On grave-pissing.

[Bunny]

Can you help me formulate some thoughts on the appropriateness of responses to the death of a public figure? Yes, this is a result of the nastiness in the Steve Irwin threads, but I'd like your thoughts on the subject in general.

There is some disagreement on how people should respond to famous deaths, with one faction believing that it's not appropriate to speak ill of the dead, no matter how odious the deceased may have been. Others feel that it's perfectly fine to say whatever you want, no matter how tasteless those comments may be.

Challenges have been laid down as to what the response here would be were Limbaugh or Coulter to die.
I remember the flame war in the Lounge when Laura Branigan passed away, and I was startled at the level of vitriol expressed for her. It was a truly WTF moment for me, because even if some didn't especially care for Ms. Branigan, what did she ever do to deserve such derision?

The passing of Reagan, and the behavior of some DUers at that time, has also been thrown up. I was raised to keep silent about the nasty side of the recently deceased, at least until a reasonable mourning period has passed. Generally, if I can't say something nice, I just offer condolences and leave it at that.

But when Reagan died, it was tough for me to be polite. I did not engage in what others may call grave-pissing, but I loathed Reagan and I'd be damned if I was going to express any sorrow that he was gone. He was 93 years old and suffering from dementia - his death was a blessing, not an untimely tragedy such as JFK's assassination. And I did not hesitate to post here about how destructive his policies were, and how much they hurt the actual real, live people that I worked with during his first term. He was a disaster of a president, IMO, and I didn't mourn his passing for even a second. At no time did I celebrate or praise his death, but by expressing those opinions, I'm sure some would have thought me a grave-pisser.

The power to negatively affect the lives of millions did not immunize Reagan from criticism. But Steve Irwin was a celebrity who never did anything to hurt anyone, as far as I can tell. Well, except maybe the whole 'feeding the croc while holding his kid' thing, but honestly, I think that was just a terrible mistake on his part and fortunately no harm was done. I guess I just don't see any reason to be snide and sarcastic about his passing.

Were Bush or Cheney to drop over tomorrow, I certainly would not mourn them on a personal level, far from it in fact. I may have some anxiety about the orderly passing of power to whomever is next in line, and I would not dance and sing because they were dead, but I also would not express condolences that I simply do not feel. Would I post about what crappy people they were, and how horrible they have been for this country? If I did, would you call me a grave-pisser? Should I express condolences I don't feel? Or should I simply stay quiet out of respect for the dead?

[OzarkDem]

1. Agree, its unseemly

and not characteristic of most DU'ers. Probably a handy diversion for those who don't want to talk about real issues.

[peacebird]

2. I feel it is polite to refrain from speaking ill of the recently deceased

BUT if any members of the BFEE were to drop dead tomorrow - well, politeness be damned - I will be DANCING IN THE STREETS!!!!

[PresidentWar]

3. Depends on the personality.

Steve Irwin never did any damage to me, my family or my nation (unlike several well known rethug leaders) so when he died I considered it a tragedy for his family; albeit inevitable for someone who made a living out of pushing the envelope of the Natural world.

When Reagan was shot, I was driving to a class at university. Right before I parked the car, an announcement came on saying that he was winged but otherwise OK. I remember bringing my fists down on the steering wheel and screaming "DAMN!!!".

And no, I'm not even a tiny bit sorry for that.

[Withywindle]

4. This raises good questions, thank you!

I think our love-hate relationship with celebrities has something to do with it. There's both fascination and resentment. I've seen people objecting to the fact that Irwin's death is such a big news story while the deaths of thousands of un-famous people every day isn't. That's a totally valid thing to be angry about on an emotional level...but on the other hand, that's what being famous MEANS.

I think there's a big distinction between a celebrity and someone with actual immense political power, like a President. Celebrities have only as much power as we give them. Even if you don't like some of the things Irwin did, all you have to do is turn off the TV and voila - he's not in your life anymore! There' no need to waste energy hating on the man, alive or dead. With Reagan, sadly that wasn't the case.

You have to consider your audience too, for your comments. No forum is neutral. I can't imagine Reagan had too many admirers at DU. But Steve Irwin did, and there are a lot of people here feeling genuine sorrow, and I have to take a dim view of people who don't seem to take that into consideration at all.

[Human Torch]

5. Were Bush or Cheney to drop over tomorrow...

...I'd refrain from posting for a while. My first instinct wouldn't be to post something inappropriate, or to be a hypocrite and say that maybe they weren't that bad after all. They are that bad.

As far as I'm concerned, a eulogy...appropriate or inappropriate...is written while a person is still alive.

Were Bush or Cheney to drop over tomorrow, all of my DU posts would still be in the archives. What I think of them now is what I'll think of them if I outlive them. For me to step into a public forum and piss on them to make myself feel better or to get a rise out of the other people on the message board isn't something I'd do, but I can't speak for anyone but myself.

