Tolerance, intolerance, and speaking ill of the dead

[sabotabby]

While two posts in one day is certainly more than the good Reverend deserves, the blogosphere reaction is, as always, terribly intriguing. The majority of you immediately posted "Falwell is dead, haha" or some witty variation thereof; a minority expressed some sympathy for his family and/or expressed the opinion that celebrating anyone's death, even that of a hateful bastard like Falwell, is wrong for reasons of ethics, morals, or good taste.

Outside of my bubble, the latter sentiment was far more common, even within progressive circles. Many people seem to feel that it's wrong to speak ill of the dead, or to hate someone who was himself full of hate. I admit that I can't emotionally or intellectually understand this position. I suspect that it has something to do with not coming from a Christian background and not coming from an American liberal tradition. So while I respect tact (I lack it, for the most part), I don't really get it.

I'd heard that the Fark.com thread on Falwell's death garnered more comments than the September 11th one, so I hopped over to check it out. One comment seemed particularly intriguing:

I came here completely expecting to find kind words of hope for this man, seeing as how the vast majority of farkers are liberal, empathic, and everyone knows that liberals don't hate others they disagree with...they all celebrate diversity and hold no opinion to be superior to another.

Oh wait, what was I thinking?
-- NateInYourFace. Emphasis mine.

While our Farker is obviously poking at a liberal strawman, he's not actually far off—a lot of American liberals really do seem to think that everyone's opinion is equally valid, and respect strongly held beliefs, no matter how wrong. Witness the discussion around Reagan's death—people quite happy to (sensibly) denounce him as pure evil while he was alive, and even while he was suffering from Alzheimer's, suddenly got very tactful and quiet. Or started talking about his principles (though failed to mention that those principles were essentially murderous). Worse yet, they seemed to think that this dignity afforded to one's political and class enemies was an integral part of liberalism. Maybe it is, and maybe that's why I'm not a liberal, but to me, moral relativism is not on a right/left axis. It looks something like this:

Moral absolutism
|
Commie wankers__|______Fundagelicals
|
Left_____________________Right
|
Libruls______|___Neo-cons
|
Moral relativism


Your mileage may vary. Most of us are somewhere in the middle of one of those quadrants. I'm rather far to the left, of course, but I'm fairly centrist on the moral absolutism/moral relativism scale. Incidentally, anarchism veers towards relativism, mostly because of a variation on Geek Social Fallacy #1.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that I don't think it's wrong to speak ill of the dead. I mean, it's wrong to denounce them to their grieving friends and families, but it's not inherently wrong. And what I'm also saying is that it's okay to be intolerant.

Gloves off, kids. Reagan wanted most of you dead. Falwell wanted even more of you dead. These men consider you, your friends, your families, and most of the world, subhuman. It's fine to hate them—they hated you too—if your personal moral code allows for hate. It's fine to be relieved that they're gone.

Tolerance is something that ought to be reserved for that which you find distasteful but which does not adversely affect your life. Tolerance is for people who write crappy fanfic or engage in coprophilia. You do not have to tolerate anyone who advocated apartheid, queer-bashing, murder, or genocide. Their beliefs are not equally valid to your own. You can totally be a dick about it, and you don't even need to feel guilty.

There. Isn't that a relief?

Comments

[lokilokust.livejournal.com]

'Many people seem to feel that it's wrong to speak ill of the dead, '
let the dead bury the dead.
some should have ill spoken of them for all time.

[sabotabby]

let the dead bury the dead.

I never got how that worked. Zombie gravediggers?

Anyway, I don't see how death has changed anything we said about him before. Other than "he talks too much," I guess.

[peterbilt-47.livejournal.com]

Precisely. I do not hate. Very much, or very long. It's not worth the effort. But I don't put up with bullshit, either.

[sabotabby]

I have more anger than hate, generally. Every day, I see or hear about a gazillion things that make me angry. But that doesn't take much effort. Repressing or guilting about one's actual feelings takes far more effort, I think.

[fannishnonsense]

Yep. There's this idea that we always have to make nice with the Right no matter what they do or else we're "sinking to their level." Which sounds real good and all, but in practice it usually means they just go ahead and walk all over us and we end up asking for more. It's pitiful, and I for one am sick and tired of it.

[sabotabby]

A concern troll on Pandagon today said, "threads like this’ll really win ‘em over." Now, granted the person is probably one of "'em," but there's something to be said for not twisting your politics and opinions to appeal to people who won't hesitate to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for no apparent reason.

