6 ms·

I found it interesting that he wasn't allowed to read the obits themselves, so wouldn't even know if the subject was a human or dog. One might argue some distan

I found it interesting that he wasn't allowed to read the obits themselves, so wouldn't even know if the subject was a human or dog. One might argue some distancing helps for these kinds of moderation jobs, but also sounds dehumanizing to not have any context at all. Also of note is that he spent a lot of time keeping the comments "safe and sugarcoated", even deleting comments referencing "family fallouts and estrangement". There's such a strange culture around sanitizing people's images after their death and pretending they were angels. Some people were legitimate pieces of shit in life, and silencing those harmed by them in the interest of being politically correct sounds unfair to me. Caring only about letting their supporters grieve without having to think about the deceased's complexities, while for example, preventing those who were abused by them from voicing their thoughts seems to want to preserve order by sweeping anything unseemly under the rug.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mcmoor 3y ago
Considering that death penalty is considered a punishment so great that lots of states banned it, I guess people think that death already punished the person so badly that their sins can be considered absolved. So whether or not people sanitize dead people's image correlates to their opinion on death itself.
- saghm 3y ago
  Mentioning someone's crimes isn't a punishment, especially when they're not around to hear them. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that people can still have criminal records after they've finished serving a prison sentence?
  - mcmoor 3y ago
    Isn't mentioning it considered bad when someone has served their punishment? It's part of right-to-be-forgotten after all. When the crime is still recorded and even announced, it's considered part of the punishment because jail is deemed not enough. It's how we get sexual offender registry.
- denkmoon 3y ago
  Capital punishment is immoral not because death is sufficient to absolve guilt but because we lack sufficient certainty of guilt. Death is just death, it doesn't absolve guilt.
  - globalise83 3y ago
    That's an interesting perspective to take. Those countries in Europe who have prohibited capital punishment have done so because we believe it is immoral even in the case of absolute certainty of guilt. Take Anders Breivik for example: there is no doubt whatsoever of his guilt - he is a mass murderer. Nevertheless, according to modern European concepts of morality he should be treated well even in prison, and the Norwegians take that to a level that many other countries would find absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
    - jl6 3y ago
      When we decline to execute a heinous offender, and decline to treat them as inhuman - even when they have offended inhumanly - it demonstrates the moral difference between us and them.
      - Probiotic6081 3y ago
        As Michelle Obama said: "When they go low, we go high"
      - asynchronous 3y ago
        And seemingly demonstrates our ability to be taken advantage of by said inhuman offenders-
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        Does Anders truly "win" by being simply in confinement forever, rather than being dead? What does he gain? His life? What life? Playing PS1 games forever, seeing the same four walls forever, acceptable but certainly not impressive meals forever. There is not a single thing anyone can do to him or anyone else to undo what he did, and causing him suffering certainly doesn't bring back any children. More importantly, killing him does not make any of the damage he caused go away. Americans love to piss and moan about all the freedoms we supposedly have, but are conspicuously unsatisfied with merely removing said freedoms as punishment for crimes. Maybe they don't think "freedom" is that important or meaningful
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It’s literally the opposite to what you are claiming
  - chungy 3y ago
    That's a take I've certainly never heard before. Among support for the death penalty in the United States, is the fact that some criminals, particularly the serial killer type, have committed crimes so heinous that there is no chance of parole or rehabilitation to return to normal life. When one is burdened with 60 consecutive life sentences, it effectively requires that the state pay to sustain the criminal's life until it comes to an end. If the death penalty were enacted instead, we could both reduce the cost the state (which, in turn, is the tax payers), and reduce the suffering the criminal must endure for his crimes. If you'd like to take the afterlife into account, the "sends the person to eternal torment in hell" sounds like a particular theology not backed up by the Bible, the typical standard in American thinking. That verges way too much on passing ultimate judgment, which is itself reserved for God alone. Perhaps some people believe it. I don't (and I am religious).
