|
On August 26 2018 23:24 Danglars wrote:
Maybe a little more germane to the audience:
Pro gamer X suffers a career-ending wrist injury. First response is that X was never good, his game was undeserved, and the scene is better without him. Appropriate because it’s just public criticism, rather than directly insulting his fans?
Better example: what would the response be if tomorrow the news came out that Savior was killed in a car crash or something? I bet there would be quite a few people disgusted with any attempt to whitewash his career’s demerits. And yet there are also people who would appreciate his gameplay first and foremost.
|
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much.
|
On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much.
I wonder how well that sentiment would hold for an individual you thought much less of. Which is kind of what it often boils down to: a desire to have "your guy" respected when if the opinions were reversed, no amount of posthumous shit-slinging would be too much.
|
|
|
On August 26 2018 20:43 Sermokala wrote:
There's also a hint of a non american coming into a thread about america with the express intent to criticize an american political figure and anyone who'd dare to have decency about the event.
The US is the world’s only empire, they have incredible power to dictate the form of the international order and they interfere with other countries’ internal politics as a matter of course. At the moment they are bombing 8(?) countries and are threatening to invade another three. They have a thousand military bases across the world. Maybe if this would change then international observers would no longer feel the need to comment on American politics, but until that moment arrives you can please stop your pearl clutching, thanks.
On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much.
News cycles don’t last three days. What you are demanding is that criticism can only be aired when the popular narrative is already formed. As in the piece GH quoted, someone’s popular legacy is strongly affected by these first few days of hagiography.
|
On August 27 2018 02:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much. I wonder how well that sentiment would hold for an individual you thought much less of. Which is kind of what it often boils down to: a desire to have "your guy" respected when if the opinions were reversed, no amount of posthumous shit-slinging would be too much.
I think very lowly of John McCain. Yet I agree with Plansix. Just because someone isn't "your guy" doesn't mean one have to be a douchebag about it.
|
On August 27 2018 04:35 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much. I wonder how well that sentiment would hold for an individual you thought much less of. Which is kind of what it often boils down to: a desire to have "your guy" respected when if the opinions were reversed, no amount of posthumous shit-slinging would be too much. I think very lowly of John McCain. Yet I agree with Plansix. Just because someone isn't "your guy" doesn't mean one have to be a douchebag about it.
The sentiment has hardly been universally applied, which is my point. In principle I agree with the idea that you should allow a brief moment of mourning before speaking ill of the dead - I just wonder why it only comes up now. I am quite confident that if the situation were reversed, the people clamoring for "allow a moment of mourning" would not be singing the same tune.
|
On August 27 2018 04:26 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2018 20:43 Sermokala wrote:
There's also a hint of a non american coming into a thread about america with the express intent to criticize an american political figure and anyone who'd dare to have decency about the event. The US is the world’s only empire, they have incredible power to dictate the form of the international order and they interfere with other countries’ internal politics as a matter of course. At the moment they are bombing 8(?) countries and are threatening to invade another three. They have a thousand military bases across the world. Maybe if this would change then international observers would no longer feel the need to comment on American politics, but until that moment arrives you can please stop your pearl clutching, thanks. Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much. News cycles don’t last three days. What you are demanding is that criticism can only be aired when the popular narrative is already formed. As in the piece GH quoted, someone’s popular legacy is strongly affected by these first few days of hagiography.
If your critique loses its punch after 3 days, it likely wasn’t worth anyone’s time to begin with. The legacies of numerous people have been redefined well after that person’s death. There is no rush.
|
On August 27 2018 04:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 04:35 Excludos wrote:On August 27 2018 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much. I wonder how well that sentiment would hold for an individual you thought much less of. Which is kind of what it often boils down to: a desire to have "your guy" respected when if the opinions were reversed, no amount of posthumous shit-slinging would be too much. I think very lowly of John McCain. Yet I agree with Plansix. Just because someone isn't "your guy" doesn't mean one have to be a douchebag about it. The sentiment has hardly been universally applied, which is my point. In principle I agree with the idea that you should allow a brief moment of mourning before speaking ill of the dead - I just wonder why it only comes up now. I am quite confident that if the situation were reversed, the people clamoring for "allow a moment of mourning" would not be singing the same tune.
I just totally don't see why people shouldn't be critical of John McCain when people are paying attention and trying to rewrite his legacy with 3 days of nonstop spamming of all the "great" things he did without any of the millions of people who's lives were devastated by his policy or him personally being able to be heard without somehow being worse than the warmonger they are criticizing.
There is nothing anyone can say about John McCain (even at his funeral) which is even remotely as bad as what John McCain did in his life. So while I wouldn't think it fair to his family to mention this stuff at a service with friends and family, I can't imagine what reasoning people are using to limit it on TL, that doesn't make any sense to me.