[ironed_orchid]

That's exactly how I feel about tolerance. Tolerance is for those whose practices make me feel squicky, but don't hurt anyone (without consent). I am completely happy to judge those whose practices, cultural or individual, endanger, harm or exploit others.

[sabotabby]

I think we have to. The alternative is accepting the deaths of five-year-olds in sub-Saharan Africa from preventable diseases is just as good as everyone getting free ice cream. We have critical faculties for a reason.

[realcdaae.livejournal.com]

I had honestly forgotten that Reagan had died.

I just felt the need to confess that.

[krinndnz.livejournal.com]

On the bright side, you probably got those thirty seconds of "HAH!" all over again.

shouting fag in a crowded rally

[krinndnz.livejournal.com]

Gloves off, kids. Reagan wanted most of you dead. Falwell wanted even more of you dead. These men consider you, your friends, your families, and most of the world, subhuman. It's fine to hate them—they hated you too—if your personal moral code allows for hate. It's fine to be relieved that they're gone.

Clarity! Thank you.

I think that a common denominator in a lot of the reactions to his death is people unconsciously trying to balance "it's wrong to gloat over death" with "considering his track record, I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, *deep breath* ever want him back."

Re: shouting fag in a crowded rally

[sabotabby]

It's wrong to gloat over a death you haven't caused, anyway.

[funnel101.livejournal.com]

It's fine to hate them—they hated you too—if your personal moral code allows for hate. It's fine to be relieved that they're gone.

Mine doesn't. I'll have a lot of thinking to do tomorrow. At the very least, being happy about Falwell's death showed me a side of myself that I've denied existing...

[sabotabby]

It's made me think about what causes me to differentiate between someone who's redeemable and someone who isn't.

I'd be interested in reading your thoughts.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_ex_cowboy/]

people pay for what they do, and still more, for what they have allowed themselves to become. and they pay for it simply: by the lives they lead.

james baldwin

[sabotabby]

Nice quote. I should read more of his stuff.

[ex-melimeli728.livejournal.com]

"I suppose what I'm saying here is that I don't think it's wrong to speak ill of the dead. I mean, it's wrong to denounce them to their grieving friends and families, but it's not inherently wrong. And what I'm also saying is that it's okay to be intolerant.

Gloves off, kids. Reagan wanted most of you dead. Falwell wanted even more of you dead. These men consider you, your friends, your families, and most of the world, subhuman. It's fine to hate them—they hated you too—if your personal moral code allows for hate. It's fine to be relieved that they're gone.

Tolerance is something that ought to be reserved for that which you find distasteful but which does not adversely affect your life. Tolerance is for people who write crappy fanfic or engage in coprophilia. You do not have to tolerate anyone who advocated apartheid, queer-bashing, murder, or genocide. Their beliefs are not equally valid to your own. You can totally be a dick about it, and you don't even need to feel guilty."

Wow. I completely disagree. That's okay-- but I'd like to point out that seeing speaking ill of the dead--- in fact, seeing speaking ill of /anyone/-- is not a "Christian" thing. Lishon hara'a, sinat chinam anyone? I think most religious Christians, Jews, and Muslims would agree that speaking ill of the dead or expressing hate towards them is wrong, and maybe it's more modern political culture that diverges on this, rather than one religious heritage or another.

Finally, I think it's a sad statement of Reagan's views that "he wanted most of you dead". I think it would be unfamiliar to him, and I wonder about how useful this kind of broad interpretation of someone's else's views is, when it would be unidentifiable to that other person. You might completely disagree that inequality is something necessary to a vibrant society. I sure do. You might completely disagree that shock therapy will produce healthy economies, or that basic human rights like health and lodging and others shouldn't be institutionalized in government, or that... you get the idea. But to go from there to the kind of hyperbole that "he wanted most of you dead" just cheapens the argument and the disagreement-- it's Simpsons level, and while it might get thumbs-up or laughter, while it might win someone followers (it certainly won Reagan followers, protecting us from Evil Empires that 'wanted us dead'), while people might instinctively like that kind of speech and thought as much as we instinctively like other chauvinisms, man, it's not only cheap and unworthy, it doesn't hold a whole lot of meaning either.

"Apartheid, queer-bashing, murder, and genocide"? Damn, now that I think about it, I know.. so many people, who if they don't actively support one of those things, they kind of do implicitly, passively. It's in our culture, hon. Not just our culture. It's pretty well everywhere. I'm trying to go through a mental list of who doesn't support something in this schema, and really I'm left with the short list of 5 friends who think and believe exactly like me. We're a lucky group. Maybe I'm looking at it with a wide lense. But hey, if you're going to start viewing people with views diametrically opposed to your own as subhuman, then I wouldn't trust my narrow lense-- I might point it at whoever I want, whoever I know and value.