When Reagan died, one of the few subjects I posted on was the Michael Reagan photo op. Many of you will remember it...Nancy and Ron Jr. in a moment of grief, consoling each other, and Michael Reagan shoe-horned his way into the shot. Nancy looked up at him with shock, confusion, disgust...I don't know what the look was, but it seemed to be a very immediate and negative reaction to his presence.

I basically posted what you just read in the paragraph above. I didn't say anything about Ronald Reagan, his life, or his death. Later I did comment on things like George Bush trying to assume the Reagan "legacy" and the fact that some freeper Web Site was selling "My heroes have always been cowboys" bumper stickers with a photo of Reagan on the left and Bush on the right, both wearing cowboy hats.

The GOP likes to sustain a highly romanticized view of Reagan and his presidency. At the time of his death, I feel that they made an overt attempt to tap into that legacy to boost their own diminished standing. They wanted his image on the dime, or whatever coin (I don't recall). One by one they stepped up and talked about how they were inspired by his honor, his integrity, his etc. etc. etc....

It was disgusting and shameful.

In my mind, I was commenting on the events surrounding the death of the man, not commenting on the death itself.

Maybe the best thing to do is shut up and say nothing, I don't know. But if Bush or Cheney go on to their reward while I'm an active DU poster, I'll probably take a small vacation. And thank God I'm not a DU moderator.

:patriot:

[WinkyDink]

6. I think about Karma. After all, the dead are already there, but the

ill-speaker has yet to meet his own Fate.

[neebob]

7. As an atheist

I regard not speaking ill of the dead as a superstition. I mean c'mon - why should we not speak ill of the dead? Why respect them, if we didn't respect them when they were alive? Especially assholes like Reagan, Bush, or Cheney who've done so much damage to the world.

Steve Irwin, gosh, I dunno - he died a gnarly sort of poetic death. The only thing that's surprising about it is it wasn't a crocodile. Do you really expect people not to talk about it?

[Flying Dream Blues]

12. To answer your question: Out of respect for those who are

grieving the man's death. Since you don't know your audience, maybe it's best to assume someone might be grieving.

[neebob]

17. Oh, please.

People who are seriously grieving the loss of Steve Irwin aren't on the internet right now. And when do get on, DU isn't the first place they'll look for messages of condolence.

[boolean]

26. You rule.

Preach it, buddy.

Preach it.

[The Straight Story]

34. And that is the catch of it all ain't it - 'seriously grieving' ...Hmmmm

A lot of people on here 'knew' him. They were a little shocked and upset on a personal level. They come here to mourn with like minded people.


If you want to bash him and poke fun - start a thread just for that.

My daughter loved his show, as did my wife and I. Many laughs were had. We are sad at his passing - both for our loss and because we cannot imagine what the kids are going through with it all.

It's a damned shame for all involved who had emotional ties. Why bring folks down to poke fun, etc, at someone - what purpose does it serve anyone?

Is a little respect and kindness too much to ask?? How hard is it to just pass over a thread and let folks talk about how they feel without telling them they should not feel what they do?

Seems damned selfish to rain on a parade of people talking about how much they will miss someone, especially when it is fellow DU'ers.

[neebob]

35. Well, gee, everything I've said

about Irwin's death is on this thread and Pitt's, asking if anyone is astonished at the vitriol. To me it seems a bit extreme to be so attached to a TV personality that you can't bear the comments of people who aren't as attached.

Thanks for the lecture, anyway. I'm sure it'll change someone's behavior.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

43. Amen, but I'm sure a lot of the jokers are youngsters

who simply don't know any better. We can only hope they'll learn
from the reactions they're receiving.

[datasuspect]

50. "A lot of people on here 'knew' him."

no. maybe someone here knew him PERSONALLY.

i would say 99.99999999% of the people here did not KNOW him, they WATCHED him on teevee.

a statement like is actually insulting to the man. it is entirely presumptive to think you KNOW someone from engaging in a passive activity like teevee watching.

it makes the guy seem one dimensional. you only got to see a highly edited and programmed version of the man. i'm sure there was much more to the guy that he kept private.

[Kajsa]

78. How on earth would you know that?

You assume that people who are "seriously" grieving his death;

aren't on the internet

sure as hell aren't on DU?

How can you make those assumptions?

i.e. In your world, no one would come here to express their
grief over his death?!?

Think again.

[neebob]

80. I'm just guessing.

And this is political discussion forum, not a support group for friends, family, and fans of dearly departed TV personalities. Stop taking everything so literally and personally. Good grief! No pun intended.

[LostinVA]

88. Someone you don't know can touch you

You certainly can grieve their death, and the world's loss of their life.

It's called empathy, among other things.

Don't presume to think you are the expert on other people's feelings... and the "correctness" of those feelings.

[neebob]

95. What - did they lock down all the other Steve Irwin threads

before you were done correcting invisible strangers? Do you not have enough authority outside of the cyber world? Project much? Because you're not an expert on others' feelings, either, and I never said I was, or anything to suggest I think so. I said I think it's extreme to be so attached to a TV personality that you can't bear the comments of others who aren't as attached. And I still think that, and it's OK to say so. It's called being rational. And speaking freely, among other things. And it's not stopping you or anyone else from grieving the world's loss.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neebob]

99. Why, yes, that was a very weird post.

How could you possibly ever top it?