  - bagels 3y ago
    We, who? The practical reason to support it is that it guarantees there is no chance for them to murder more people, or as a (misguided?) deterrent for others not to murder.
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It is also supported because it can be used as a self-defence mechanism. We take it for granted that when we lock up 'really' dangerous people they will be safely away from society, but that kind of infrastructure is a fairly recent phenomena in human history. Prison breaks/escapes still happen: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prison_escapes#2022_–_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prison_escapes#2022_–_... Not only from a building-prisoners perspective, but also from an excess-resources point of view: through most of human history, suggesting using society's surplus—which probably wasn't there—to feed someone 'evil' while everyone else had to work away would have seemed very unfair. If a single individual has the right to self-defence against an attacker, and a ("small") group of individuals have the same right (e.g., a bunch of folks worshipping in a temple, mosque, church), then wouldn't a "large" group of individuals (e.g., society) have a right to protect themselves from an attacker? With regards to "hell": someone, while waiting on death row, many repent of their actions and try to find redemption, but still be executed from a legal point of view: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(book) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film)
- ponector 3y ago
  Following that though is to say dead Nazi's sins are absolved. I don't think so. Sin is a sin, crime is a crime, no matter person is dead it alive.
  - mcmoor 3y ago
    Only if you consider it's absolvable with one death. Though it isn't like those are absolvable by any means in this world.
- master-lincoln 3y ago
  I never understood that stance. To me the death penalty is an easy way out compared to a life without freedom.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago
  How does dying absolve anyone of sin?
neilv 3y ago
There are other times and places for criticizing the dead, either before or a bit after the person's passing. Not immediately after, and not where the grieving will congregate. Obituaries can complicate that when they purport to be a biographical summary (such as for public figures), rather than a traditional formal announcement of memorial services with some kind words thrown in. I hope to live long enough to say "Good riddance!" about the passings of multiple people who did bad things, but I'd do it privately, not be a jerk to the grieving.
- pxc 3y ago
  There's a lot of space between passing over abuse in silence and being a jerk to others who are grieving. Mere mention of estrangement or complicated relationships is hardly shitting on someone. The bereaved have the right to grieve authentically, even if that means doing justice to a history that involves trauma and conflict. That's part of what collective grieving rituals are for and should be for. There are limits but I don't think there's a universal prescription, or that it's fair to draw a line at, e.g., mere mention of estrangement.
  - neilv 3y ago
    Good point. I wasn't thinking of enough scenarios.
- arp242 3y ago
  There's an old Soviet joke: A man goes to a newspaper stand every day, buys a copy of Pravda, glances at the front cover, curses, and throws it away. After a few weeks of this the seller just has to ask what's going on: "why do you always look at the cover but never inside?" "I'm looking for an obituary." "An obituary? But those are in the back!" "Oh no, the obituary I'm looking for will be on the front page."
  - pkphilip 3y ago
    :) interesting and funny at the same time
  - 3y ago
ars 3y ago
You are overlooking that the bulk of those negative comments are probably not true, and are just griefers. For example the experience of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39834260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39834260 lower down in this thread.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > just griefers. Appropriate usage.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mcmoor 3y ago

