3 ms·

In my experience, if you didn't like the deceased in life, you'll probably want to criticize them at their death, and vice versa. If you ask me, there's no poin

by madrox 5y ago

In my experience, if you didn't like the deceased in life, you'll probably want to criticize them at their death, and vice versa. If you ask me, there's no point to tearing someone down in their obituary. The deceased certainly doesn't care one way or another. The people that are grieving in the slightest don't want to hear it and you come off as a jerk without accomplishing anything. The people that aren't grieving already agree with you.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kennywinker 5y ago
My suggestion is coming from a place of thinking about those who have no opinion. Maybe because Madeleine Albright was out of office before they were born, or maybe because they weren't paying attention at the time. There is a moment now where these people can be exposed to her legacy, good and bad, and it can help inform their understanding and their choices going forward.
- madrox 5y ago
  I'm not sure those ambivalent about the deceased will suddenly not be. I'm also not sure what you mean by choices. Who to vote for? If this were a startup I'd say you're making way too many assumptions about your audience.
Forgeties79 5y ago
Nah. You aren’t entitled to a sanitized story just because you died. Doubly so when you made decisions that negatively impacted millions. That’s the price of being in power.
- madrox 5y ago
  Like it or not, the story has already been told once the person has died. All that's left is how you feel about that story. History will be judging us all for a long time and there's no rush. Dunk all you like on someone when they die if it makes you feel better, but it's hardly a classy move and doesn't exactly change hearts and minds.
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    I didn’t say “dunk” on them. I’m saying you can tell a story that isn’t “oh my god they were angels in life and they’re angels now in death.” There’s a whole range of tones between sanitizing and slandering.
    - madrox 5y ago
      If we're arguing semantics there probably isn't much point in continuing. You can certainly tell that story, but I'm not sure a person's wake is the place to do it...if for no better reason than out of kindness for the grieving. There's plenty of time for history to develop a nuanced opinion.
      - Forgeties79 5y ago
        It’s not just semantics when you change my argument from “we can talk about the negative/more complex sides of a person in an obituary” to “I should be able to ‘dunk’ on someone in an obituary if I feel the need to.” You are misstating my intention in an effort to make my position seem less reasonable than it is. Your description was off by a large margin, it wasn’t just semantics. I do agree this discussion probably isn’t going to be fruitful though, so have a nice weekend.

by madrox 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kennywinker 5y ago

My suggestion is coming from a place of thinking about those who have no opinion. Maybe because Madeleine Albright was out of office before they were born, or maybe because they weren't paying attention at the time. There is a moment now where these people can be exposed to her legacy, good and bad, and it can help inform their understanding and their choices going forward.

madrox 5y ago
I'm not sure those ambivalent about the deceased will suddenly not be. I'm also not sure what you mean by choices. Who to vote for? If this were a startup I'd say you're making way too many assumptions about your audience.

Forgeties79 5y ago

Nah. You aren’t entitled to a sanitized story just because you died. Doubly so when you made decisions that negatively impacted millions. That’s the price of being in power.

madrox 5y ago
Like it or not, the story has already been told once the person has died. All that's left is how you feel about that story. History will be judging us all for a long time and there's no rush. Dunk all you like on someone when they die if it makes you feel better, but it's hardly a classy move and doesn't exactly change hearts and minds.
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  I didn’t say “dunk” on them. I’m saying you can tell a story that isn’t “oh my god they were angels in life and they’re angels now in death.” There’s a whole range of tones between sanitizing and slandering.
  - madrox 5y ago
    If we're arguing semantics there probably isn't much point in continuing. You can certainly tell that story, but I'm not sure a person's wake is the place to do it...if for no better reason than out of kindness for the grieving. There's plenty of time for history to develop a nuanced opinion.
    - Forgeties79 5y ago
      It’s not just semantics when you change my argument from “we can talk about the negative/more complex sides of a person in an obituary” to “I should be able to ‘dunk’ on someone in an obituary if I feel the need to.” You are misstating my intention in an effort to make my position seem less reasonable than it is. Your description was off by a large margin, it wasn’t just semantics. I do agree this discussion probably isn’t going to be fruitful though, so have a nice weekend.