My post, in contrast, felt pretty reasonable, seeing as how I never did anything to poor old Steve Irwin but reply to a couple of threads complaining about those who failed to respond to his death in the prescribed manner. This one solicited thoughts. I gave mine, and then fended off attempted spankings by frustrated cyber parents.

Somebody needs to grow up and see a therapist, but somehow I don't think it's me. Do yourself a favor - put everyone on this thread on ignore, and just read your own posts and see how you come off.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a boy.

[datasuspect]

97. " not a support group for . . . fans of dearly departed TV personalities"

holy shit, that about sums it up.

[Kajsa]

100. Sure, it's a political discussion forum.

So are other Dem. blogs, some have nothing but
political discussion forums, unlike DU.

They didn't have a problem with remembering
Steve Irwin and his contributions to the protection
and understanding of the world's animals, values
which are strongly supported by millions of Democrats.

Did Irwin make a positive difference in our world?
You bet he did.

[Flying Dream Blues]

22. You don't have to be his friends or family to feel a loss.

There have been plenty on this board expressing shock and grief. Is it of the same magnitude of those who knew him well? Absolutely not. But clearly people are hurting, so I don't understand the need to dump on the man. In fact, I don't see the need to say anything derogatory of a man who has just died, no matter who he is.

I wonder if people would say these things in person; I really doubt it. I can't even believe this is a matter for debate. Where is plain common decency and civility?

[mr blur]

73. How on earth can people be "hurting"

because some man - irritating or not - who was on the television has died? I mean, really? Get a grip.

[LostinVA]

89. Perhaps you should get a grip, and apologize to those on DU

Who have been affected by Steve Irwin. We certainly can grieve his death, and the world's loss of his life, and the good he did. Why shouldn't we grieve because a man who fought for this planet and the creatures most exploited has died?

It's called empathy, among other things.

Who gives you the right to be the end-all ruler who gets to decide what is and isn't the proper way to feel about someone? And the "correctness" of those feelings? Hmmm?

Maybe YOU need to get a grip -- and a healthy dosing of empathy. Pathetic.

Jesus. The snottiness on DU amazes me sometimes.

Go watch "Baywatch" or something.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

59. I think the OP was attempting to point out how tasteless and rude it is

Which doesn't have a thing to do with a persons religious ideology. Unless there's a group out there that worships Miss Manners. Then I suppose they could bring their religious convictions into the conversation.

[neebob]

61. I get that.

I'm just questioning the don't-speak-ill-of-the-dead rule - because they're dead, okay? And they don't care, and nothing bad will happen to those who speak ill of them.

Failure and refusal to question that kind of indoctrination is one reason things are so slow and difficult to change. I'm not saying it's good to speak ill of the dead.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

63. Sure thing

Do you know that the concept of not speaking ill of the dead goes back to the Ancient Egyptians? That's also where we get our ideas of not calling the dead "dead", but rather things such as "dearly departed" and "passed away."

You have to take your hat off to a group that felt so strongly about their dead that their beliefs are still being honored (albeit unknowingly) after over 2500 years!

[neebob]

81. I figured it was rooted in some old superstition

or religious tradition; I just didn't know how old. Thanks for the info!

[Kajsa]

101. It comes down to two things,

civility and sensitivity.

Either you have them or you don't.

[neebob]

105. The same could be said

for excessive emotional attachments to celebrities and compulsions to correct anonymous message board people. See #104, out.

[Kajsa]

110. Oh good grief,

Pretzel logic-
over and out.

[Bretttido]

103. It's not rooted in any superstition

It's about not taking a crap on people who were affected by someone's death while they're already down. Your comments on the situation are sadly disturbing and heartless.

[neebob]

104. My comments are heartless?

Geez. I hate to think how some of you people would react if someone made actual heartless comments in your presence. Get over yourselves and leave me alone already.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

106. Nattering neebob of negativism.

:eyes:

[neebob]

108. How original.

And extra hilarious, coming from someone who identifies with Arnold Schwarzenegger ... speaking of attachments to celebrities.

[Kajsa]

111. They are heartless comments.

" leave me alone"

you can dish it out by not take it?

Get over yourself .

[neebob]

112. Hey, I responded to the OP's request for thoughts

You came along and, instead of answering the OP, passed judgment on others' thoughts and specifically took me to task on mine. You're the one dishing it out here. You don't like "leave me alone"? Then buzz off. Go fly a kite. Get lost. Take a hike. Better yet, go mourn Steve Irwin. Or are you done with that and now you're just bored?

[Redstone]

8. Yes. How about some basic fucking MANNERS, here?

You didn't like the guy, fine. Just have the common decency to let those who DID like him mourn his passing.

Christ, how hard is that?

