Steve Jobs is dead! A sad day for hipster douchebags everywhere!

[The Rev]

I guess technically what I said was "criticizing a public figure's actions is not the same as dancing on a dead man's grave," but I'm still a little confused.

The thread started with someone saying they were glad Jobs was dead. Connect the dots, topic-wise.

Right, and pretty much everyone agreed that was uncalled for. Then I posted the article by Ryan Tate, which every also seemed to think was uncalled for, initially because it was "cowardly" to publish criticism after the guy had died (in reality Tate has been a critic of Jobs for a while) and then because he was just using the death to get traffic (so is every other site covering Jobs' death).

So again, I ask: Is it inappropriate to criticize/examine a public figure's shortcomings/mistakes/negative actions when they die? If so, then how long is the "mourning period" before people are allowed to examine the parts of a dead person's life when he wasn't shitting rainbows?

Related question: Shouldn't we also extend this "Zippity-Doo-Dah"-only attitude to those who are suffering from a chronic illness? I mean, it seems even meaner to me to criticize a person who's alive and in pain than one who's dead and has no idea you're talking shit about him. In other words, can George W. Bush announce tomorrow that he's got cancer of the pretzel, die a slow, lingering death for the next 30 years, and be remembered as the greatest president in U.S. history thanks to the 3 decades when we could only talk about the positive things he did?

What fucking thread have you been reading? Certainly not this one.

[kingyak]

Start around page 8 of the thread.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I will dance on her grave. I don't care how high the fence is, how many armed guards there are, or how long the queue is.

I'll buy a fuckload of booze and if anybody wants any, they have to say "ROT IN HELL MAGGIE THATCHER" 27 times while dancing in the fake grave I will erect in the park.

I'll have them pissing on it before sundown.

[Payne]

Right, and pretty much everyone agreed that was uncalled for. Then I posted the article by Ryan Tate, which every also seemed to think was uncalled for, initially because it was "cowardly" to publish criticism after the guy had died (in reality Tate has been a critic of Jobs for a while) and then because he was just using the death to get traffic (so is every other site covering Jobs' death).

Revelling in death is disgusting. That was my issue with the article

So again, I ask: Is it inappropriate to criticize/examine a public figure's shortcomings/mistakes/negative actions when they die? If so, then how long is the "mourning period" before people are allowed to examine the parts of a dead person's life when he wasn't shitting rainbows?

Nope. It's disgusting to revel in their death though. The "mourning period" takes as long as it takes, as in all other kinds of mourning.

Related question: Shouldn't we also extend this "Zippity-Doo-Dah"-only attitude to those who are suffering from a chronic illness? I mean, it seems even meaner to me to criticize a person who's alive and in pain than one who's dead and has no idea you're talking shit about him. In other words, can George W. Bush announce tomorrow that he's got cancer of the pretzel, die a slow, lingering death for the next 30 years, and be remembered as the greatest president in U.S. history thanks to the 3 decades when we could only talk about the positive things he did?

It's equally disgusting to revel in someone who is dying and in pain, but they at least have a chance to reply to criticism and work on their legacy.

Also there is no clear parallel between Bush and Jobs? I mean, one started a company that some have issues with but as far as I know never started us off on two major wars that have left thousands dead and also had a massive part to play in speeding up the necrosis of American politics which will affect generations to come.

Jobs may well have been a dick but he was never so bad as to warrant such hideous disrespect without someone passing comment on it.

In summary: you are free to say whatever loathsome thing you like, and as we have the same rights to free speech as you, we are free to pour scorn and bile on you for it.

[kingyak]

Ok, so we basically agree on what is and isn't appropriate, we just disagree on the nature of the article. You see it as reveling in Jobs' death. I see it as legitimate criticism of how Jobs' personality informed Apple's business model. Now we're getting somewhere.

[Payne]

Ok, so we basically agree on what is and isn't appropriate, we just disagree on the nature of the article. You see it as reveling in Jobs' death. I see it as legitimate criticism of how Jobs' personality informed Apple's business model. Now we're getting somewhere.

