zlacker

[return to "Scott Adams has died"]
1. ryandv+75[view] [source] 2026-01-13 15:41:42
>>ekianj+(OP)
The entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale.

To go from a brilliant satirist to becoming terminally online and just completely falling off the far right cliffs of insanity is incredibly sad. And unfortunately, this is plight is not uncommon. It is incredibly dangerous to make politics part of your identity and then just absolutely bathe yourself in a political media echo chamber.

◧◩
2. andrew+I7[view] [source] 2026-01-13 15:52:03
>>ryandv+75
Good to know that "Don't speak ill of the dead," is now truly dead. Ironic that an online post trying to push a political point is attempting to frame itself as rising above. There is no middle ground. There is no common decency.
◧◩◪
3. petese+a9[view] [source] 2026-01-13 15:56:04
>>andrew+I7
Why shouldn’t you speak ill of the dead?
◧◩◪◨
4. pizzaf+g91[view] [source] 2026-01-13 19:33:04
>>petese+a9
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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. qarl+ok1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 20:13:57
>>pizzaf+g91
> 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?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. pizzaf+Sw1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 21:05:21
>>qarl+ok1
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.

[go to top]