Redstone

[renate]

39. perfectly said--thank you

And in tribute to your succinctness, a succinct response:

:applause:

[OzarkDem]

53. Common decency is getting hard to find here

and a lot of people are getting fed up with the lack of it.

Folks can parse all they want, but there's no justification for senseless boorish behavior over someone's death. The South Park generation needs to wise up or shut up.

[marions ghost]

64. let's not

make it a generational thing...OK? Or that anyone who likes South Park needs to "shut up."

You aren't helping anything. :(

[Kajsa]

85. You rule, Redstone!

You said it well.

:applause:

[woo me with science]

86. Perfectly put.

What happened to simple manners.

[alarimer]

9. It is possible to criticize someone without being nasty

With a political figure like Reagan, I think it was legitimate to criticize the policies even immediately after he dies. It is different if you say "I'm glad he's dead". I wasn't really GLAD he was dead because he had basically been dead for years and it was more of a mercy really.

The whole Steve Irwin thing has surprised me with the venom expressed by some. They have basically said he deserved what he got. Now, people who do dangerous things are tempting fate in some ways and sometimes it catches up with them, but this seems more like a freak accident that could really happen to anyone.

I am not sure where to draw the line. Some people disagreed with his methods and have called it "torture." Nothing I saw on his shows looked like torture to me. And I think it is okay to mention that you might have disagreed with some of things he did without being nasty.

Someone mentioned Rush Limbaugh in another thread. I don't think we even have to pretend to be nice when he dies. He has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. We don't have to pretend to be nice, but we have to keep quiet for a bit.

When someone you disapprove of dies, there's no moral obligation to pretend to think things of them that you don't, but there *is* a very strong moral obligation indeed not to say anything unpleasant about them for a few weeks, at least until the first pangs of berievment have worn off.

[Poll_Blind]

10. "De mortuis nil nisi bonum" ("Do not speak ill of the dead") is bunk.

  If a public figure dies, and I had no part in it, why should I somehow reverently bow my head on their passing? I mean, if I was the one putting air behind the blow-dart, I'd probably keep quiet. But only then.

  It's a bunk concept. I have no control over when they get yanked off the stage of the Living by the shepherd's staff of Fate- and it's not going to stop me booing after they're off. Crass? Maybe. But that allegation against me would have to include the concept that American politics in 2006 somehow referenced Queensbury rules instead of the slash-your-throat street-fight politics has always been.

  Besides, who the hell decides who you can continue to speak ill of after death? I mean, Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito are acceptable targets. Why not Sharon? Why not Reagan? When Carter dies do you think that the right wing in the U.S. (or Israel, for that matter) are going to shed a tear or at least respect them?

  Of course not. When a person dies, a public person, they are merely dead which, for most political figures, does nothing to stop the propagation of their ideas, posthumously.

  I'm all for grave-pissing, as you put it, personally. In sports, which I generally do not follow, there are rules. In politics, the ball is an idea and the losing team does not eat and sometimes dies. Applying rules to posthumous players in the Great Game is excessively maudlin.

  Whether Bush or Cheney is dead does not change the fact that they're a sonuvabitch.

PB

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. The key thing is *recently* dead.

Criticising Hitler or Mussolini is fine. Criticising Reagan is fine now, but wasn't at the time of his death. Wait a bit, and let the wounds cool.

When Bush and Cheney die, they'll still be sonuvabitches, but we should wait a few weeks before going back to pointing this out.

There is almost no form of basic human decency more important than respect for the recently-dead and the berieved.

[Flying Dream Blues]

23. Absolutely.

[bluestateguy]

11. Dying does not immunize one from criticism

I openly celebrated when Ken Lay died, and I still don't apologize for that.

As for Steve Irwin, I don't see how he was such a bad person.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Attacking the recently-dead is absolutely despicable.

The most one should ever allow oneself at the expense of someone recently-dead is a grim smile. There's no reqirement to praise them, but if you don't have anything good to say about someone recently dead then don't say anything for a few weeks. Give the wounds time to heal.

There are very few things I despise more than lack of respect for the recently-berieved. The DU responses to the deaths of e.g. Ronald Regan or Ken Lay, and the response of those people taking this opportunity to attack Irwin, were absolutely disgusting, and all those involved should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

Respect for the recently-dead, and for the recently-berieved, is one of the - perhaps *the* - most fundamental forms of human decency.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[InvisibleTouch]

16. The thing is, I don't think Reagan had many admirers here...

...whereas Steve Irwin has quite a few, myself among them. It's not so much a matter of being respectful of the dead, as being respectful of one's fellow DU'ers.

[etherealtruth]

21. That is a very important point ...

Why inject venom into a thread where FELLOW DUers are expressing their sorrow or grief (whether you believe they are entitled to grieve or not)?

[marions ghost]

65. Bingo

A lot of people here are sorry about the loss of Steve Irwin. Nobody around here would be sorry for the loss of a few rightwing assholes presumably.

Big Diff.

