Advertiser Content

Serious Speaking ill of the dead

Started by Her August 23rd, 2019 4:40 AM
  • 1539 views
  • 20 replies

Her

Age 25
Seen 50 Minutes Ago
Posted 2 Hours Ago
11,211 posts
11.4 Years
With the news of David Koch’s death and the already rather brutal criticism being thrown his way, to what extent are you bothered by the old ‘don’t speak badly of the dead’ idea? Do you think it holds weight, or is it a standard that shuts down valid discussion?

Also for reference: the celebrations when ol’ Maggie Thatcher snuffed it
Male
Japan
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 1 Hour Ago
334 posts
336 Days
Honestly it feels like a sign of our ever worsening political discourse, I can understand being a bit happy when a political enemy passes, but sometimes it gets utterly nasty and disgusting. On the other hand when there is someone that is truly evil, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, etc etc, I can understand attacking the person and rejoicing in their death. I guess the difference is are you happy they are dead because they were opposite you politically, or because they were in a category of evil that hurt and killed people for decades.

Fairy

Female
Laverre City
Seen 3 Hours Ago
Posted 15 Hours Ago
9,047 posts
8.4 Years
The only exception I make is for Michael Jackson. It's hard when your heroes become such prolific villains.

Yes, he probably did those terrible things and yes, his title of king of pop was stripped long ago. But deep down in me is something that would just rather honor what the man created and the joy it brought to millions of people, even if I can't respect the man himself. That being said, I think 'speaking ill of the deceased' is just a tactic to avoid uncomfortable topics that sometimes need to be discussed. Even if I don't personally engage in some instances, I would never censor anyone else's speech regarding it.


Dawn

of the Final Day

Age 29
Non-binary
Away with the fairies
Seen 46 Minutes Ago
Posted 1 Hour Ago
I've always seen that concept as hypocrisy. It is normal to say bad things about historical figures that are generally regarded as being pretty horrible people whilst they were alive after all...if someone else affects you as an individual on a more personal level, why not them as well? Who decides when it is and is not acceptable to do this? What standards are we using for this? Everyone has their own perspective on what makes someone a horrible person, and they're entitled to that. I mean to some people, Margaret Thatcher could be worse than Saddam Hussein. Who is to say they're wrong just because it's not a commonly held viewpoint? Opinions do not become facts just because a wider majority have them, and history has always been and will always be biased in favour of and against those who distinguish themselves from everyone else. People are going to interpet that however they choose and feel and react accordingly, and if they're not hurting anyone else I think it's fine to just let them get on with it.

I realise that there is a level of false equivalence to that comparison I made, but the point I'm trying to make is that people fundamentally only care about themselves - if someone does something that affects them on a personal level, there is every possibility they will see that person as worse than someone else who kills millions of people. Donald Trump hasn't committed genocide yet, but a lot of people regard him as one of the worst examples of humanity there is, and plenty will be happy to see him gone. People will see serial killers as horrible people, but they won't attack them with the same level of vitriol that they would a political figure who they disagree with, or someone they know who they dislike. It's a personal issue, and if people feel the need to do it...well, why not?

I suppose you could say it's "too soon" for someone who has recently died to be spoken ill of, but I don't see what difference that makes really. Maybe celebrating someone's death with a party or constantly saying they're happy that person is dead is a little over the top, but...well, no more so than plenty of other things people do. Dying doesn't suddenly make you immune to criticism.

Disrespecting the dead does not harm the living, and the only people that really matter are the ones who are still alive. It's an awkward concept, but it's certainly one of least harmful things people can do with words when you consider all the other problems in the world that words cause.
Male
Japan
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 1 Hour Ago
334 posts
336 Days

Disrespecting the dead does not harm the living, and the only people that really matter are the ones who are still alive. It's an awkward concept, but it's certainly one of least harmful things people can do with words when you consider all the other problems in the world that words cause.
Would you say though it would hurt the immediate family and friends? If someone is grieving over a person’s death, and people online are partying about that person dying it would only compound the pain.

Also if I may when it comes to national political figures before celebrating a person’s death consider how you would feel if it was someone on the opposite end of the spectrum. For David Koch, how would you feel if people were saying the same things about George Soros? Margret Thatcher and Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, if it would anger you if the same thing was said about a person from your side, then maybe it’s best to avoid contributing to the hate.

