Are ya alright Sharon?

Czarcasm

wretcheddomain wrote: »

There's that phrase again. Go to the politics forum on the discussion of Ariel Sharon and you'll find that the censorship brigade is very much in control. I don't care about grannies, nannies or uncles, as this thread was opened to argue against that, because as you rightfully said, that would be petty and childish.

But the same doesn't hold true of political figures in my view.

My fcuk will I be going anywhere near the Politics forum, I'm not completely daft yknow!

You opened the thread using Sharon as an example (far too early to be making jokes about Georgie Burgess attending the funeral... >_>), but then you say forget about the state heads, then you throw out Hitler, I mean... Who's up next on the chopping block? Maggie? She wasn't even rusty when AH practically worked itself into an apoplexy! :pac:


I just found the whole thing a bit crass tbh.

poundapunnet

FunLover18 wrote: »

Criticising a deceased political leader does not infringe on the mourning of loved ones unless said loved ones are stupid enough to come on here. As I said earlier there is a way to criticise while being respectful, I wasn't a fan at all of the 'ding dong the witch is dead campaign' however if people were willing to express their criticisms and dislikes of Thatcher in a respectful manner I had no problem with that. Family and friends are going to be far from ignorant of their deceased's faults and as I said they're unlikely to be going through boards to see what nice/horrible things people have to say about their loved one.

Touché The taboo against criticising a deceased political leader on here is a watered down version of the taboo that exists at higher levels though, and if this was an Irish or UK leader there'd be a reasonable chance of it being seen (I've been thinking about this in more general terms rather than just Sharon in my responses like). If you were on twitter or reddit or somewhere in the days after a family member's death it'd be pretty hard not to click on links with their names on it, or even if you just went seeking out specifically positive discussion threads, it'd be pretty nasty to see them being derailed by people expressing negative opinions in no uncertain terms or using terrible language. I felt so sorry for Thatcher's family in the weeks after her death and I (statute of limitations has passed by now ) ****ing hated the bitch, and thought the kids were not that much better but there would have been no way for them to be unaware of the nature of the coverage, as a test case for what would happen if the taboo against speaking ill of the dead were relaxed I'd say it presented a pretty bleak picture.

An awful lot of people, when expressing a negative opinion, are not going to present a well thought out, respectfully worded disagreement with the policies of a leader, they'll call them a cnut and say they're glad they're dead. I really dislike the whitewashing that can go on after a person dies, but keeping quiet for a little bit costs nothing.

FunLover18

poundapunnet wrote: »

Touché The taboo against criticising a deceased political leader on here is a watered down version of the taboo that exists at higher levels though, and if this was an Irish or UK leader there'd be a reasonable chance of it being seen (I've been thinking about this in more general terms rather than just Sharon in my responses like). If you were on twitter or reddit or somewhere in the days after a family member's death it'd be pretty hard not to click on links with their names on it, or even if you just went seeking out specifically positive discussion threads, it'd be pretty nasty to see them being derailed by people expressing negative opinions in no uncertain terms or using terrible language. I felt so sorry for Thatcher's family in the weeks after her death and I (statute of limitations has passed by now ) ****ing hated the bitch, and thought the kids were not that much better but there would have been no way for them to be unaware of the nature of the coverage, as a test case for what would happen if the taboo against speaking ill of the dead were relaxed I'd say it presented a pretty bleak picture.

I would argue however that when people are critical of a deceased politician they would usually have been just as critical when said politician was alive, and that those criticisms would not be as hurtful to the family. The offence is not necessarily caused by the criticisms but by the hyper sensitivity of the mourners (which is perfectly understandable).

poundapunnet wrote: »

An awful lot of people, when expressing a negative opinion, are not going to present a well thought out, respectfully worded disagreement with the policies of a leader, they'll call them a cnut and say they're glad they're dead. I really dislike the whitewashing that can go on after a person dies, but keeping quiet for a little bit costs nothing.

I agree with this 100%

poundapunnet

FunLover18 wrote: »

I would argue however that when people are critical of a deceased politician they would usually have been just as critical when said politician was alive, and that those criticisms would not be as hurtful to the family. The offence is not necessarily caused by the criticisms but by the hyper sensitivity of the mourners (which is perfectly understandable).

I'm not sure how much we're disagreeing with each other here at this point! But look at it this way, people may have been voicing their disapproval during the man's lifetime, but in wider discourse the subject doesn't really come up that much. For those people it'd be frustrating to be told to shut up when suddenly because of the person's death it's a more popular topic of conversation, but for other people it might come across as them being in a rush to say bad things at a time which is generally considered inappropriate.

Morag

Decorum.. Deco Rum..
What type rum is that?
A Dark Rum?
A Light Rum?
or a Golden Rum?

Why is it called Deco Rum?
I doubt it's called after someone called Declan, or is it that the bottle is decorative
something to have a on a shelf but the Rum is not worth drinking?

Or maybe it had something cool in it, like Gold schlager does!

Please enlighten us about this Deco Rum!

Riddle101

Nobody is above criticism in life or death. If someone has done bad, then they have done bad full stop and that is the main thing. I wouldn't shed a tear for those who have blood on their hands, and as the OP said it's double standards. I mean were people supposed to keep quiet when Slobodan Milošević died? Does he deserve that respect? I think not. But I bet when George Bush jnr dies, people will say think about his family.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

MonsterCookie

Super-Rush wrote: »

Are ya alright Sharon?

That was A1.

MonsterCookie

Anyone remember the trade unionists interviewed by skynews around the time thatcher died? Even though I understood how bitter they felt, I thought they could have been more tactful. Also thought it was sh1tty journalism...nothing new there for SN mind you.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's considered unfashionable and rude to speak ill of the dying or the dead. I despise this attitude because it means that in the name of being politically correct you have to suppress otherwise perfectly legitimate criticisms. Consider the latest case of Ariel Sharon. This individual has been in a coma for the past eight years and according to latest news reports, he hasn't got long left.

Herein lies a problem though. When Sharon committed his almost genocidal policies from the 1980's onwards, these criticisms were deemed perfectly warrantable but this legitimacy evaporates if the individual is either in the process of dying or has died. Why the double standard? Isn't it dishonest for many people to ask you to hide your real views, views you held at every other time in that individuals life? I think this decorum business has gone too far and merely makes hypocrites out of everyone.

Obviously, I don't want this thread to turn into an anti-Sharonian thread but would prefer if people expressed their views on respect for the dying or dead, particularly if they have committed a vast amount of serious crimes.

To quote Voltaire " To the living we owe respect, to the dead we owe only the truth".
Alive or dead Sharon is and will always be a war criminal.

mad muffin

Wait. What? He's been in a coma for 8 years?

What a monumental waste of money.:eek:


Beeeeeeep,so sorry. I need vacuum. Only socket.

FunLover18

This whole thread reminds of this little gem