Comment by petesergeant

2 days ago

Why shouldn’t you speak ill of the dead?

Good question.

The dead man, whomever is in question, can no longer harm you. He was a man, maybe a husband and father, and speaking ill of them is of no tangible benefit. To those that respected or loved them, the relationship is gone, and it is not wise to add to their pain.

I have been to the funeral of bad men. His earthly power is gone and if there is an afterlife his judgment is sealed.

This goes for all enemies and tyrants and criminals. We use the term "I am sorry for your loss" because most times the loss is not ours.

  • > His earthly power is gone

    Well... unless he has followers, right? I would argue that Jesus remains a powerful force today despite being dead for 2000 years.

    I don't think people go out of their way to talk shit about everyday shitty people. It's the ones who remain influential that issue is raised.

    > no tangible benefit

    On the contrary, if his beliefs were especially toxic, it is extremely beneficial to speak against them. Do you really disagree?

    • I disagree. I say speak against the ideas, not the person, as the person dies, except Jesus who people continue to invoke his name, which probably means he transcends an idea or belief.

      I have a terrible toxic belief troubles you. Can I be a member of society just because I believe pineapple on pizza is acceptable? If you associate me as a person with that belief instead of someone who believes, I suddenly become a problem, and not the belief. Jesus said to love your enemies. He also spoke against ideas, not people.

      1 reply →

I suppose you shouldn't jeer at them for being dead, for a start, and you should make allowances for their being dead when judging their actions. Treat them fairly.

It's mostly because the dead cannot defend themselves. You are attacking someone who you have no fear of reprisal from.

  • This has been mentioned a few times in this thread. But it doesn't really make a lot of sense, especially in the case of someone famous.

    If two or three days ago, not knowing he was sick (which I didn't), I had said to someone "That Dilbert guy seems to be sort of a whack job," why would it matter that he was alive to hypothetically defend himself? It's extremely unlikely that he would ever be aware of my comment at all. So why does it matter that he's alive?

    • Outside of Scott Adams and all of that. And I think public figures, especially those whose major schtick was to engender reaction, are a different story.

      But it's basically getting the last word in because the other party is unable to respond. It's seen as a little uncouth.

      On reddit, it's kind of like those people who respond, then block you to make sure you can't respond. They aren't there to make an argument or convince you, they just want to get the last word and they're doing it in a way where you cannot respond.

      Like I said, I don't entirely agree with "don't speak ill of the dead". Especially for figures who used their platform to elicit responses. But that's one of the reasons behind the sentiment. Right, wrong, that's for you to decide.

  • I didn't fear reprisal from Scott Adams when he was alive, either.

    And there are plenty of people willing to step in for Scott and defend him, as evidenced by the contents here.

    Someone dying doesn't mean the consequences of their words and actions disappear and acting like we should pretend that death washes away those consequences is silly.

    • And that is fair. I was just explaining why people feel you shouldn't.