6 ms·
I don't get "avoiding the ugliness" when someone dies. We need to acknowledge the ugliness and try to do better. Acting like "oh, he was trolling", or "it was
by spankalee 9mo ago
I don't get "avoiding the ugliness" when someone dies. We need to acknowledge the ugliness and try to do better.
Acting like "oh, he was trolling", or "it was just a small amount of hating Black people and women" is exactly how you get Steven Miller in the fucking White House.
We need to make it shameful to be bigoted again, and that means calling out the bigotry even in death.
- spankalee 9mo ago[flagged]
- otabdeveloper4 9mo agoWell, mostly it's because you're turning an artist's death into a struggle session. Talk about yikes.
- spankalee 9mo agoIn replying to someone who was all "oh, let's just ignore the awful parts" about someone who turned their _entire persona_ into awful parts. C'mon.
- pembrook 9mo ago[flagged]
- SilverElfin 9mo agoWhat specifically does that mean?
- _345 9mo agoPeople who are grievance farming basically, looking for ways to be upset at and complain about things, overreliance on the pathos, diminishing logos
- pembrook 9mo ago[flagged]
- saubeidl 9mo agoThere's no unpolitical, never was. To be quiet is an implicit endorsement of the status quo. You would prefer that, noted. But many would not.
- spankalee 9mo agoThis is a post about a public figure who was extremely public about their absolutely horrible views. Not addressing that would be weird. And I was responding to a comment that suggested avoiding that by saying that we shouldn't. Hardly random. As for US politics - it's quite obvious that ignoring or tolerating racism and xenophobia has lead to more bigots and assholes feeling comfortable expressing their views publicly. I think we should shame them out of the public sphere again. That includes talking about someone's abject vileness when they die, like with Scott Adams. You, on the other hand, bring up a random unrelated website. Which is random?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- saubeidl 9mo ago[flagged]
- yellowapple 9mo ago“Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit^WBluesky. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.”
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- wussboy 9mo agoIs "calling out the bigotry" useful? I feel like the Internet has been used for this purpose pretty consistently for the last 15 years. Is it effective? Is there less bigotry now than before? I would argue it has not in fact been useful, that making it shameful hasn't reduced it, and that calling it out in death is not useful in reducing it. I think we do it because it's easier than doing something useful and it makes us feel good. I hate bigotry as well. I encourage to do something IRL about it.
- lotsofpulp 9mo agoMaking the bigotry known is helpful, because while it might not cause a reduction, it is valuable information for all members of society.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- mrtesthah 9mo agoThink about all the things people have done in the real world the last 50 years to combat bigotry. During the civil rights movement of the 60s, black people sat at segregated lunch counters and marched peacefully in the street, and were consequently spat on and attacked by white mobs, beaten by police, sprayed with fire hoses, attacked by dogs, etc. In the last 10 years, the modern black lives matter movement has triggered similar violent backlashes, with every public gathering drawing a militarized police response and hateful counter-protesters. On a policy level, even the most milquetoast corporate initiatives to consider applications and promotions from diverse candidates of equal merit are now being slandered and attacked. In education, acknowledgment of historical racial and gender inequality is under heavy censorship pressure. It really does seem like the more effective we are at acting IRL, the greater the backlash is going to be.
- dangus 9mo ago[flagged]
- yellowapple 9mo ago> Is "calling out the bigotry" useful? There is immense value in acknowledging and learning from the mistakes of others, yes, even after their deaths.
- noobahoi 9mo agoHe was just 'trolling' for leftist Democrats. So no ugliness. There.
- testdelacc1 9mo agoI see where you’re coming from. But I’d argue that there’s broad consensus that his bigotry at the end was bad. So in this one moment, when we’ve just learned that he’s died, we can recall the good as well as the bad. It is shameful to have those views. But perhaps we can bring it up tomorrow rather than right this minute.
- inglor_cz 9mo agoBy this standard, many, of not most of the artists that lived prior to the Civil Rights Era are to be thrown out. I don't really want to study fluctuating levels of religious bigotry in Bach's life when I listen to his works.
- victorbjorklund 9mo agoWe can hold people today to modern standards. You can’t burn a woman at the stake today and say ”oh well, 300 years ago it was normal so”.
- inglor_cz 9mo agoI can agree with this when it comes to actual violent actions, but not with regard to words or thoughts.
- b3lvedere 9mo agoLaws are words
- inglor_cz 9mo agoLaws consist of words, but making a law is something different than just saying something. It is an act, and indeed American laws are often (or always?) called Acts.
- victorbjorklund 9mo agoFirst of all, I think we can definitely say that certain words are bad. if somebody is saying that they want to have sex with a child, we can tell them this is something bad and that we don't agree with this. And pretty much all countries in the world limit what we can say. You're not allowed in the US to, for example, threaten the US president with murder, even if it's just words.