Pretty much, and while the Tate article wasn't all "Well, I'm glad he's out of the picture", I reckon that his article could have waited at least a couple of days out of some sense of respect.

We need to bear in mind that to make it as a CEO of a major transnational business you have to be a world class asshole, and that this is true of pretty much anyone in Jobs' position. That he didn't also do some good should not be missed or passed over unremarked or buried in a pile of criticism. It doesn't matter that everyone else everywhere are being respectful, it doesn't allow you to stand over the warm body and use it as a soapbox.

Yes these things needed to be written, but also they could have waited until the guy was at least in the ground.

[Faust]

Its funny that the people revelling in his death are people who hold passionate stances on the consumer products, and the intricacies of what those consumer product companies do. I guess it goes hand in hand with the first world problems stuff but they seems just as shallow as the company they hate so much.

[The Rev]

Its funny that the people revelling in his death are people who hold passionate stances on the consumer products, and the intricacies of what those consumer product companies do. I guess it goes hand in hand with the first world problems stuff but they seems just as shallow as the company they hate so much.

because there is no "like" button.

[Payne]

Its funny that the people revelling in his death are people who hold passionate stances on the consumer products, and the intricacies of what those consumer product companies do. I guess it goes hand in hand with the first world problems stuff but they seems just as shallow as the company they hate so much.

The benefits of what corporations can do are all around us. That these assholes fail to recognise that a good chunk of what makes us "first world" has required evil geniuses like Jobs et al is pitiable. I do not deny that the big corporations are in large part one of the bits of machinary tearing up what we had as a "society", but ultimately we have to pay for what we get which has been A LOT.

[kingyak]

Ok, so we basically agree on what is and isn't appropriate, we just disagree on the nature of the article. You see it as reveling in Jobs' death. I see it as legitimate criticism of how Jobs' personality informed Apple's business model. Now we're getting somewhere.

Pretty much, and while the Tate article wasn't all "Well, I'm glad he's out of the picture", I reckon that his article could have waited at least a couple of days out of some sense of respect.

We need to bear in mind that to make it as a CEO of a major transnational business you have to be a world class asshole, and that this is true of pretty much anyone in Jobs' position. That he didn't also do some good should not be missed or passed over unremarked or buried in a pile of criticism.

Tate started off by pointing out that Jobs had done good, but my reading of the opening paragraph was more "I'm not going to go into the details of the good things he did because there are a million other articles that have already done that" than "I'm ignoring everything good Jobs has ever done."  

It doesn't matter that everyone else everywhere are being respectful, it doesn't allow you to stand over the warm body and use it as a soapbox.

Yes these things needed to be written, but also they could have waited until the guy was at least in the ground.

This is where we disagree. I think it's fine "use a warm body as a soapbox" as long as it's done respectfully (and I personally think Tate was respectful). Bodies are used for soapboxes all the time, whether it's Troy Davis or Bobby Kennedy or Adam Walsh. People only seem to have a problem with it when someone is "impolite" enough to acknowledge that the dead body is not, in fact, that of a saint who never did any wrong.

Personally, while a agree that pointless grave-dancing is unnecessary, I think the over-emphasis on being polite and making sure you don't hurt anyone's feelings is detrimental to society. Probably the biggest example I can think of is that after more than a decade Americans still have not discussed the real motivations behind the 9/11 attacks because of a very tenuous argument that doing so would in some way be disrespectful to the people who died that day. So we're left with "they hate us for our freedoms."

[BadBeast]

Ten years ago, America had Bob Hope, Johnny Cash, and Steve Jobs. Now they have no Cash, no Hope,  and no Jobs!



Thanks to Sam, the joke man.

[kingyak]

Reminds me of this article, which IMO walks right on the line between legitimate criticism and grave dancing.

Hope Wasn't Funny

[Payne]

Ok, so we basically agree on what is and isn't appropriate, we just disagree on the nature of the article. You see it as reveling in Jobs' death. I see it as legitimate criticism of how Jobs' personality informed Apple's business model. Now we're getting somewhere.

