GameBanshee Forums

In Reagans death thread it was said that discussing his politics in the same place as his death was unsensitive. This made me think a few years back, right before the intervention in Afghanistan to be more precise. At that time I thought it was of some importance to discuss the morality of any intervention there, however some said it was unsensitive to bring up the subject of how terrorism is created, how to deal with international criminals etc so close after the WTC attack. Eventually Afghanistan was attacked without much attention to such issues. Everyone should see the problem here really: constructive discussion about certain issues can only take place when they are not as urgent.

So my question: How can you motivate this kind of taboos in political discussions, in what situations (if any) should there be such taboos, and how to get around the problems they causes?

As for the Reagan thing Im pretty sure it was just that the thread was there for those to morn his loss, not argue.

I agree that aggressive arguments and debate should always take place when the subject of War is in place.

Personally I feel much more offended for being silenced on account of "not speaking ill of the dead", etc, than of someone telling me that a person, deceased or otherwise, is not to their liking. This is even more true in the case of public figures, since their effect on society and the world around us is so much more profound. As I stated in the thread regarding what constitutes a great person, the above mentality has prevailed for numerous years regarding the late Swedish prime minister Palme. The fact that I despise the man doesn't change because he's dead, but for some reason it is not acceptable to say so. In the case of Reagan, my sentiment at the time of his presidency was that he was the single worst thing to have happened in global politics since Maggie Thatcher. That also has not changed because he's dead. In fact, the only thing that puts him in a slightly better light is GW Bush.

There is a strange hippocrisy regarding death in western society, where even the worst of people get portrayed in a better light when dead. In most cases the obituaries of despicable individuals are nothing but insults to those who have suffered at their mercy. The only conselation is that the person is in fact dead and can't cause you any further harm. I do not wish death upon anyone, but there are quite a few I simply will not mourn for.

Theres a big difference between not mourning and criticizing and lashing out in the days after his death. On this board it was about respect for those who treasured him and the man himself. No one silenced anyone, the idea to open another thread was given.

I have re-read the original thread, and there was nothing to indicate that it was meant for what you claim. Even so, it still amounts to the same thing; one-sidedly praising a man while disqualifying criticism. I doubt a similar thread for Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler would be accepted.

Originally posted by Silur
I doubt a similar thread for Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler would be accepted.

It wouldn't be accepted here because there are obvious and enormous differences between Reagan and the three people mentioned above.
Then again, on other forums it would be accepted and probably is. Like it or not, Bin Laden is a hero to some and so are Saddam and Hitler.

@Silur other than the fact the Title of the thread had absolutly nothing to do with his politics, other than the fact a Moderator asked exactly that to start another thread if you want to debate his politics. Other than the fact its commen sense to be curtious to those.

Your comparisons are a joke in my mind... as grunt boy would say, you mentioned Hitler you loose.

Originally posted by RandomThug
Your comparisons are a joke in my mind... as grunt boy would say, you mentioned Hitler you loose.

Stange you should mention that since he has again entered the propaganda machinery to sanction the policies of governments of our time. One would think that he would be a marginalized figure by now. Unfortunately, in their case, your quote is sadly untrue.

@Coot&Random thug: I doubt Silur was saying they are all one and the same, The way I understood his point was that If you think every man deserves only good comments on his death it should apply to everyone, not just the ones you happen to like. Even if there is a difference between Reagan and Hitler you must recognize that they are both widly disliked persons. So giving one peace and the other not does really make little sense. If this was his point I agree, and add that I do not think anyone deserves special treatment when dead, so the above is not a problem for me.

About Reagans similarities or lack of similarities with OBL please use another thread.

Originally posted by Coot
It wouldn't be accepted here because there are obvious and enormous differences between Reagan and the three people mentioned above.
Then again, on other forums it would be accepted and probably is. Like it or not, Bin Laden is a hero to some and so are Saddam and Hitler.

Obviously? Two words, Iran and Contra. We all condemn terrorist leaders in general and Osama bin Laden in particular, but I think that we should demand higher standards from our democratic leaders, wouldn't you agree?

@Dottie your right I see his point.

@Silur I am confused because I do not believe that once one dies you must only say positive things, thats never been anything I've claimed. So well I guess your arguing without me. Its just I guess its like your at work and someone goes ..

"Yeah Bill died you know?"
"Yeah I heard about it on tv"
"Yeah last night"
"Oh Bill was a son of a *****"

Originally posted by RandomThug
@Silur I am confused because I do not believe that once one dies you must only say positive things, thats never been anything I've claimed. So well I guess your arguing without me. Its just I guess its like your at work and someone goes ..

"Yeah Bill died you know?"
"Yeah I heard about it on tv"
"Yeah last night"
"Oh Bill was a son of a *****"

You're absolutely right. Which is exactly why I object to being silenced in the thread regarding Reagans death. Those who respect and admire the man must also be able to accept that there are those that disagree and why they disagree. Otherwise they're just hanging on to a revised version of reality and shutting out whatever is too unpleasant to listen to. Not all that uncommon behaviour, and something we must oppose firmly lest we end up with someone worse than Dubbya.