Dawn

of the Final Day

Age 29
Non-binary
Away with the fairies
Seen 46 Minutes Ago
Posted 1 Hour Ago
Would you say though it would hurt the immediate family and friends? If someone is grieving over a person’s death, and people online are partying about that person dying it would only compound the pain.

Also if I may when it comes to national political figures before celebrating a person’s death consider how you would feel if it was someone on the opposite end of the spectrum. For David Koch, how would you feel if people were saying the same things about George Soros? Margret Thatcher and Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, if it would anger you if the same thing was said about a person from your side, then maybe it’s best to avoid contributing to the hate.
When it comes to opinions, it's inevitable that what you say is going to harm somebody else, especially when it comes to things like this. But that's just the way it is, frankly. If everyone tried to pay due consideration to other people when they opened their mouth to say something, it'd be a very quiet world...and ultimately, these are words directed at the person in question, not their immediate family. I don't think they're any different from anyone else who would be upset by this; they just have a more intimate knowledge of the person involved. I'm sure it is upsetting to them, but it won't change their perspective of the person, or their memories. Maybe I'm insensitive, but I see a lack of tolerance for a difference in opinion on both sides.

Personally, I wouldn't care if people started speaking ill of someone I respected or loved in life. My opinions are my own, and I'm not offended or particularly bothered when people disagree with me. I'm used to it. That's just how life is: everyone has their own perspective on things. When someone disagrees with you, you can get worked up over it - and ultimately not change their mind and likely get even more frustrated and upset because you can't change them - or you can accept it and move on. Other people's thoughts and feelings don't have to affect your own, and getting worked up over other people's opinions where they don't line up with your own is personal choice. Maybe it's hard to ignore sometimes, and maybe it's quite horrible from your perspective when they say certain things. But...well, who cares? It's only words. These people mean nothing to you. They're irrelevant strangers.

I agree with you that it is better not to contribute to these things, and I do think that society would be better without it. But that's not realistic - everyone has an opinion, and everyone just HAS to make that opinion heard. Maybe people shouldn't say these things. But it's ingrained in society and there are no absolute rules for when it is acceptable to say these things and when it isn't...and, thankfully, we don't like in a society where our every word is monitored and controlled by those in power. Much as some would have it otherwise, I imagine.

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 29
Male
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted 4 Days Ago
1,812 posts
3.2 Years
Koch dying is the best news I've heard all day. If there's a hell, that steaming hot corpse is there.



Honestly it feels like a sign of our ever worsening political discourse, I can understand being a bit happy when a political enemy passes, but sometimes it gets utterly nasty and disgusting. On the other hand when there is someone that is truly evil, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, etc etc, I can understand attacking the person and rejoicing in their death. I guess the difference is are you happy they are dead because they were opposite you politically, or because they were in a category of evil that hurt and killed people for decades.
Well Koch was an outright evil piece of muk so looks like it's ok for us to rejoice :)

gimmepie

Age 24
Male
Australia
Seen 5 Hours Ago
Posted 6 Hours Ago
20,342 posts
7.5 Years
I don't think anyone should be immune to criticism whether they're alive or dead. Don't bother the guy's family or whatever but his being dead doesn't invalidate whatever evil muk he's done.

Yurius

Age 29
Canada
Seen September 9th, 2019
Posted September 9th, 2019
15,407 posts
6.3 Years
Gimme summed it up, and its sometimes only after death that the truly horrible muk is discovered.
So face the dark and I'll teach you about fire in the blink of an eye
Now drink the Cyanide
The worlds collide and you know it's pure filth that I hide

Bay

Darkinium Z

Female
Dani California
Seen 4 Hours Ago
Posted 4 Hours Ago
5,744 posts
13.4 Years
I admit Koch is someone that I kept hearing his name several times but didn't pay too much attention what he did wrong, so I have no strong reaction, good or bad, to his death.

With that said, also in agreement with gimmepie that you can criticize as much as you like but at least give the family and loved ones some space.

Foul Play
[Chapter Nine up!]

Noblejanobii

I'm trying to find my berries!

Age 21
Female
South Carolina
Seen 12 Hours Ago
Posted 12 Hours Ago
1,021 posts
273 Days
Personally, I do my best not to speak ill of the dead if I can. But the problem with this phrase is sometimes when elaborating on the facts of the situation you do have to highlight or discuss some of the rather unsavory parts of a person's life. When discussing why I wasn't all that upset when my aunt passed away with some of my friends, I had to explain all the horrible things she did to me and my family. I felt bad for mentioning them, but they were true events so it was a bit of a sticky situation.