For what it's worth, there are some queer-bashing Mormons in Palestine who do a lot of good, there are some genocidal Satmar Jews at something called the Jewish Families Addicts Retreat who do a lot of good, there are some murderous 20 year olds in Balata Camp and in Kfar Saba who are definitely too funny and familial to be subhuman. I do not hope to be rid of em.

much love,
Lisa
(this is not ironic, and don't get annoyed at the "much love", it's what i'm thinking so I'll write it. sorry I don't write long notes when I absolutely love and agree with your posts, it happens way more than this.)

[ex-melimeli728.livejournal.com]

I --always-- write "Finally, blah blah blah", and the damn sentence is in the first third of my post.. essay. so talkative...

[laughingimp.livejournal.com]

"We owe respect to the living; to the dead we owe only truth."
--Voltaire

I don't feel joy at the man's death, but I do feel relief. He was a hateful, self-righteous instigator, and the world would be better with fewer men like him. I feel no shame in saying so.

[sabotabby]

Good.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

I just watched Pan's Labyrinth...

(SPOILER ALERT)


I was this close to squeal in the theatre when Mercedes cut the Captain's cheek open, joker-style, and I was again full of glee when I foresaw that he would drink his whiskey and that it would burn his cheek like a fucker. I was let down that his death was so clean.

Then again, he was a fictional fascist torturer, I'm allowed to hope for some cruelty in return.

[sabotabby]

But Mercedes got a witty line in there right at the end. Which is better than a messy death, and probably hurt more.

[whereisjoy.livejournal.com]

Am I the only person who feels more comfortable with a fundie from whom we know what to expect than whatever new fundie will rise to fill Jerry's talk-radio spot?

I'm one of those strange people who believes (probably crazily)in the potential redemption of just about any one. But ethical questions aside, it's not as though Jerry's death changes anything in a meaningful way. That's what I really don't understand about the general reaction.

[sabotabby]

I theoretically believe that anyone can be redeemed—in a secular sense. The fact that I consider at least one former fascist among my friends is evidence of that. But this guy lived a rich life off the misery of others, and as far as I can tell, never had any regrets about it.

There are already vicious new fundies to take his place. I tend to fear the more subtle, reasonable ones more—Falwell was more dangerous than Phelps because Phelps alienates almost everyone, even the other fundies. But I don't think his death changes anything. It's just a good opportunity for tasteless humour.

[gillen.livejournal.com]

"seeing as how the vast majority of farkers are liberal, empathic, and everyone knows that liberals don't hate others they disagree with...they all celebrate diversity"

What? Is he kidding? Liberals? Farkers in my experience primarily range from outright Fascist to Libertarian. Reading the commentary on some of the posts puts one in mind of nothing so much as the sloganeering of the Hitler Jungen as filtered through John Galt - all Individual Will and Natural Law.

Then again, I'm digging a hole in the upper left corner of your graph, so y'all seem blue-shifted to me.

But yes, discrimination and intolerance -when applied correctly- are not only good but necessary traits.

[sabotabby]

I thought Farkers were mostly right-wing. It's not really my scene, but I got a real South Park Republican vibe from the place.

Of course, to theocrats, everyone is a liberal.

[mr-flabulous.livejournal.com]

amen.

[sabotabby]

:)

[bike4fish.livejournal.com]

I can give respect to people I disagree with if they a) are honest about their presumptions that cause the disagreement, b) if they, in turn, show respect for those with whom they disagree with under similar terms, c) they can state their positions and how they arrived at them in an intelligent manner, and d) I don't find their positions primarily self-serving. There are even some libertarians I respect and enjoy because they fall under those conditions.

Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan failed miserably.

While I'm not going to chortle gleefully at their demise, I cannot pretend that the world wouldn't be better off with fewer of their ilk.

Now, when are people going to acknowledge that Bill Clinton in many ways is to the right of Richard Nixon? Hillary, too, as far as I can tell. And when is the Canadian electorate going to face up to Mr. Harper being GW's (insert inappropriate term here)?

We all need more truth in labelling.

[troubleinchina.livejournal.com]

Re: Harper

Soon, I hope. I'd like to come home.

[sadie-sabot.livejournal.com]

right on. fuck falwell and fuck reagan. Exccept of course i don't mean that literally. ewwwww.

RULE #34 OH NO!

[sabotabby]

Now that you've said it, someone's made porn of it.

Thanks a lot.

[billie0.livejournal.com]

As I was reading this Falwell came on the news saying how AIDS was punishment by God, blah, blah, blah. Where were his "kind words" for all those deaths? I'm not gleeful he's dead, I just don't care...

