[Mods I do not have 'sufficient privileges' even after all these years and posts, to post in community discussions for some reason, please move if you like] I am old school. Even for my worst political enemy, or a sports figure or an entertainer I loathe, a thread like this deserves respectful restraint. I strictly observe the rule never speak ill of the dead for at least a couple of days, so that those posters who feel differently in a political forum have some space to mourn and laud etc. If Trump and Mitch died tomorrow. I would allow their admirers a thread to say whatever they wanted unrebutted for several days. If I simply could not stomach the lionization therein, I would open my own thread for debate purposes, but not trash the 'RIP' threat. I remember being outraged and frustrated in another forum when Ted Kennedy died of brain cancer because people just could not wait even 24 hours before doing the Chappaquiddick dance all over three other threads created to talk about his life with some deference. Can't it wait, or find another outlet for at least a little while? Posters can all congregate in that one 'debate free thread' for while. I kept my peace for a couple of days when Reagan died, and yes, even when Roy Cohen died and that one was tough! Its not really hard to tell if the OP holds a deferential view of the deceased. Why can't we give our fellow posters a little peace and respect some distance of time or place before we hate on him or her?
Well, since you mention it: Some of the posts in THIS Thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/cokie-roberts-dead.561676/ could be considered a particularly egregious example of what are referencing,
It is a bipartisan problem. Both sides have posters who are equally guilty if we look back That thread is what caused me to post this as Roberts was fairly benign as partisan war zone material is concerned. McCain got it from both sides, and defended by both sides. My point is that there is a period of time, when we ought not have to defend/ Its usually too late to plead for some discipline after someone more political dies. So I thought I could bring this up. Do you restrain yourself when a RWer dies in a thread devoted to lauding accomplishments etc? Maybe I am naïve and out of date, but I sure would appreciate it if people who disliked the newly departed could just offer condolences to family, or a RIP or maybe **** and go post on something else for awhile in at least one thread.
When the entire thread degenerates into an entire string of egregiously negative copypasta (based on things that happened 30 years ago), I would agree that the "bashing of the dead" went a little bit farther than was necessary.
Went a little too far? Well, that response has the feel of an incomplete or vague answer. Do you restrain yourself when a RW figure dies in a thread devoted to lauding accomplishments etc? Do you have a time limit you give yourself like before the funeral or before the arrangements of one has even been announced, or rigor mortis or do you recognize the notion of a 'debate free' thread and time as valid?
I prefer the opportunity to consider all ideas. The only 'rules' I support in any dialogue are restrictions on threats and spamming. I also support sensoring sexual content, but only in the likely presence of minors. Everything else should be 'unmoderated.'
I have not asked for the creation of a forum rule. I was asking about forum etiquette. Do you see any lines here about this issue as a poster that you do not cross?
Funny how right wingers McCain was bashed by fellow righties after he died. Dunno if an etiquette rule should be enacted as then there will be accusations of selective enforcement of such rules. The best thing is for people to present evidence of their claims when posting.
Merriam-Webster: "Etiquette definition is - the conduct or procedure required by good breeding or prescribed by authority to be observed in social or official life." That sounds like censorship to me. I try to avoid saying things that I think would: -make me feel bad about myself -discredit me to my peers -undermine my purpose in the discussion -violate forum rules (and thus prevent me from speaking further) IOW- my focus is effective communication. Respecting others (read- trying to tip-toe around illiciting emotional response) is merely a method to that end, not an end in-and-of itself.
I thought I was pretty specific when I said I was not asking for a forum rule. "Etiquette definition is - the conduct or procedure required by good breeding or prescribed by authority to be observed in social or official life." Pay attention to the little words when you read. For example the 'or' as opposed to 'and', provides an entirely different framework in which to interpret the meaning of a sentence. I am also in favor of etiquette when eating in public as required by good breeding, but I have not asked for a municipal ordinance requiring people to chew with their mouths shut. Now having dispensed with that pile of crap. How about ditching the disingenuous strawman and just answer my question. " I was asking about forum etiquette. Do you see any lines here about this issue as a poster that you do not cross? "
This is not a partisan issue. This is about jerks being jerks in threads when and where debate and the presentation of evidence maybe the problem.
I don't restrain myself to any ettiquette but my own (detailed in my previous post) if thats what you're asking. No one has an 'authority' on expectations of behavior.
Mebbe. But to me it will always be a matter of presenting proof - that solves the issue and should silence the critics. One example: when Gerald Ford croaked righties/Republicans/conservatives all praised him as a patriot and humanitarian. The fact that he was the world's #1 supporter of Suharto who killed more people than did Saddam was somehow lost on these deluded pundits. When I mentioned this on another forum, all of a sudden the praise stopped. Just post the TRUTH regardless of anyone's feelings. That should always be the bottom line.
Yep, agree. Don’t badmouth a recently dead person. If you can’t commiserate, go and cut up pieces of paper instead.
While his demise did not send me into a dancing mood, I did take the opportunity, in one such thread, to note that he was likely the most worthless scoundrel ever to disgrace the Senate with his presence, and that Mommy Erf was well rid of the treasonous sonofabitch, or words to that effect; and seeing I had, and have, no reason to believe any member of his family was reading that thread, you may rest assured I did not, nor will I ever, lose a wink of sleep over it.
See, and if I were you, I would open my own 'Kennedy is a treasonous sonofabitch' thread, and leave the RIP thread alone or alternately wait a day or two to turn that RIP threat into a debate thread out of respect for those who are saddened by the loss of that Senate Icon.
It's more respectful to give them a little incentive to reconsider the emotional investment they have in such maleficent icons.
That is not respect. It is arrogance. Its not your personal ambition to give anyone around here incentive to reconsider squat. You are not educating anyone. If you want to throw mud at the newly deceased before rigor mortis sets, don't clothe it in satin and bows. Just throw the damn mud
You're entitled to your opinion. Of course not. It is, however, my right to make the attempt - especially on a debate board, which is pretty much all about that. As to that, you're in no position to render an authoritative judgment. There's no need to do that to the Ted Kennedys of the world, as it's what such swine wallow in. All I did was point out that it is mud and not royal finery.
In short yes you intend to throw mud at the newly deceased before they have even been measured for a coffin.
No. As I noted, in the case of such execrable parodies of humanity as Ted Kennedy, there's no need. You're welcome.