That said, if I have to do this, I try to also highlight something good the person did in life. For example, with my aunt, she raised two wonderful people (my cousins) who each have had children by now, which is something I'd view as a positive. Another example would be like, say, Michael Jackson who was mentioned before. I try to bring up the fact his contributions to music and his role in jump starting the trend of music videos. I know with more controversial figures people don't really like this approach, but it eases my conscience a bit since I really don't like speaking badly of dead people.

There are some notable exceptions to this though, some of who have been previously named, that because they did so many evil and vile actions, they often are to be spoken ill of in death. In those situations, there's not much you can do. If that's their legacy and there isn't much good to highlight, then that's that.

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 29
Male
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted 4 Days Ago
1,812 posts
3.2 Years
Does anyone think there is a difference between talking negatively about a person, say pointing out their flaws, and gloating or celebrating over their death? To me one feels like a viable discussion, while the other strikes me as disgusting and bad form.
I don't think there's difference enough. I think different groups of people have different standards of how they treat the dead, but I don't think criticizing them for being a piece of muk and celebrating their passing are that different.


I think there's a wild difference in how the right treats the death of someone like Fidel Castro or a left wing activist who ruined a few ICE vehicles and how they treat the death of someone like Koch, or how they'll treat the death of Kissinger or Trump when it finally happens, because American ruling class are never to be disrespected in capitalist circles (unless it's the Clintons) or how the Stalinists treat the death of someone like Mao compared to Trotsky, because "heroes of the revolution" are never to be criticized or disrespected in their circles, but I don't think that's your initial question.


Saying that, a multibillionaire wealth hoarder who used hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure people stayed in poverty and that he could continue to destroy the environment for short term profits when he could have literally improved the lives of millions and still remained stinking rich is an openly evil person and should be remembered as such. He was not a complex character with mixed traits like some other super wealthy people are. For example, Bill Gates does a lot for charity, and donates a mukload to causes and is still the world's second richest man. Arguably he is still a billionaire capitalist who's profited immensely off of others, but he has also done a fair bit of good, so his death would not meet the same response Koch's did. People would still criticize his immense and unneeded wealth but I can see very few people celebrating the passing of Gates because he is a complex figure to analyse. Koch wasn't, he was a terrible self serving monster who worked tirelessly to ensure others suffered for his wealth.
Male
Japan
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 1 Hour Ago
334 posts
336 Days
Saying that, a multibillionaire wealth hoarder who used hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure people stayed in poverty and that he could continue to destroy the environment for short term profits when he could have literally improved the lives of millions and still remained stinking rich is an openly evil person and should be remembered as such. He was not a complex character with mixed traits like some other super wealthy people are. For example, Bill Gates does a lot for charity, and donates a mukload to causes and is still the world's second richest man. Arguably he is still a billionaire capitalist who's profited immensely off of others, but he has also done a fair bit of good, so his death would not meet the same response Koch's did. People would still criticize his immense and unneeded wealth but I can see very few people celebrating the passing of Gates because he is a complex figure to analyse. Koch wasn't, he was a terrible self serving monster who worked tirelessly to ensure others suffered for his wealth.
$185 million
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

According to Koch Industries records, the money helped fund cancer research, a childcare center, biology building and the David H. Koch School of Chemical Engineering.

$150 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

It was the largest single gift the center received. The money went to build an outpatient medical facility.

$100 million
New York-Presbyterian Hospital

Koch sent the nine-figure donation to help build an ambulatory care center in his honor. Another $28 million went to other needs for the hospital.

$100 million
New York State Theater at Lincoln Center

The theatre is now known as the David H. Koch Theatre.

$66.7 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

This donation went to assist the center with additional research funds.

$65 million
The Metropolitan Museum of Art

The New York museum had their plaza renovated with the money.

$35 million
Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History

Koch’s money was spent renovating the museum’s dinosaur hall and $15 million went toward the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins.

$26.5 million
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

The donation assisted with the research of genitourinary cancers, resulting in a center bearing his name.

