zlacker

'Don't speak ill of the dead' comes from an era where everyone genuinely believed that the dead could haunt you from the grave.

It continues to have prominance in our society due to inertia and the fact that some people want a positive legacy to endure long after they pass regardless of whether or not they did anything in life to deserve that kind of legacy.

As the person you're replying to wrote it better than I ever could I'll write what they just shared becauase I think it's worth repeating, "taking inventory is harder than eulogizing or denouncing. But it’s more honest."

We should strive for honesty in these kinds of discussions over sensitivity.

>>Teever+(OP)
When I was a young man my mother did use that but explained ill more in the sense of unfair/unkind. I guess as an adult you realize everyone ends up living a somewhat complicated existence, and it's easier (maybe even sometimes safer) to say this person was bad than it is to say this person did unacceptable things.

>>Teever+(OP)
In the modern era it's usually said because the dead person cannot defend himself.

Now, Adams had plenty of opportunities to defend/explain his comments on certain issues, and he did not satisfy many people with those or perhaps dug himself in deeper (I myself really only know him from Dilbert in the 1990s, and am only superficially aware of anything controversial he did/said outside of that).

But I don't see anyone saying anything about him now that was not being said when he was alive.

>>Teever+(OP)
No. Disbelief has always been around. That there is no Church of Disbelief is a feature not a bug. Not speaking ill of the dead has a range of connotations, probably most prominent being avoiding easy targets that can't defend themselves. Want to show righteousness and strength of conviction? Then try a live target. There are many.

>>neom+A3
We've done this with our kid(s). Saying "you're being bad" or "you are bad" is very different from "You're choosing to do bad things."