[PresidentWar]

18. Getting sick of all the righteous indignation about Steve Irwin

Come on people, yes, it's sad when a guy is shuffled off this mortal coil by a tragic accident. But good christ how about we stop with all the ridiculous contest of who is more offended by all the (as yet to be seen) vitriol about the guy here on DU.

It's ludicrous. Be real.

[jonnyblitz]

20. NO KIDDING!!!! THANK YOU!!

:applause: :applause:

[boolean]

25. THANK YOU.

I've been looking for someone to say the exact same thing I've been saying.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Indeed

some here are bereft of common decency
these scenarios certainly separate the wheat from the chaff

[WildEyedLiberal]

48. They do indeed

The smell of blood in the water tends to draw them out from beneath the bridge. Nothing like the death of someone well-known to bring out the scavengers...

[PresidentWar]

71. You're not very good at ad homs. So lets leave them out of this

I'm posting on the Irwin-Adoration threads to remark at the overreaction (and it has been overreaction a-plenty) to a relatively few nasty comments made about Mr. Irwin upon his death. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but perhaps you can make a good case for this type of ludicrous overreaction. I'm listening.

[OzarkDem]

54. Then find another forum

Most of us are getting sick of the rude behavior here. It serves no purpose, advances no agenda, cures no ills. Its counterproductive and vicious and certainly not reflective of liberal values.

[PresidentWar]

72. "Love it or leave it"? I expected that on FreeRepublic, not here.

What a sad day when we're down to acting the Freep - n'cest pas?

[TheFriedPiper]

74. Would that be the rude behaviour of all those that get

righteously idignant over this imagined vitriol?


Please.

[PresidentWar]

75. Bang on.

[Raine]

19. It's rude

and we don't need more incivility in this World. People could show a little class and dignity when someone dies at the very least.

[FILAM23]

27. When some famous/infamous person dies

I have the same thought each and every time and that is basically
"Who gives a shit"..IF you don't know the person personally then
why would you care?

[boolean]

28. Been trying to figure that out

I've read about 2000000 posts now that sound like they may have been written by Steve Irwin's wife. Like it's the end of the fucking WORLD for these people. Can't have any cartoons. Can't have any criticisms. It's "despicable", "disgusting", etc. HOW DARE one insinuate this or that! How DARE one say this or that about the recently deceased! He was a human being have some respect! This is not the DU I know!

I doubt anyone who truly cares about Steve Irwin is reading posts on democraticunderground.com right now.

Why do people get offended over dead celebrities? It was the same thing over princess Diana. (Meanwhile Mother Theresa died a couple of days later, and nobody gave a shit about that because Diana was the princess!)

These people are celebrities, not saints. Steve Irwin was not Jesus Christ.

[Change has come]

32. See post 8...

exaggerate much?

[chefgirl]

41. Ummm, how about shared humanity?

"Who gives a shit"..IF you don't know the person personally then
why would you care?
If you have to ask that question, then no answer anyone gives you will ever satisfy you.

I could ask the same basic question ya know. If you 'dont give a shit' so much, why did you feel it necessary to post in this thread and belittle those who DO care?

-chef- (who had NO dog in this fight until I read your post)

[OzarkDem]

56. Then keep it to yourself

its the polite thing to do.

[onenote]

58. is that how we should've felt about JFK Jr, or Richard Pryor

or any of dozens of other "famous/infamous" people when they die? Wellstone? While you may be a person that can only be touched by people who you have actually met, many have the capacity to be touched by and relate to people that they don't know but whose work they have experienced.

[LostinVA]

90. It's called empathy

Which, by your own admission, you lack. That is very, very sad. I mean that.

[smalll]

29. Interesting thoughts -

Personally and honestly, I feel that all respect is due to the recently dead, BUT that celebrities are another matter. I'd never dream of saying something critical about regular folks who just died, but celebrities are celebrities - generally people (with not much more talent or ability than a lot of other people) who just happen to be able, through the force of an outsized personality, to be interesting enough to make money on teevee, radio, movies, etc.

People are welcome to mourn their passing, but I can't see it as required. And honestly I really can't get worked up by criticism of dead celebrities. The very nature of celebrity I think makes it work like this generally - they make their money because of their fame amongst us masses, and the masses WILL ridicule them whenever they feel like it. Here's something analagous (perhaps): what about all the occasions people say (or post here) that Tom Cruise is gay? There was a thread just yesterday (in the Lounge) with a couple of pics of John Travolta mouth-kissing another man which people were enjoying -- aha! proof he's one of them! But most of the people making those comments would never "out" someone in their real life, at work, etc. - they would honor their privacy and their right to live their lives they way they wanted to. Well celbrities live their lives the way they want to as well, their currency is fame, the flipside of that coin is notoriety. They live off our applause, they can't expect not to get booed as well.

This is my first comment on this whole Steve Irwin business, so I haven't committed any sins against the famous today, but let me say this right now: if Paris Hilton dies in an accident tomorrow, if I can think of a really good joke about it, I'll post it as soon as I can, no matter what anyone else thinks about it!