- shimman 9mo agoWhat's wrong with this tho? Maybe we should stop uplifting people when we find out they are nasty individuals. Acting like there aren't also artists that are good people is odd, these are the ones deserving our attention. FWIW, I use to be a big fan of Crystal Castles (like listening to 4+ hours a day for close to a decade). It was a core part of my culture diet. Once it was known that Ethan Kath was a sexual predator that groomed teenage girls, I simply stopped listening or talking about them ever. Why is this hard? IDK, it really feels like people put too much of their identity into cultural objects when they lack real communities and people in their lives. Also throwing it out there, I don't really know much about Scott Adams (or his work for that matter). Dilbert comics weren't widespread memes on the phpBB forums I'd post on throughout the 00s and 10s. edit: spelling
- soupbowl 9mo ago[flagged]
- Teever 9mo ago'Don't speak ill of the dead' comes from an era where everyone genuinely believed that the dead could haunt you from the grave. It continues to have prominance in our society due to inertia and the fact that some people want a positive legacy to endure long after they pass regardless of whether or not they did anything in life to deserve that kind of legacy. As the person you're replying to wrote it better than I ever could I'll write what they just shared becauase I think it's worth repeating, "taking inventory is harder than eulogizing or denouncing. But it’s more honest." We should strive for honesty in these kinds of discussions over sensitivity.
- neom 9mo agoWhen I was a young man my mother did use that but explained ill more in the sense of unfair/unkind. I guess as an adult you realize everyone ends up living a somewhat complicated existence, and it's easier (maybe even sometimes safer) to say this person was bad than it is to say this person did unacceptable things.
- jakeydus 9mo agoWe've done this with our kid(s). Saying "you're being bad" or "you are bad" is very different from "You're choosing to do bad things."
- SoftTalker 9mo agoIn the modern era it's usually said because the dead person cannot defend himself. Now, Adams had plenty of opportunities to defend/explain his comments on certain issues, and he did not satisfy many people with those or perhaps dug himself in deeper (I myself really only know him from Dilbert in the 1990s, and am only superficially aware of anything controversial he did/said outside of that). But I don't see anyone saying anything about him now that was not being said when he was alive.
- m0llusk 9mo agoNo. Disbelief has always been around. That there is no Church of Disbelief is a feature not a bug. Not speaking ill of the dead has a range of connotations, probably most prominent being avoiding easy targets that can't defend themselves. Want to show righteousness and strength of conviction? Then try a live target. There are many.
- stetrain 9mo agoIn the context of the above comment I read "avoiding the ugliness" as avoiding incorporating it and continuing it in your own life, not shying away from talking about and addressing it. This comment actually makes a specific point of calling it out compared to some others here.
- pbreit 9mo agoOne good reason to avoid it is because you're probably wrong.
- spankalee 9mo agoWrong about what? Are you saying that Scott Adams was right and, say, white people _should_ avoid black people? Or are you saying that we shouldn't remember how awful people were once they die?
- RajT88 9mo agoThe thinking is that not "speaking ill of the dead" is not just respect, but doing anything else is pointless. You will not change them, and everyone present already made up their mind on their behavior.
- Arainach 9mo agoThey didn't, though. Plenty of people who had one reputation at their death have had that reputation change over time, especially with more information and awareness of what they did. Sometimes their reputations improve, sometimes they decline. Speaking only positively about people distorts the reality.
- revnode 9mo agoWhy is their reputation relevant? They're dead. Reputation guides your behavior toward that person. But they're no longer around. There is no behavior toward them. They're gone. Their reputation is no longer relevant.
- JadeNB 9mo ago> Reputation guides your behavior toward that person. But they're no longer around. There is no behavior toward them. They're gone. Their reputation is no longer relevant. It also culturally informs someone's perceived suitability as a role model. It doesn't matter to the dead person if they are held in high or low esteem, but it may matter to people in their formative stages deciding whose influence they follow and whose they shun.
- SilverElfin 9mo agoAgree with this. I didn’t agree with it in the past, but I can see now that it has caused the issue you raise. I don’t know if this is a great insight, but one reason I think people have not connected the results (Stephen Millers in the White House) back to the action (not speaking ill of the dead) is because THEY are not the ones affected. When Stephen Miller is in the White House, it’s all the non white people - including legal immigrants and naturalized citizens and citizens born here - that are living in fear of where the administration will go. I doubt others are aware that there is this fear, or even that the DHS’s official account tweets out threats to deport a third of the country.