Alright so I'll agree politically your right, but your a jerk. Rude even (Not you personally but that last person talking in my example I'd consider poor taste and well rude)

I'd wait until later after everyones gotten over the initial effect of Bills death and then I'd say well you know bill wasn't the nicest...

Or I'd start Another thread.

Originally posted by RandomThug
Alright so I'll agree politically your right, but your a jerk. Rude even (Not you personally but that last person talking in my example I'd consider poor taste and well rude)

I would agree with you in the case of Bill, who is merely a coworker and someone who everyone in the workplace has some form of personal relation to. Bill may have been a nasty person, but he was not a public figure.

In the case of Reagan, or any other public figure for that matter, I strongly disagree. I did not know Reagan personally, but I know of the consequences of his politics. When you pay respects to a public figure, you do not really consider that person in the same way you do Bill, but judge him based on his actions as a public figure. This is true for both those that respect the man and those that don't. So basically, by saying that you mourn for Reagan and that he was a great man, you are standing by his actions and policies. This is perfectly acceptable to you, right? On the other hand, those not supporting his views are naturally quite indifferent to his passing as a person, but they are very likely to be critical of the views he represented while alive. Are they jerks for expressing those when the person is dead?

In fact, your post shows exactly the point I have tried to make all along - that for some reason, when someone dies they are exempt from criticism. As has been posted elsewhere, this is a very dangerous sentiment with dire consequences. It is also, in this case in particular, highly undemocratic.

I think that the generic flavor of the Reagan thread itself contributed a bit to the problems. That thread was allowed to take its own shape, within limits--always a good idea, here--but it ended up being understood to mean essentially two different things to different people, as I see it:

1) It was a place to offer tributes to a deceased man that some view as an excellent president and even a personal hero.

2) It was a place to criticize and discuss the career and decisions of that man-as-president.

Once I realized how some people were seeing it as #1, I immediately backed off from further criticisms of my own; not because I feel the thread was intended as a tribute, but because at least a few others considered it such, and as I regard them as friends, I didn't wish to hurt their feelings. Nothing could be gained by that.

At the same time, I think there is definitely room to argue the career of Reagan. I'd personally enjoy doing so. Perhaps, though, now is not the best time. Not because of rules, but out of sensitivity to the feelings of others.

Originally posted by Dottie
The way I understood his point was that If you think every man deserves only good comments on his death it should apply to everyone, not just the ones you happen to like.

Dottie: I am not quoting you here because my following comments are directed at you. Your sentence just illustrates the impetus for my comment:

I think that there is a natural hesitancy in many cultures to try not to speak ill of the dead, especially the recently dead. Surely this has nothing to do with hurting the feelings of the dead person! And this wouldn’t have anything to do with whether or not the dead person deserved good comments. I think the point is that we need to be respectful of other people’s feelings. Supposing you had a friend whose father died and supposing that father was particularly abhorrent to you. Would you say to your friend, “Hey! I heard your Dad died. I sure am glad that jerk kicked the bucket; I hated everything about him!” No, better to offer simple condolences during your friend’s time of grief and keep the bad stuff to yourself. If you really had to vent, maybe you could find like-minded people out of earshot of your friend (read: start a new thread).

I like and respect almost everyone in SYM, and I really wouldn’t want to try to hurt the feelings of anyone here. Since some members hold Reagan in high regard, I choose to refrain from callously denigrating the man at this time, especially not in a thread specifically designed to be an eulogy to him. There will be a time in the future when the value of that man’s life works will be evaluated in a considered light, and I look forward to that time. I understand that the US Congress has suspended all activity for the week in order to make room for eulogies presented by each Congressman. I also understand that the Democrats have not shown up at all. Better to not say anything if you don’t have anything good to say – that is rather honorable in my book.

So, to me, it’s a matter of respect for those who are present to refrain from trashing Reagan’s character in his eulogy thread. To do so would be cold, and discourteous of the feelings of those I regard as my (misguided Republican) friends here in the forum.

I'm sorry Fable, but to have #1 without #2 is precisely what I'm objecting to. It invites to the La-la-land mentality of seeing reality in the way one choses without accepting input from the outside world. There are a number of people that mourn Ronald Reagan for whom he was as a person, most notably Nancy Reagan. In her case, I would consider rude to be an understatement if someone were to start criticising Ronald Reagan for his political choices. However, on this message board I doubt anyone to be a close relative, and therefore conclude that those that admire him do so for his actions.

@Gwally....
well put.. *hug*

Most people seems to agree that when someone loses a friend/family member or such, some restraint is required. What about other situations? I agree with Silur that a public person, and definitely a powerfull public person is always a viable target. What do others think about things as principles, nations, public persons, actions etc. Those can also be held in high regard by some people who might feel hurt should they be criticised.

@Qwally: You make the same allegory as RT, and I still say it is not valid. If RR was your father, then yes, I would have to agree that I am unsensitive and rude. However, I doubt anyone on this board has a personal connection to the Reagan family, and thus I object to the biased praise of the man.