$26.2 million
The Hospital for Special Surgery in New York

This charitable donation served as a capital campaign along with other causes.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/david-koch-spent-billions-giving-back-to-charity-heres-where-it-all-went

The list goes on and on however it seems Koch was fairly generous with his money, especially into cancer research. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just last week received treatment at a cancer center that had received $150 million in donations from him.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/ruth-bader-ginsburg-received-cancer-treatment-in-hospital-funded-by-david-koch/

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 29
Male
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted 4 Days Ago
1,812 posts
3.2 Years
$185 million
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

According to Koch Industries records, the money helped fund cancer research, a childcare center, biology building and the David H. Koch School of Chemical Engineering.

$150 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

It was the largest single gift the center received. The money went to build an outpatient medical facility.

$100 million
New York-Presbyterian Hospital

Koch sent the nine-figure donation to help build an ambulatory care center in his honor. Another $28 million went to other needs for the hospital.

$100 million
New York State Theater at Lincoln Center

The theatre is now known as the David H. Koch Theatre.

$66.7 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

This donation went to assist the center with additional research funds.

$65 million
The Metropolitan Museum of Art

The New York museum had their plaza renovated with the money.

$35 million
Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History

Koch’s money was spent renovating the museum’s dinosaur hall and $15 million went toward the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins.

$26.5 million
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

The donation assisted with the research of genitourinary cancers, resulting in a center bearing his name.

$26.2 million
The Hospital for Special Surgery in New York

This charitable donation served as a capital campaign along with other causes.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/david-koch-spent-billions-giving-back-to-charity-heres-where-it-all-went

The list goes on and on however it seems Koch was fairly generous with his money, especially into cancer research. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just last week received treatment at a cancer center that had received $150 million in donations from him.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/ruth-bader-ginsburg-received-cancer-treatment-in-hospital-funded-by-david-koch/

The majority of things listed there are vanity projects he could slap his name on whilst writing the donations off as tax deductibles.



https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html

nearly $900mil spent to influence an election to go to a candidate who openly stood against environmental protections, LBGTQ rights, civil rights and worker's rights.

That's on top of $400mil spent in 2012. So your list was cute, but it really doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, especially given that many of the donations were essentially to put his name on things.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/


$127mil spent covering up alarming research because it could harm their short term profits


Then there's the family legacy of making their first big bucks off of Stalin (a man you rate as one of the most evil of all time) and the years of collaborating with Nazis (Fred Koch was an avid Fascist himself)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/17/dark-money-review-nazi-oil-the-koch-brothers-and-a-rightwing-revolution


So, sure, giving money to hospitals (in a country with no NHS, so the health insurance companies still generate huge profits off of the donations anyway) is indirectly somewhat good, but that means nothing when you spent more than that to deny science, or much more than that to buy elections to ensure your father's Nazi oil empire could continue.
Male
Japan
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 1 Hour Ago
334 posts
336 Days
The majority of things listed there are vanity projects he could slap his name on whilst writing the donations off as tax deductibles.
You have any proof that he paid for them expressly for tax deductions? Bare in mind many of his donations to cancer treatment began after his cancer scare decades back.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html

nearly $900mil spent to influence an election to go to a candidate who openly stood against environmental protections, LBGTQ rights, civil rights and worker's rights.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/


$127mil spent covering up alarming research because it could harm their short term profits
So now we get to what it boils down to, because of his political views, he is a monster, who's death should be celebrated. Again I go back to the toxicity of our current political discourse.

Then there's the family legacy of making their first big bucks off of Stalin (a man you rate as one of the most evil of all time) and the years of collaborating with Nazis (Fred Koch was an avid Fascist himself)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/17/dark-money-review-nazi-oil-the-koch-brothers-and-a-rightwing-revolution
So the sins of the father are now upon the son?


So, sure, giving money to hospitals (in a country with no NHS, so the health insurance companies still generate huge profits off of the donations anyway) is indirectly somewhat good, but that means nothing when you spent more than that to deny science, or much more than that to buy elections to ensure your father's Nazi oil empire could continue.
Somewhat good, at least we have moved beyond: terrible self serving monster

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 29
Male
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted 4 Days Ago
1,812 posts
3.2 Years
You have any proof that he paid for them expressly for tax deductions?
I am almost certain you have recieved warnings for sea-lioning on the Discord in the past.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_contribution_deductions_in_the_United_States

Whilst we cannot meet unrealistic sea-lioning, we can safely highlight the trend of using the IRS's stance on charitable donations to lower the amount of tax you have to pay among billionaires.