- ALittleLight 9mo agoAh, yes. Trump and friends are in the White House because nobody called them racist. Excellent political analysis.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 9mo ago>We need to make it shameful to be bigoted again, We have made our society shameless. Pornographers, gamblers, and truly creepy people are told that it's fine to be what they are. I dunno, maybe that really is the case. But having abandoned shame as a method of social cohesion, you don't get to resurrect it for those things you dislike. The two-edged sword cuts both ways. I did not follow the Scott Adams brouhaha when it happened, and vaguely I somehow get the impression it's like the Orson Scott Card thing. I'm afraid to check for fear that when I do I will find there was nothing he should've been ashamed for. People use the word "bigot" to mean things I can't seem to categories as bigotry.
- psunavy03 9mo agoThe difference is Orson Scott Card only seemed to have been called out for being a bog-standard Mormon, at least as far as I know.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 9mo agoThat's the best I can tell. But mormonism is supposed to change their doctrine to follow the left's social standards. Ok, fair, even I couldn't keep a straight face typing that out. Touche.
- standardUser 9mo agoPersonally, I despise an outspoken bigot like Scott Adams more when they die, not less, because now their window for growth and repentance has closed. The grotesqueness they harbored becomes permanently tied to their legacy.
- nobodywillobsrv 9mo agoWhat exactly was the bad stuff? He was insensitive about empirical reality or he was literally wrong about something in the sense of being very confident about something despite having little data? Or something else? I only remember the cartons really but was aware some people seemed to be irked about him recently.
- jimmydddd 9mo agoSome random internet poll said many people of race A agreed it was "not OK" to be a person of race B. Adams said if that were true, then people of race B should probably not hang out with people of race A that thought it was not OK to be race B. The internet did its thing and quoted him out of context, and tried to cancel him. He dug in his heels and doubled down. He also liked a certain president that many dislike. And here we are.
- reducesuffering 9mo ago> The internet did its thing and quoted him out of context Let's not act like this is some case of out of context quotes. Here's the actual quote for people to decide for themselves: "I'm going to back off from being helpful to Black America because it doesn't seem like it pays off. I get called a racist. That's the only outcome. It makes no sense to help Black Americans if you're white. It's over. Don't even think it's worth trying. I'm not saying start a war or do anything bad. Nothing like that. I'm just saying get away. Just get away."
- fsckboy 9mo ago>Let's not act like this is some case of out of context quotes. Here's the actual quote for people to decide for themselves: you quote, but you did not include the context, so your attempt not to be out of context is a fail.
- sfblah 9mo agoAlso, no one even tries to argue that he's wrong. Does one "race" trying to "help" another ever really "pay off"? Debating that question would actually be pretty interesting.
- ilhanomar 9mo ago[flagged]
- CaptWillard 9mo ago"We need to make it shameful to be bigoted again" Interesting way to put it. For the past decade or so, many flavors of bigotry have been lauded and socially rewarded. At the same time, many valid viewpoints and statements have been mislabeled as "bigotry" by the incurious and hivemind-compliant. These things are balancing out lately, but quite a lot of damage was done.
- jakeydus 9mo agoCare to elaborate on what flavors of bigotry have been lauded and socially rewarded/what valid viewpoints and statements have been mislabeled as bigotry? I feel like you're being intentionally vague to avoid taking a stance here.
- CaptWillard 9mo agoNo, I think my stance is pretty clear. If you don't recognize the patterns of incuriosity, groupthink and misguided confidence that have permeated western society in the last ten years, nothing I say here is going to enlighten you.
- spankalee 9mo agoYour stance isn't clear at all. Do you have any specifics?
- jakeydus 9mo agoAh, so you're socially conservative, support Trump but probably consider yourself a libertarian, secretly a big fan of the moves ICE has been making? I'm assuming you've used the term "liberal media" unironically in the last year. You didn't storm the capitol, but you consider the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 to be worse than January 6. Antifa is more of a danger than far-right agitators. Charlie Kirk's death hit hard. No social identity group is more persecuted than white, heterosexual, cisgender Christian men. Any of those resonate? You're welcome to correct me. EDIT: in light of another reply to this same thread I recognize that much of this comment was written sneeringly. I apologize for the snark and am leaving it as is in the interest of transparency.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- derefr 9mo agoI think this is a question of who you're talking to, and is something you have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. If the person/people you're speaking with, already followed this public figure, or was forced by society to be aware of the life of this public figure at all times — and so were surely also aware of the bad turn that person's career/life took — then to your audience, the ugliness would have already been long acknowledged. To your audience, the ugliness may be the only thing anyone has spoken about in reference to the public figure for a long time. And, for an audience who became aware of the public figure a bit later on in their lives, the bad stuff might be all they know about them! (Honestly, there are more than a few celebrities that I personally know only as a subject of ongoing public resentment, with no understanding of what made them a celebrity in the first place.) In both of these cases, if this is your audience, then there's no point to carrying on the "this is a bad person" reminders during the (usually very short!) mourning period that a public figure gets. They already know. On the other