4 ms·
The 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 a
by RajT88 10mo ago
The 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
- teknopaul 10mo agoAdams stated he was racist and thought that was aok. I'd say calling him out as a racist is not exactly speaking ill of the dead in this case.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago[flagged]
- zzzeek 10mo agoIt's not OK to poop on the floor yet humans had no toilets for tens of thousands of years. Try doing some more thinking on this one also no, racism is not genetic
- anthem2025 10mo ago[dead]
- jimmydddd 10mo agoYou're trying to make a well-reasoned argument that includes subtle points. That is beyond the scope of a comments section like this.
- bdhe 10mo agoI'm missing the well-reasoned argument with subtlety. It sounds like parent is saying that "X is a natural product of evolution and hardwired" so "X must be ok". I don't see subtlety here. As others pointed, the story of human civilization is one long arc of going against our base animal instincts in order to build a society that benefits everyone.
- nobody9999 10mo ago>As others pointed, the story of human civilization is one long arc of going against our base animal instincts in order to build a society that benefits everyone. I'd add that it's cooperation and the ability to moderate impulsive behavior that, over the long term, differentiates us from our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee. If we were just our base instincts and nothing more, we wouldn't be having this conversation as we'd likely have died out, because our ability to accept and work together with each other allowed us to flourish despite the threats of predation, climate change, natural disasters and other challenges. As such, making the argument that we're "hardwired" to hate and fear our fellow humans doesn't make sense, whether that argument is an intellectual one or an evolutionary one. I feel sorry for folks who feel so isolated that they can't understand just how closely related we all are. It must be quite lonely.
- nutjob2 10mo agoRespect is earned by your actions and deeds, not by your death. When someone I know dies, I speak frankly about them, good or bad, because to do otherwise is a lie, and the most disrespectful thing to do is to misrepresent a person who no longer can represent themselves. Scott Adams did what he did, that's surely not in question. Honor his life by speaking frankly about how he affected oneself and others, good or bad. Let the chips fall where they may.
- optionalsquid 10mo agoThe best we can do for the dead is remember them as they were, good and bad, not demonize them nor write hagiographies for them
- nobody9999 10mo ago>The best we can do for the dead is remember them as they were, good and bad, not demonize them nor write hagiographies for them I agree with your conclusion, but not with your premise. We can't "do" anything for the dead. They're dead. What's more, since they're dead they don't care what we do or say because they're, you know, dead. Anything we might do or say in reference to dead folks is for the benefit of the living and has nothing to do with the dead. That said, you're absolutely right. We should remember folks for who they were -- warts and all -- to give the living perspective both on the dead and the dead past.
- Angostura 10mo agoSo, no need to speak of them at all
- DonHopkins 10mo agoThe mendacious speaking that Scott Adams did of the living was a hell of a lot worse that speaking factually about him after he died.