So now we get to what it boils down to, because of his political views, he is a monster, who's death should be celebrated. Again I go back to the toxicity of our current political discourse.

He personally spent hundreds of millions against unions and to ensure he could continue to damage the environment (something that will literally negatively effect billions of people for hundreds of years) to maximize his short term profits that he just hoarded anyway. He used his immense wealth to back politicians who's policies directly focus on harming the poor to help the rich. He was a piece of muk, whatever way you want to spin it.


So the sins of the father are now upon the son?
I mean, they were with Un in your eyes before.

Though, previous discussions aside, if you continue to benefit from your father's direct aid of the Nazis whilst refusing to pay amends to those most effected by it then yeah, you inherit those sins.



Somewhat good, at least we have moved beyond: terrible self serving monster
No, he was a terrible self serving monster, please don't deliberately misquote me or I'll be forced to take this further.
Male
Japan
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 1 Hour Ago
334 posts
336 Days
I am almost certain you have relieved warnings for sea-lioning in the past.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_contribution_deductions_in_the_United_States

Whilst we cannot meet unrealistic sea-lioning, we can safely highlight the trend of using the IRS's stance on charitable donations to lower the amount of tax you have to pay among billionaires.
So you have no proof, not even IRS returns showing that he used his philanthropy just for deductions. No quotes, no reports, nothing... If you are going to dismiss all of those donations as vanity projects meant for tax deductions, it would be worthwhile to have some sort of evidence to back up that claim.

He personally spent hundreds of millions against unions and to ensure he could continue to damage the environment (something that will literally negatively effect billions of people for hundreds of years) to maximize his short term profits that he just hoarded anyway. He used his immense wealth to back politicians who's policies directly focus on harming the poor to help the rich. He was a piece of muk, whatever way you want to spin it.
Again, he used his donations against political causes you support, so that is some how worthy of celebrating his death?

I mean, they were with Un in your eyes before.

Though, previous discussions aside, if you continue to benefit from your father's direct aid of the Nazis whilst refusing to pay amends to those most effected by it then yeah, you inherit those sins.
One could say his philanthropy was an effort to make amends, especially with all the money donated to education, the arts, and history.

No, he was a terrible self serving monster, please don't deliberately misquote me or I'll be forced to take this further.
Just trying to understand how we went from "self-serving monster" to "he did some good".

Anyway we are getting beyond the intended scope of the conversation and seem to be shouting over eachother, so I will let you have the last word. I think I have made my point about celebrating deaths based on political beliefs.

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 29
Male
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted 4 Days Ago
1,812 posts
3.2 Years
So you have no proof, not even IRS returns showing that he used his philanthropy just for deductions. No quotes, no reports, nothing... If you are going to dismiss all of those donations as vanity projects meant for tax deductions, it would be worthwhile to have some sort of evidence to back up that claim.
Why? There is virtually no level of proof you ever accept. Unless its about someone you don't like, then word of mouth from one source, no matter how bad the source is, is usually enough. This goes back to my earlier posts about standards shifting.

When it comes to someone you like you start the sea lion routine, asking for a form of proof you know full well isn't possible. You know full well that it's bad form and you do it anyway.

All of the donations listed on the Fox article are covered as deductible under the IRS. You'll notice none of them were to directly aid people in medical debt due to cancer (average cost of cancer treatment in the US sits at around $150,000. Chump change to Koch, life ruining costs to the average American.) Koch could have also got a tax deductible by donating to another country's public health (The IRS will honor donations both home and abroad on public health) by giving a new cancer ward to somewhere like Great Ormond Street Hospital in the UK to ensure more children could be treated for cancer, he could have even stuck his name on it, but there's no profit to be made from healthcare in a country that puts people first.

Koch could have funded a relief charity to help alleviate the stress of medical bills and debts on average Americans (and he would have still likely been able to claim this as a deduct able) but he didn't.

Donating to cancer research in a country that prices most out of benefiting from said research isn't benevolent, it's self preservation from a scared old man and a single Liberal Judge with a net worth of $4mil using a facility he helped fund doesn't change it.

We can tell by what he funded, by him funding halls with his name on them and by the ethical and moral causes he could have funded and still received deductions but chose not to what his motivations were. Virtually all of the cancer donations he made will see profit in the American healthcare system, they will not help the common man in a country where people routinely die from not being able to afford basic medicine.