I haven't really seen it explained either?
|
On August 27 2018 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 04:43 LegalLord wrote:On August 27 2018 04:35 Excludos wrote:On August 27 2018 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much. I wonder how well that sentiment would hold for an individual you thought much less of. Which is kind of what it often boils down to: a desire to have "your guy" respected when if the opinions were reversed, no amount of posthumous shit-slinging would be too much. I think very lowly of John McCain. Yet I agree with Plansix. Just because someone isn't "your guy" doesn't mean one have to be a douchebag about it. The sentiment has hardly been universally applied, which is my point. In principle I agree with the idea that you should allow a brief moment of mourning before speaking ill of the dead - I just wonder why it only comes up now. I am quite confident that if the situation were reversed, the people clamoring for "allow a moment of mourning" would not be singing the same tune. I just totally don't see why people shouldn't be critical of John McCain when people are paying attention and trying to rewrite his legacy with 3 days of nonstop spamming of all the "great" things he did without any of the millions of people who's lives were devastated by his policy or him personally being able to be heard without somehow being worse than the warmonger they are criticizing. There is nothing anyone can say about John McCain (even at his funeral) which is even remotely as bad as what John McCain did in his life. So while I wouldn't think it fair to his family to mention this stuff at a service with friends and family, I can't imagine what reasoning people are using to limit it on TL, that doesn't make any sense to me. I haven't really seen it explained either?
Its social politeness, and comes from a need to try and stop people being assholes wherever possible. I mean, yeah if you were going to have a different rule for every dead person you could probably allow criticism fine, but the easiest social nicety to enforce is simply 'don't speak ill of those that just died'.
That way you can apply it equally to McCain and everyone else, and you don't get shitty people coming on here after some gamer they don't like died and mouthing off about them.
Although you could argue the point, I think it pretty much just falls under the 'don't be an asshole' rule.
I'm more worried that people feel like they really need to criticize a guy that just died. Yeah, he's in the news etc. but I just don't see the urgency of choosing right now to do it.
Having said that I went to a big old party when that cunt Thatcher died so I can't talk really.
|
On August 27 2018 08:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2018 04:43 LegalLord wrote:On August 27 2018 04:35 Excludos wrote:On August 27 2018 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much. I wonder how well that sentiment would hold for an individual you thought much less of. Which is kind of what it often boils down to: a desire to have "your guy" respected when if the opinions were reversed, no amount of posthumous shit-slinging would be too much. I think very lowly of John McCain. Yet I agree with Plansix. Just because someone isn't "your guy" doesn't mean one have to be a douchebag about it. The sentiment has hardly been universally applied, which is my point. In principle I agree with the idea that you should allow a brief moment of mourning before speaking ill of the dead - I just wonder why it only comes up now. I am quite confident that if the situation were reversed, the people clamoring for "allow a moment of mourning" would not be singing the same tune. I just totally don't see why people shouldn't be critical of John McCain when people are paying attention and trying to rewrite his legacy with 3 days of nonstop spamming of all the "great" things he did without any of the millions of people who's lives were devastated by his policy or him personally being able to be heard without somehow being worse than the warmonger they are criticizing. There is nothing anyone can say about John McCain (even at his funeral) which is even remotely as bad as what John McCain did in his life. So while I wouldn't think it fair to his family to mention this stuff at a service with friends and family, I can't imagine what reasoning people are using to limit it on TL, that doesn't make any sense to me. I haven't really seen it explained either? Its social politeness, and comes from a need to try and stop people being assholes wherever possible. I mean, yeah if you were going to have a different rule for every dead person you could probably allow criticism fine, but the easiest social nicety to enforce is simply 'don't speak ill of those that just died'. That way you can apply it equally to McCain and everyone else, and you don't get shitty people coming on here after some gamer they don't like died and mouthing off about them. Although you could argue the point, I think it pretty much just falls under the 'don't be an asshole' rule. I'm more worried that people feel like they really need to criticize a guy that just died. Yeah, he's in the news etc. but I just don't see the urgency of choosing right now to do it. Having said that I went to a big old party when that cunt Thatcher died so I can't talk really.
I don't know if you read the article I quoted but it addressed this argument rather specifically. I was looking for something that addressed why it said that argument is wholly inapplicable to someone like McCain. Other posters have mentioned it as well.
I guess my question comes down to, do others understand that for those who suffered as a result of McCain and what he did/supported (or those that empathize with those that have/do) the heroization is the opposite of "social politeness"?
For them it's unimaginably offensive, like exponentially more offensive than speaking ill of the dead. That the perspective that the polite thing to do is lionize a war criminal and the offensive thing to do is criticize him too close to his death is a consensus of people who generally support some of the worst stuff or file it under "collateral damage".
You can't ban one without banning the other, because if the criticism can wait, surely so can the "RIP"s and "He was a great man's"
It's also disingenuous to pretend the round the clock fawning won't cement itself in people's minds more than random critiques that come after no one believes anything but the hero story ""everyone knows" because it was spread everywhere and completely unchallenged wherever people could limit those challenges.