Considering that death penalty is considered a punishment so great that lots of states banned it, I guess people think that death already punished the person so badly that their sins can be considered absolved. So whether or not people sanitize dead people's image correlates to their opinion on death itself.

saghm 3y ago
Mentioning someone's crimes isn't a punishment, especially when they're not around to hear them. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that people can still have criminal records after they've finished serving a prison sentence?
- mcmoor 3y ago
  Isn't mentioning it considered bad when someone has served their punishment? It's part of right-to-be-forgotten after all. When the crime is still recorded and even announced, it's considered part of the punishment because jail is deemed not enough. It's how we get sexual offender registry.
denkmoon 3y ago
Capital punishment is immoral not because death is sufficient to absolve guilt but because we lack sufficient certainty of guilt. Death is just death, it doesn't absolve guilt.
- globalise83 3y ago
  That's an interesting perspective to take. Those countries in Europe who have prohibited capital punishment have done so because we believe it is immoral even in the case of absolute certainty of guilt. Take Anders Breivik for example: there is no doubt whatsoever of his guilt - he is a mass murderer. Nevertheless, according to modern European concepts of morality he should be treated well even in prison, and the Norwegians take that to a level that many other countries would find absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
  - jl6 3y ago
    When we decline to execute a heinous offender, and decline to treat them as inhuman - even when they have offended inhumanly - it demonstrates the moral difference between us and them.
    - Probiotic6081 3y ago
      As Michelle Obama said: "When they go low, we go high"
    - asynchronous 3y ago
      And seemingly demonstrates our ability to be taken advantage of by said inhuman offenders-
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Does Anders truly "win" by being simply in confinement forever, rather than being dead? What does he gain? His life? What life? Playing PS1 games forever, seeing the same four walls forever, acceptable but certainly not impressive meals forever. There is not a single thing anyone can do to him or anyone else to undo what he did, and causing him suffering certainly doesn't bring back any children. More importantly, killing him does not make any of the damage he caused go away. Americans love to piss and moan about all the freedoms we supposedly have, but are conspicuously unsatisfied with merely removing said freedoms as punishment for crimes. Maybe they don't think "freedom" is that important or meaningful
bowsamic 3y ago
Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It’s literally the opposite to what you are claiming
- chungy 3y ago
  That's a take I've certainly never heard before. Among support for the death penalty in the United States, is the fact that some criminals, particularly the serial killer type, have committed crimes so heinous that there is no chance of parole or rehabilitation to return to normal life. When one is burdened with 60 consecutive life sentences, it effectively requires that the state pay to sustain the criminal's life until it comes to an end. If the death penalty were enacted instead, we could both reduce the cost the state (which, in turn, is the tax payers), and reduce the suffering the criminal must endure for his crimes. If you'd like to take the afterlife into account, the "sends the person to eternal torment in hell" sounds like a particular theology not backed up by the Bible, the typical standard in American thinking. That verges way too much on passing ultimate judgment, which is itself reserved for God alone. Perhaps some people believe it. I don't (and I am religious).
- bagels 3y ago
  We, who? The practical reason to support it is that it guarantees there is no chance for them to murder more people, or as a (misguided?) deterrent for others not to murder.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It is also supported because it can be used as a self-defence mechanism. We take it for granted that when we lock up 'really' dangerous people they will be safely away from society, but that kind of infrastructure is a fairly recent phenomena in human history. Prison breaks/escapes still happen: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prison_escapes#2022_–_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prison_escapes#2022_–_... Not only from a building-prisoners perspective, but also from an excess-resources point of view: through most of human history, suggesting using society's surplus—which probably wasn't there—to feed someone 'evil' while everyone else had to work away would have seemed very unfair. If a single individual has the right to self-defence against an attacker, and a ("small") group of individuals have the same right (e.g., a bunch of folks worshipping in a temple, mosque, church), then wouldn't a "large" group of individuals (e.g., society) have a right to protect themselves from an attacker? With regards to "hell": someone, while waiting on death row, many repent of their actions and try to find redemption, but still be executed from a legal point of view: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(book) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film)
ponector 3y ago
Following that though is to say dead Nazi's sins are absolved. I don't think so. Sin is a sin, crime is a crime, no matter person is dead it alive.
- mcmoor 3y ago
  Only if you consider it's absolvable with one death. Though it isn't like those are absolvable by any means in this world.
master-lincoln 3y ago
I never understood that stance. To me the death penalty is an easy way out compared to a life without freedom.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Ylpertnodi 3y ago
How does dying absolve anyone of sin?

neilv 3y ago

There are other times and places for criticizing the dead, either before or a bit after the person's passing. Not immediately after, and not where the grieving will congregate. Obituaries can complicate that when they purport to be a biographical summary (such as for public figures), rather than a traditional formal announcement of memorial services with some kind words thrown in. I hope to live long enough to say "Good riddance!" about the passings of multiple people who did bad things, but I'd do it privately, not be a jerk to the grieving.

pxc 3y ago
There's a lot of space between passing over abuse in silence and being a jerk to others who are grieving. Mere mention of estrangement or complicated relationships is hardly shitting on someone. The bereaved have the right to grieve authentically, even if that means doing justice to a history that involves trauma and conflict. That's part of what collective grieving rituals are for and should be for. There are limits but I don't think there's a universal prescription, or that it's fair to draw a line at, e.g., mere mention of estrangement.
- neilv 3y ago
  Good point. I wasn't thinking of enough scenarios.
arp242 3y ago
There's an old Soviet joke: A man goes to a newspaper stand every day, buys a copy of Pravda, glances at the front cover, curses, and throws it away. After a few weeks of this the seller just has to ask what's going on: "why do you always look at the cover but never inside?" "I'm looking for an obituary." "An obituary? But those are in the back!" "Oh no, the obituary I'm looking for will be on the front page."
- pkphilip 3y ago
  :) interesting and funny at the same time
- 3y ago

ars 3y ago

You are overlooking that the bulk of those negative comments are probably not true, and are just griefers. For example the experience of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39834260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39834260 lower down in this thread.

lostlogin 3y ago
> just griefers. Appropriate usage.