Again, he used his donations against political causes you support, so that is some how worthy of celebrating his death?
Yeah, absolutely. He paid to ensure my kids and grandkids will have a far poorer quality of life solely to hold onto Nazi blood money, so yeah, I'm glad he's dead and I honestly cannot wait for his sick brother to join him.


One could say his philanthropy was an effort to make amends, especially with all the money donated to education, the arts, and history.
One could say anything when they want to believe it. He heavily funded a party that openly embraces white nationalism, he worked tirelessly against people who oppose it. He didn't pay to expose America's role in financially backing Hitler, or Hitler drawing inspiration from how the Americans treated minorities. He didn't put money into exposing the historical trends of Fascism, or into celebrating those who fought against it. He put it into dinosaurs. So it's a completely moot point, pure speculation and at odds with the things he directly funded in his lifetime.

Just trying to understand how we went from "self-serving monster" to "he did some good".
We didn't, you deliberately misquoted me and removed a whole heap of context to get the wording you wanted. I didn't say "he did some good", I said "So, sure, giving money to hospitals (in a country with no NHS, so the health insurance companies still generate huge profits off of the donations anyway) is indirectly somewhat good, but that means nothing when you spent more than that to deny science, or much more than that to buy elections to ensure your father's Nazi oil empire could continue."

I outright said that whatever indirect good his tax dodging potentially done (which I noted was next to none) was worthless anyway when talking about his legacy because it's wildly offset by the far greater amount of money he spent against the benefit of Americans.


Anyway we are getting beyond the intended scope of the conversation and seem to be shouting over eachother, so I will let you have the last word. I think I have made my point about celebrating deaths based on political beliefs.
It does strike me as odd that you take this stance about Koch after expressing an outright desire to see Maduro killed over your political differences but ok.

Her

Age 25
Seen 50 Minutes Ago
Posted 2 Hours Ago
11,211 posts
11.4 Years
fwiw if you’re going to mention the concept of sea-lioning, it would be better to give more of a direct explanation about why it brings down this particular discussion/how it contributes to a poor argument and what not

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 29
Male
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted 4 Days Ago
1,812 posts
3.2 Years
fwiw if you’re going to mention the concept of sea-lioning, it would be better to give more of a direct explanation about why it brings down this particular discussion/how it contributes to a poor argument and what not
Absolutely.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning


The constant requests for completely unobtainable proof is bad faith, especially considering that an individual who is using sea-lioning will absolutely and observably never request the same dogmatic level of proof when the negative claim is against a left wing figure or someone linked to any form of Marxism or collectivism, in those cases they will accept and often cite even the most watery sources.

Compare this to any claim making a statement about a right winger and the sea-lion will ask for irrefutable proof time and time again. The unrealistic and constant demands for absolute proof are only ever levied when a claim is against a right wing figure. They will never ask for this in any debate where a Left Wing figure is the center of the negative claim and will happily accept just about anything loosely defined as proof in those cases.



As for why Sea-Lioning is a problem, we only need look at the wording used here. In the real world we know that tax dodgers do not say "The reason I have only donated to causes that are tax deductible and do not serve the common man is to dodge tax" This is not a quote that would ever exist yet it's the only proof that the individual employing the tactic will accept. And they are only willing to accept that because they're fully aware it does not exist.

In the real world we have to look at the wider picture. The individual sea-lioning does not want to do that, they will continuously harp on about one isolated detail, they chop up quotes and they misrepresent elements and then they try and set the standard with that.

The reason its particularly damaging to a wider discussion about why a figure like Koch was bad is because it relies on misleading the less informed both by presenting a very contextually bare piece of information and demanding a level of proof that is unobtainable and that the individual knows is unobtainable which is exactly why they focus on that particular minutia instead of on the far wider argument being presented which is observable when all context is presented. Because, in this case, no one outside of Koch himself could ever provide the quote, the Sea-Lion knows they can create the illusion that there is no proof to the much wider picture (which they will never fully address)

We can observably see some of this in action where the member I addressed over sea-lioning took a quote of mine, chopped out most of the words and then presented it as a completely different claim. When I called them out on this, they feigned civility. It's absolutely detrimental to an open and honest debate environment.
Advertiser Content