hand, if you presume someone who has no idea who a certain person is, and who is only hearing about them in the context of their death — then yes, sure, remind away. I think, given the audience of "people in a comment thread on Hacker News about the death of Scott Adams", people here are likely extremely aware of who Scott Adams is. --- That said, on another note, I have a personal philosophy around "celebrations of life", that I formed after deciding how to respond to the death of my own father, himself a very complicated man. People generally take the period immediately after someone's death as a chance to put any kind of ongoing negative feelings toward someone on pause for just a moment, to celebrate whatever positive contributions a person made, and extract whatever positive lessons can be learned from those contributions. Note that the dead have no way of benefitting from this. They're dead! If you pay close attention, most of a community does after the death of one of its members, or a society does after the death of a public figure... isn't really a veneration; there is no respect or face given. Rather, what we're doing with our words, is something very much like what the deceased's family are doing with their hands: digging through the estate of the deceased to find things of value to keep, while discarding the rest. Finding the pearls amongst the mud, washing them off, and taking them home. Certainly, sometimes the only pearl that can be found is a lesson about the kind of person you should strive not to be. But often, there's at least something useful you can take from someone's life — something society doesn't deserve to lose grasp of, just because it was made by or associated with someone we had become soured on. I think it's important to note that if we don't manage to agree to a specific moment to all mutually be okay with doing this "examination of the positive products of this person's life" — which especially implies "staying temporarily silent about the person's shortcomings so as to make space for that examination"... then that moment can never happen. And that's what leads to a great cultural loss of those things that, due to their association with the person, were gradually becoming forgotten. Nobody (save for perhaps a few devoutly religious people) argues that you should never speak ill of the dead. People really just want that one moment — perhaps a week or two long? — to calmly dredge up and leaf through the deceased's legacy like it's a discount bin at a record store, without having to defend themselves at each step of that process from constant accusations that they're "celebrating a bad person." And it is our current societal policy that "right after you die" is when people should be allowed that one moment. Feel free to call out Adams' bigotry a week from now! The story will still be fresh on people's minds even then. But by giving them a moment first, people will be able to find the space to finally feel it's safe to reminisce about how e.g. they have a fond memory of being gifted a page-a-day Dilbert calendar by their uncle — fundamentally a story about how that helped them to understand and bond with their uncle, not a story about Adams — which wouldn't normally be able to be aired, because it would nevertheless summon someone to remind everyone that the author is a bigot.
- spankalee 9mo agoI was directly responding and replying to jchallis, but a mod detached my comment from its parent and now it makes less sense without the proper context. Great job.
- mdhb 9mo agoThe moderation on this site is really such garbage. Filled with all kinds of weird and subtle manipulation, almost never openly acknowledged and they are more than happy to gaslight you when you confront them about it.
- TheCondor 9mo agoI agree with the sentiment. I think timing is pretty important, though, and a cooling-off period might be a kind gesture for his loved ones. I posit that self-reflection might be a better avenue to understanding this world where Steven Miller is in the White House, at least in the immediate. Personally, I stopped reading Dilbert quite a while before he cancelled himself, just because it wasn't available in a medium that worked for me. I do have a couple books on the shelf of old Dilbert comics and I considered getting rid of them when the racism came out. I cracked one open and laughed out loud at a handful of the comics and so the books are still in my house. I abhor racism, but he already got my money. At least for me, and maybe I'm damaged, I still laugh at some of the comics, even after I knew he was a jerk. I think if one of my black friends told me he was offended that I had those books, I'd get rid of them. How about Harry Potter? I'm certain that there are some folks here who have been hurt by Rowling's statements and I'm also certain that there are some folks here that would sacrifice a limb to live in the Harry Potter universe. Do you separate the artist from the art or what's the rational thing? I have the Harry Potter books on my shelf, I've actually read them out loud to my children. They also are aware of LGTBQ issues, they know and are around LGTBQ people and we have had conversations about those issues. Is that enough? Should one of my kids pick up the Dilbert books, I have a conversation locked and loaded and I already know that I've raised them to be anti-racism. I don't know that I'm super eager to put more money in to J. K.'s pocket, I probably won't go to Disney Harry Potter Land or whatever they come up with but I've bought and read the books and I haven't burned them. And make no mistake, had I known he was a biggot in 1995, I don't think I would have continued reading Dilbert or ever bought books. The problem is it made me laugh, then years later I found out he was a jerk and I still laugh at the comics, I remember laughing the first time I read some of them, and I think of that more when I re-read them than I think about Scott Adams. Fact is, he still made me laugh all those years ago, I can't put that back in the bottle, it happened.
- kgwgk 9mo ago> I think if one of my black friends told me he was offended that I had those books, I'd get rid of them. Don't be so hard on your friends, let them be offended if they want.
- nailer 9mo agoDid you support Scott Adams when he called out bigotry? Why / why not?