I guess the last point is that between the quote and my other posts I feel it should be clear that nothing about allowing criticism of McCain means TL would be inconsistent by not allowing someone to come say bad things about a recently deceased gamer.
|
I think that if Grumbels had presented the same facts and point of view on McCain but with more tact, as opposed to coming in hot with "The only people that will mourn him are anyone gullible enough..." etc., it probably would have been fine. Or at least mildly acceptable. The bit at the start about "good riddance" and "This is a good time to..." is also in poor taste.
In other words, criticise McCain as much as you like, but it is much better form to confine oneself to dispassionate facts and analysis in the immediate aftermath of his passing. Adding further inflammatory phrases with the apparent intention to bait a fight is inappropriate.
|
On August 27 2018 04:26 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2018 20:43 Sermokala wrote:
There's also a hint of a non american coming into a thread about america with the express intent to criticize an american political figure and anyone who'd dare to have decency about the event. The US is the world’s only empire, they have incredible power to dictate the form of the international order and they interfere with other countries’ internal politics as a matter of course. At the moment they are bombing 8(?) countries and are threatening to invade another three. They have a thousand military bases across the world. Maybe if this would change then international observers would no longer feel the need to comment on American politics, but until that moment arrives you can please stop your pearl clutching, thanks. Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote:
People will have the rest of time to be critical of John McCain, or anyone who passes away. If folks really want to be critical of his legacy, waiting 3 days won’t change much. News cycles don’t last three days. What you are demanding is that criticism can only be aired when the popular narrative is already formed. As in the piece GH quoted, someone’s popular legacy is strongly affected by these first few days of hagiography.
Theres a far cry from internationals comenting on US politics and someone making their mission to do nothing but poke fun of and critize everything about the US in the thread. You're constantly casualy negative about Americans and america in general, this is just another point in the trend of that.
On August 27 2018 03:55 zlefin wrote:I found this post odd: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=648#12942why post simply to say that you posted in another thread? The post in the other thread bumps it directly so people can look and know to look. nor does it seem particularly germane to us politics (especially since we have a separate thread to cover that topic, and there's no separate reason for it to be relevant)
Shockingly I agree with zeflin here. Whats the point of having separate threads if someone is going to Reddit style cross post. Theres it being separately relevant and explicitly saying that you're trying to start the topic in both threads on purpose.
|
Honestly the three conversations between the Mass shooting thread, the US politics thread and the feedback thread are all kind of lumped together in this new shooting.
Not sure if anyone knows who the shooter was or any of the victims but it could end up testing some of the arguments put forth so far.
Can we call the shooter despicable? Should we wait a few days? How about the victims? How much should they be heard?
What about fans he may have had? Can they talk about how much positive things he did? Why it's unacceptable to speak poorly about the shooter before he's even buried?
I'm not sure how others are squaring those circles? Getting the feeling I've done too much though so I'll take a break and see how this sorts out.
|
On a related note, where did "three days" come from besides just Plansix putting that number out there? Is a day or less just not enough to properly throw out a sufficient number of "RIP" posts before it's acceptable to be critical of the deceased? Do we have to let a few news cycles pass before gravedigging the discussion of, you know, maybe that dead guy wasn't an angel and we should acknowledge it? Or is there some actual logic to that timespan?
|
72 hours just seemed reasonable. There is no real long behind it beyond that.
|
I don't see a problem with criticising the dead, just as much as they are alive. You can see why grumbels reacted the way he did when the thread is immediately flooded with nationalistic propaganda such as hailing him as a "true American hero", where such media etiquette and enforced social etiquette and even TL basically forces such a narrative to run completely unopposed. Dead people are not sacred and nor are the recently deceased. McCain is a public political figure and as such there is no problem to criticise him whether he is alive or dead. The arguments for such would hold much more water if it wasn't only considered for McCain that it is considered innapropriate.
|
Plenty of people attach some measure of sacred/solemn importance to a person's passing, so while you personally might think it not a big deal to criticize someone during the immediate aftermath of their death, enough people do to render the issue susceptible to different policy prescriptions. TL's policy happens to be that you prolly shouldn't shit talk the recent dead, and if one does, do so carefully and without self-important hyperbole. Seems easy enough.
|
The problem is that upon his death, as a political figure, he is given immunity to criticism, whilst those pushing the "true American hero" agenda are not. The idea that a person's passing is sacred and solemn would be much more beleivable if that is infact what occurs to all and is applied equally to all. No one views the death of a mass murderer as sacred and solemn free from criticism, including those on the gun thread. No one cared about the sacredness and solemn importance of Chavez's passing, but McCain gains immunity. Is it only American figures that have sacred deaths?
|
You answered your own question; the reporting system requires that someone care enough to report, and in the case of Chavez, I'd bet that indeed no one cared enough to report the posts that danced on his grave. And if that turns out not to be the case, then you're right, that's a pretty glaring inconsistency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