[newyawker99]

52. Hi smalll!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[smalll]

77. Thanks for the welcome!

:hi:

[OzarkDem]

57. If you can't be kind, please say nothing

that's not too much to ask. No one here is asking that thoughtless DU'er try to muster compassion for others. Just do us all a favor and keep the disrespectful comments to yourself. It makes the rest of us look bad.

[ContraBass Black]

30. I absolutely refuse to speak well of a man who did not do well

Simply because he is dead (I'm talking about Reagan, not Irwin). I have just as little interest in grave-dancing. Rather, I will speak honestly about the deceased and my perception of them, just as I do of the living. To heap false praise upon a dead person is to suggest that the person's actual legacy is so weak or so shameful that it must be covered with a fairy tale. I will do no such dishonor. Thus, I also will not mourn the passing of a person who I believe blesses the Earth with his or her absence.




After I die, if you cannot speak honestly of me, do not speak of me at all.

[LostinVA]

91. I think it's respect for the grieving, the saddened

And, I'm betting there weren't too many of those on DU when Reagan died. I felt quite sorry for Nancy, and have felt a grudging respect for her the last few years. Thus, it wasn't as not cricket to lambaste Reagan when he died.

I think maybe that's the difference?

[Ignacio Upton]

31. While Irwin did some off the wall things

It was part of his job. And he seems like a nice person, from what I've read about him. If Bush and/or Cheney were to die, I will not give my condolences to either of them, as they are both scumbags.

[susanna]

33. I was always taught to respect the grieving...

...if not the dead. In other words: whatever dislike I might have for the deceased is personal and should not be shared publicly, as there are others who may be feeling deep grief. I have always found this a wise response. Essentially, "offer your condolences if you are able, but if you cannot do it without obviously lying, just keep your mouth shut." Works for me.

[ecstatic]

83. That's a great point

I don't really feel a need to speak nicely of someone who just passed, but I do keep my mouth shut, especially if I'm around someone who is mourning or grieving. That simple respect is lost a lot of times on an anonymous forum though, that's to be expected. I'm sure the snarky comments would be a lot less in real life conversations with strangers.

[susanna]

94. I think you're absolutely right about that (board vs. real life). n/t

[Justice Is Comin]

36. With reference to that last paragraph of yours,

you can definitely call me a grave pisser. Mourning America's Hitlers?

Not. And lots of it.

[Dem2theMax]

37. It just proves that 'we' are no better than 'them.' And that's a shame.

Because we should be better and be above this sort of behavior. DU'ers are sinking to a new low.

[RangerSmith]

84. Should be, true...

but the reality is there isn't a difference between us and them when it comes to any of this kind of stuff.

I find that really hard to stomach, too.

[mikelewis]

38. "love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,"

If Bush were to die tomorrow, his soul would die without atonement for his sins. I'm not sure if one can actually atone for the sins he's committed but that's not for me to judge. Every soul has value, no matter how twisted and rancorous it has become. Besides, at this point, death is way to good for any of these people. They need to live to see how despicable the entire world thinks they really are. That (coupled with life in prison) would be a just punishment.

As for Steve, I can't force myself to feel all that bad for him. He had a zest for life that inspired others and at the very least entertained millions. He got to run around the world doing something he obviously loved doing. While it's a tragedy, it's one that doesn't make me sorrowful for him. However I feel so sorry for his wife and children. The pain they must be going through would be unbearable. If all that hoopla in the Bible is at least partially true, may the Lord bring them comfort and help them through this ordeal.

[farmboxer]

40. Steve Irwin loved our planet and so do I.

Did anyone see what he said about our frogs? Irwin was the opposite of Bush & his pals.

I will miss Steve. Man, I am so depressed.

[hfojvt]

42. there was one celebrity reporter

who died in a car accident and he was eulogized all over the MSM
it was over-looked that the accident was the result of him driving on the wrong side of the road and if he had hit a smaller vehicle he might have killed somebody else too, and the 11 year old boy with the broken arm was just a faceless unheralded unmentioned member of the masses.

Similar with the professional golfer who died in a plane malfunction. A pilot and one other person were also on that plane, but it was all - celeb, celeb, celeb.

Same thing with Diana. Something like 110 people die every day in car accidents. It's too bad our President at that time could not have thought about them when he was eulogizing Diana. I could imagine it adding to the hurt of a parent who had lost a young daughter in the same time - that everyone talked about Diana, Diana, Diana and seemingly almost nobody cared about my daughter, my sister.

It annoys me that celebrity deaths overshadow us so much. However, I do not consider that feeling, or posting negative facts about their life or honest negative opinions about them to be anywhere near either pi$$ing on their grave or even talking about pi$$ing on their grave. After all this is not a funeral or memorial service - it is a discussion board, which presumably means allowing positions other than "ditto".

