zlacker

I've never entirely understood "don't speak ill of the dead"; it seems like a vastly-scoped rule with far too many exceptions (and that can prevent learning any lessons from the life of the deceased). Forgive the Godwin's law, but: did that rule apply to Hitler? If not, then there's a line somewhere where it stops being a good rule (if it ever was one to begin with) – and I'd feel confident saying that there's no real consensus about where that "cutover" occurs.

To me, comments like "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" rings less of vitriol and more of a kind of mourning for who the man became, and the loss of his life (and thus the loss of any chance to grow beyond who he became).

That rings empathetic and sorrowful to me, which seems pretty decent in my book.

>>uberta+(OP)
> I've never entirely understood "don't speak ill of the dead"

Agree. Much more hurtful to speak ill of the living. I can even see both R's and D's as people suffering in the duality of the world and have compassion for them. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

>>uberta+(OP)
Because the dead can't respond or defend themselves. That's why you don't do it.

And it's the framing of the statement that is the problem. They didn't say "I disagreed with Scott" or "I didn't like Scott"; they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth. "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" makes it seem like he did something wrong and there is some universal truth to be had, when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views. It's persuasion, which ironically I think Scott would have liked.

>>uberta+(OP)
You don't even really need to invoke Godwin's law, since you can just ask the same question about financier to the billionaires Jeffrey Epstein or beloved British presenter Sir Jimmy Savile (presented without speaking ill of the dead).

>>negzer+k7
Kind of crazy your original post got flagged, it was completely reasonable.

---

> which ironically I think Scott would have liked

Agreed, RIP.

>>negzer+k7
> they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth

"the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people; just get the fuck away"

It is true that this is an evil and racist thing to say.

> when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views

white supremacism isn't just a small policy difference.

If you hold hateful beliefs in which you believe certain people are inferior based on superficial traits like skin colour, why should you expect to be treated with respect? I disrespect such people because I don't respect them, I am if nothing else being sincere.

>>Noaidi+I3
This is even encoded in our laws. It is definitionally impossible to defame the dead, for example.