[sabotabby]

Not caring is also good.

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

Having joined in the mocking on your LJ yesterday not in a great position to talk, but -

There's a difference between moral relativism/ wooly 'tolerance' and having compassion for people as human beings, even if you abhor their views.

I do think hatred is a destructive emotion - for those who have the power to put it into practice, it is first and foremost destructive for the objects of the hatred, but it is also, I believe, destructive for those who hate - it lessens one as a person.

That's not to say one should have warm fluffy bunny feelings for fascists and conservative asshats and so forth, but I do think there's something in the idea of refusing to hate as a form of resistance, especially for those who are oppressed, or who are on the side of the oppressed.

As for the likes of Falwell, Reagan, etc; they represent something bigger than themselves, a hateful and destructive ideology that they've personally done a great deal to promote and that has done an enormous amount of damage. So I think it's valid to be pleased that their pernicious influence is gone from the world - though sadly the ideologies are still going strong - but I think somewhere in all that one should remember that they are also a human being like oneself. From a Christian pov, that means that they are also a child of God, and that we all stand in need of God's forgiveness - but believer or no, one can recognise a common humanity, capable of love, hate and all the human emotions, flawed and damaged in many ways (which is not to say that everyone is equally flawed and that really you or I are no different from Hitler 'cos we're all flawed), and ultimately sharing a common mortality. (Ask not for whom the bell tolls.) Well, I hope one can.

So, one should speak ill of the dead when it is due, and in particular for public figures one should not pull punches about the consequences of their ideologies and their actions. But perhaps one should not dance on their graves.

[sabotabby]

In terms of common humanity—well, I don't believe that everyone is a child of God, but I do recognize a sort of species solidarity. I suppose it's a family. But you don't think the same way about the pervy uncle who molests his daughter as you do about your mom.

Compassion is a different rant. It's nearly always a good thing to have.

[dobrovolets.livejournal.com]

You've left out one response that doesn't fall neatly on the continuum, nihilistic_kid's--which would have been mine as well if I'd seen fit to post on the topic. When bastards like Falwell die at advanced ages of natural causes, it's cause not for celebration but for reflection on why someone so palpably backward could become a political force in his lifetime.

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

As I was saying to my co-worker yesterday, it's not Falwell who bugged me. He was just a dude with bad views. It's the fact that he had a platform, and that people listened, eagerly, to him. It's that what he said got reported in mainstream news, as though anyone should have cared.

Very saddening. Very strange.

[lokilokust.livejournal.com]

in the word of alec empire -'fuck them. fuck them all. let's hunt down and kill the nazis.'

[lokilokust.livejournal.com]

also!
birthday?
yes?
happy!
cake!

[sabotabby]

yes!
thanks!
roti!

[fengi.livejournal.com]

I agree with you and I think speaking ill of the dead is justified in this case. I think, however, some of the milder responses were not about guilt or too much respect for the dead. Instead, it was mean to signify the speaker was superior for a man who exploited death as a pretext for hateful spew. They are trying to convey, "I'm better than that asshole," without saying it directly - alas, this just comes off as overly restrained unless you are very good at expressing unspoken subtext.

[sabotabby]

I suspected that as well. But people should just say "I'm better than that asshole," because in most cases, it's true.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Right the fuck on.

[sabotabby]

Thanks!

[writer-grrrrl.livejournal.com]

Hey R,

I threw over to you at BlogThis on this topic (also cross-posted to DAH) ...

A

[sabotabby]

Sweet! I will be e-famous yet!

[jamie-miller.livejournal.com]

Thank you. That Fark thread was a trainwreck. I can't stand that popular anti-liberal strawman -- "Oh, I thought liberals were loving, kind and tolerant! And yet here YOU are expressing appreciation for the death of someone who would have happily herded you into a concentration camp! LOL HYPOCRISY!"

Your characterization of anarchists as suffering from GSF1 is largely true. It's part of the reason I eventually quit working with anarchists. It seems to me that anarchy should be for anarchists, and not for any demented crypto-cop loser who wants a new social group to poison with bizarre rants and unreasonable demands.

[sabotabby]

This is what I think too, and it frequently gets me called a fascist and/or a Stalinist. Because OMG FREE SPEECH. Nevertheless, I am confident that it results in more productive activism to work with (granted small) groups of politically committed people (anarchist or otherwise) than listen to Mike the Anti-Technology Guy With Halitosis go on about how smashing the machines is more important than smashing capitalism. And have you read his latest broadsheet, etc.