General Politics Discussion (V) [ARCHIVED] • Page 1323

That guardian article is talking specifically about silencing criticism in the wake of a public figures death which @SmashRipsaw is explicitly saying is also not okay. There is a difference between necessary and valid critique of a persons record and gloating at their death. You can criticize a person, alive or dead, while simultaneously not wishing for their death or celebrating when it happens I think is the distinction trying to be made

 

To me, this reads exactly as tone policing while spending a lot of time caring about the wrong thing. Like the "civility" debates, I think it's a silly argument not worth having.

 

This man committed war crimes and helped usher in the deaths of an entire generation of LGBT people.

Being anything but happy about his death is pretty disgusting to me.

 

I see this is a distinction without a real difference. If someone is upset about the "tone" used, I have a hard time getting worked up over it. You can do that, yes, but you, or others, can also do the opposite as well. I think telling others how to feel about something like this ... is misplaced anger at best.

 

You know what, fair enough. I can't tell you how to live your life.

 

He blew up a passenger plane and was proud of it

 

Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia

 

I imagine these people were all SUPER pissed at the tone following Bin Laden’s death. I’m sure they were finger wagging all over the place.

“I wasn’t a fan of Bin Laden’s, but this is just so crass.”

 

When Trump croaks I'm legit celebrating with a cold beer, and I don't care.

 

i still think he's gonna die in office

 

Do you think President Donald Trump, Jr. will allow beer consumption?

 

As I stated earlier, I didn't celebrate Bin Laden's death. I was relieved, but not jubilant. I feel like it was a sad waste of a life. I think reveling in anyone's death is animalistic, and borderline barbaric.

 

Fucking lol.

 

yeah, i mean, the idea that me saying things on a message board is "barbaric" makes me wonder how you would describe the guy who blew up a passenger plane and was proud of it. it seems like you're not really leaving yourself enough room there

 

Under his eye.

 

Seems strange to me that the very idea of life and having lived, regardless of how, is somehow sacred, and the lives lost/destroyed/ruined become an afterthought to simply having existed.

 

Did a barbarian write this?

 

I am pretty barbaric.

My extreme anti-war stance on one hand ... ... my lack of giving a fuck about Bush on the other.

 

Dude, that is not my point at ALL. When was that ever implied? I think it's hypocritical to dehumanize people. Obviously, Bin Laden was screwed up in the head, and that was a tragedy in itself. That doesn't lessen the tragedy of the people he was responsible for murdering.

Edit: By the way, I am a left-wing pacifist. So yes, I do think all life is sacred.

 

Makes sense. Barbarians were notoriously complex people. A study in contradictions, really.

 

Here.

And yes, I think you calling people barbaric and animalistic does just that. That's harsher language than you've used for the actual murderer. You've chastised people in this thread harder than you have Bush, or Bin Laden for that matter .... I'd say that is absolutely lessening it.

 

Expressing positive feelings at someone’s death doesn’t dehumanize the deceased. That’s just silly. Especially when that person was the holder of immense power.

Watch the fucking State funeral for this man and tell me he was somehow dehumanized.

 

I don't see how those statements are contradictory.

 

Pacifism is opposition to war, militarism, or violence ... not death. The contradiction is that millions of people's lives were impacted here, from the war on drugs to the AIDS crisis, to his foreign policy, and on and on and on ... and you're more upset and focused on the one life. That's not pacifism, that's selectivism.