Pretty much, and while the Tate article wasn't all "Well, I'm glad he's out of the picture", I reckon that his article could have waited at least a couple of days out of some sense of respect.

We need to bear in mind that to make it as a CEO of a major transnational business you have to be a world class asshole, and that this is true of pretty much anyone in Jobs' position. That he didn't also do some good should not be missed or passed over unremarked or buried in a pile of criticism.

Tate started off by pointing out that Jobs had done good, but my reading of the opening paragraph was more "I'm not going to go into the details of the good things he did because there are a million other articles that have already done that" than "I'm ignoring everything good Jobs has ever done."  

When it's buried in a slew of criticism, such an opening paragraph is a sop to appearing humane. And that is all.

Just because everyone else is taking this time to appreciate the good shit he did doesn't exempt one from also appreciating it. He was after all mostly a good guy.

It doesn't matter that everyone else everywhere are being respectful, it doesn't allow you to stand over the warm body and use it as a soapbox.

Yes these things needed to be written, but also they could have waited until the guy was at least in the ground.

This is where we disagree. I think it's fine "use a warm body as a soapbox" as long as it's done respectfully (and I personally think Tate was respectful). Bodies are used for soapboxes all the time, whether it's Troy Davis or Bobby Kennedy or Adam Walsh. People only seem to have a problem with it when someone is "impolite" enough to acknowledge that the dead body is not, in fact, that of a saint who never did any wrong.

Personally, while a agree that pointless grave-dancing is unnecessary, I think the over-emphasis on being polite and making sure you don't hurt anyone's feelings is detrimental to society. Probably the biggest example I can think of is that after more than a decade Americans still have not discussed the real motivations behind the 9/11 attacks because of a very tenuous argument that doing so would in some way be disrespectful to the people who died that day. So we're left with "they hate us for our freedoms."

Your analogy[ies] leaves me somewhat confused.* In any case I went out of my way to say that we should NEVER criticise him, just that doing it mere hours after his death is callous and makes me want to punch people.




* Troy Davis dedicated his (imprisioned) life to debating Justice, to use his death as a means to further this debate is not callous. RFK was running for office, utilising himself as an image in life. Being used an image in death is no disrespect. From what I can see of Adam Walsh, this was less of a case of using his death as a soapbox and more of a tragedy that everyone must reflect on.

As for 9/11, the time for mourning and avoidance is most definitely past. I agree with you on that, but such a discussion is not really relevent here.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I guess technically what I said was "criticizing a public figure's actions is not the same as dancing on a dead man's grave," but I'm still a little confused.

The thread started with someone saying they were glad Jobs was dead. Connect the dots, topic-wise.

Right, and pretty much everyone agreed that was uncalled for. Then I posted the article by Ryan Tate, which every also seemed to think was uncalled for, initially because it was "cowardly" to publish criticism after the guy had died (in reality Tate has been a critic of Jobs for a while) and then because he was just using the death to get traffic (so is every other site covering Jobs' death).

So again, I ask: Is it inappropriate to criticize/examine a public figure's shortcomings/mistakes/negative actions when they die? If so, then how long is the "mourning period" before people are allowed to examine the parts of a dead person's life when he wasn't shitting rainbows?

Related question: Shouldn't we also extend this "Zippity-Doo-Dah"-only attitude to those who are suffering from a chronic illness? I mean, it seems even meaner to me to criticize a person who's alive and in pain than one who's dead and has no idea you're talking shit about him. In other words, can George W. Bush announce tomorrow that he's got cancer of the pretzel, die a slow, lingering death for the next 30 years, and be remembered as the greatest president in U.S. history thanks to the 3 decades when we could only talk about the positive things he did?

What fucking thread have you been reading? Certainly not this one.

He's using something akin to autistic logic to extend a particular line of thought to it's argument ad absurdum.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's an exercise that philosophy sophomores often enjoy, not realizing.