[kdpeters]

45. We who've lost beloved family to a car accident aren't petty as you think

Or as self-centered. Losing my brother is still today the single most defining event of who I am today. Car accidents and vehicular recklessness do indeed stir up strong emotions and painful memories, but instead of resentment, I felt a bond and a compassion for those who mourned Diana's death because I've been there too. That she was a celebrity is less important to me than that she is a human being as are those who love and admired her.

[marions ghost]

70. beautiful

statement of how our all of our lives are intertwined.

There is something similar going on with this death of Steve Irwin and Diana's sudden death. I felt it also with the passing of Christopher Reeve (who died the same year my severely disabled nephew died), also Mother Theresa, John Lennon etc.--and others who touched many. Maybe it is the loss of those whose ability is to be an inspiration. Somehow we need those icons, those unique individuals who rise above fear and petty struggles, who give from the heart.

[petgoat]

44. Reagan had the blood from the Death Squads on his hands.

My piss is too good for his grave.

[Lerkfish]

49. In the case of politicans and leaders whose lives have impacted us

directly, I think its wrong to gloss over those effects or sugar coat them. As an example I point to the Nixon funeral. For several weeks, many (not necessarily here) bent over backwards to say good things about someone they had either outright disdain for or were ambivalent.

To extend this to its next logical conclusion, are we supposed to view Stalin or Pol Pot with rose colored specs just because their mortal coils finally ceased functioning? Does the death of an organism excuse its crimes while alive? I mean, besides Ken Lay, of course.


On the other hand, I think Steve Irwin was just an infotainment personality and what he did and why did it are not really important vs. speaking ill of the dead, so I'm less happy with that, but EVEN SO, I don't think I'm in any position to tell people how to react to news.

[Tracer]

51. My honest reaction to Irwin's death?

Mild surprise. And nothing more.

I had always found his persona to be irritating and avoided watching his shows.

However, I did think his FedEx commercial was very funny.

What does surprise me is the emotional involvement of people (here on DU) to the death of someone they DID NOT KNOW.

[onenote]

60. why does it surprise you

Did you know Paul Wellstone personally? If not, I assume you felt no emotion when he died? No deaths affect you other than those of persons you've personally met? If that is the way you are, its the way you are. I think its pretty clear from the postings here, both with respect to Steve Irwin's death as well as to the death of numerous other "personalities" whether they be actors, comedians, singers, writers, or politicians, that you are in the minority. I understand that not everyone felt the same connection to/affection for Steve Irwin. Same goes for any personality that dies. But the feelings of those who are affected by Irwin's death are no less valid and deserving of respect than the feelings of those who mourned Richard Pryor or those that mourned Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin decades ago.

[LostinVA]

92. As I've said up thread twice, you just don't get it

The actions of strangers can touch us in so many ways -- why the hell do you have to personally know someone to eb affected by their death? That is so weird and foreign to me... I know of the man's work, and that's all I need to know.

I'm starting to think the "odd" ones are people who can ONLY be affected by the death of someone within their own tight circle. We belong to the same village here, it's just a really huge global village.

You're not affected by the death of a good man, even though he's a stranger? Guess what -- who cares. However, why you feel you need to go to the effort to come onto a thread and ridicule those who do is mystifying. Does it make you feel hip and cool or something? Strange behavior.

[treestar]

55. How could there be a standard for how people "should"

respond and who is going to decide it?

People should just respond the way they want to.

Trying to control what other people have to say is a lost casuse, especially on the internet.

You can't expect everyone to agree to your standards. Can't expect DU to be made over in the image you would like it. 90,000 posters can't be expected to follow your rules.

I criticized the deceased, but I don't think I was nasty about it.

He was a public figure. That was his choice, too.

[cynatnite]

62. I was raised to never speak ill of the dead...

No matter who it is or what they did while living, there is no useful purpose in deriding them after they're dead. Someone somewhere who loved that person is suffering from the loss.

When Nancy Reagan cried over her husband's casket, I cried, too. It would be the same for anyone else who suffered such a tragic loss. It's a human reaction to anyone who is in pain.

[ThomWV]

66. Last Man Standing Hoses All

That's how I see it - survival of the fittest - piss on all who fell before me.

[Sammy Pepys]

67. I think a good rulke of thumb to go by is this.....

Be as polite as possible (even if it means saying nothing at all) during the mourning period. Afterwards, the floor is open.

Obviously, this rule loosens a bit depending on who we're talking about....but I think it should only loosen for those who are the most heinous or vicious...and sorry, as much as I don't like GWB, I don't think he fits into that category.

[IdaBriggs]

68. I plan to piss all over Junior's grave. I've even promised to bring

animal fecal matter to help decorate it. Those who are enemies of my country at a level similar to Hitler (which I consider much of the Republican leadership to be), will be treated as Enemies of My Country, while their ignorant followers shall receive my scorn.

My Opinion can be summed up as follows:

If you are EVIL, then your grave should be PISSED ALL OVER and your crimes well publicized.

Apparently the Republicans agree with me (as witnessed by the way they've treated the deaths of enemy leaders in Iraq); may they be treated with the same level of humanity they demonstrated.

If you (dead celebrity) are just stupid, I'll bite my tongue to be polite.

[notadmblnd]

69. personally? I'm saving my urine for the *bush gang.

then I'll dance as I piss.

[Brian Stevens]

76. hmmmm

I go a step further. Hope that some sick fuck digs up Bushit's grave, rape the carcass, and then have the carcass incinerated.

[Ksec]

79. The way I see it

Speaking the truth about someone is different than smearing them . If I believe something, Ill say it be they dead or alive. Irwin was a good egg, I just happened to believe he went a bit too far when he was making our entertainment. If you tease an animal into attacking you , youre mistreating it. Would you tease a human being into attacking you?

[Brian Stevens]

87. I don't tease

I throw the first punch to those I don't respect.

[ScreamingMeemie]

98. And the nonfactual accounts continue...

:eyes:

[Rex]

82. It is a Right to be able to say what you want in America.

Freedom of Speech means people without any taste or class can say whatever they want to. I might not agree with it, but I will defend their right to say it with my life.

[LostinVA]

93. Well, not true -- this is a message board, with rules

You can't say whatever you want on here.

[noonwitch]

102. I felt badly for Reagan's family when he died, despite politics

Nancy, a woman I never really liked very much, looked so frail at his funeral. I'd have to be pretty cold-hearted not to feel any sympathy for her or for any of the rest of the family. Even Ronnie-alzheimer's is a terrible disease, and for him to have died such a slow, terrible death-well, I have sympathy for people, even those I don't like very much.

[Batgirl]

107. Reading through this thread one thing stands out:

The greatest emotional intensity seems to be displayed by those who are loudly proclaiming they couldn't care less.

I have never seen this brand of indifference, which I initially mistook for fury.

In the spirit of community service I will provide this scientific diagram which will be helpful in figuring out once and for all how everyone feels about the subject at hand. After a brief consultation with this handy chart, and hopefully an even briefer glance in the mirror, everyone will be better able to more accurately guage their level of emotional involvement.

[Hidden Stillness]

109. The "Tough" Ones are the Most Pathetic

When the news first started to come out that Steve Irwin had died, I posted on a thread on DU about an hour after, a thread that may have been the first one. It was very "nice" to read, if that is the word, made up entirely of supporters of Irwin's, aninal lovers, etc., who were shocked and saddened, and posting their feelings and memories. I don't remember a single bad message, but all were favorable. Then, other threads started to appear, the next day, etc., and I skipped most, as I was still saddened by the death, and didn't want to think about it. Steve Irwin was a trained conservationist and wildlife handler, whose family has run the Australia Zoo for two generations, and runs it now. Irwin was not a "TV personality," any more than the researcher and animal rights activist Jane Goodall is a "TV personality"--that is probably the least of their time--but they are among the most highly respected of the animal/wildlife habitat teachers. Irwin's friendly and warm-hearted treatment of animals is often pointed to as a way to introduce children to kind and respectful handling of animals, the same way Captain Kangaroo was for my generation.

As important as all that was, the discovery that Irwin was such a wonderful and gentle husband and father, so open and loving, with the same kind of self-deprecating humor as elsewhere, was really impressive to me, and made the "Crocodile Hunter" programs even more enjoyable. There were programs on Irwin's Mom's death, the deaths of animals at the Zoo, Irwin's beloved dog dying of cancer, and for every one, Irwin openly cried and did not hide it. It was a wonderful combination, a daredevil who is not cold and callous, as they usually are, but warm, sympathetic and caring of others--a true role model for anybody, and very likable. I, among others, was very shocked at the suddeness of it, the terrible loss of a wonderful husband and father, and thinking of the family, and memories of many clips of Bindy Sue and "I love my Daddy," and Terri poking fun etc., is painful; I don't know how you can be untouched. For those of us for whom animal welfare, habitat loss, cruelty issues, etc., are important issues, this was the loss of a great teacher, who attracted millions to the cause.

The bizzare response of overstating people's appreciation of Steve Irwin as "pathetically clinging to things on TV," is stupid, creepy--like people who hate, and yet can't refer to what it really is or find a plausible-sounding cover-"reason" for it. As has been stated here, it is the ones who cannot let go of their own attention-seeking and give a response to others, who have the disturbance, not those with the still-natural response of friendliness to the outside world. If you cannot/will not show any concern for others unless you have met them personally, then extend that, and realize its phoniness: why should anyone care about the homeless and still-destitute of the Gulf Coast, or Iraq, since you don't "know" them? I assume you never listen to music or follow sports, as that would be "pathetically" identifying with people you don't know. There is a certain annoying type that gets on the computer and does nothing but spits lonely, bitter venom at anything else that reminds them of open emotions they never get or give. The same group that never posts a single message with a content, here, yet always sitting at the computer with a "What do I care?" "Leave me alone"; "I'll think what I want," even when people are just having ordinary, human responses to the loss of people they liked. Now that is pathetic.