People in GD piling on Steve Irwin before his ashes are even cold.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

:eyes:

Nice, respectful people we have here on DU sometimes, eh?

[miss_american_pie]

1. You're not surprised, are you?

:hi:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

4. Not in the least.

:eyes:

:D

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

2. I find it amazing that someon can bash Steve for not respecting animals

then go on to say that he was on a helicopter that chased a mother bear and cubs up and down a mountain to see which way they ran faster, resulting in the mother abandoning her cubs. That is sick beyond belief.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

5. Did that seriously happen?

:wow:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

7. Yeah read the whole thread.

Sick twisted people.

[LostinVA]

44. Yes -- ugh

Steve Irwin respected animals...

[Deja Q]

49. Fascinating.

I don't know what's sicker, a grown man teasing animals like that or people mentioning the bad things he did. Posthumously. It may not be tasteful (in either case), but it's being done, and it's the current fad these days, to knock people down.

It'd be more fun to go to the root problem (Hollywood and our "society"'s inclinations to knock dead people's faults when others blindly hype them up.)

[YellowRubberDuckie]

52. They were mistakes he made, admitted to, and took responsibility for.

He did a lot for animal conservation and education. And now he's dead. You should probably just be glad he can't make any more mistakes. :eyes: Jesus Christ, he was human.
Duckie

[LostinVA]

74. Teasing? Links?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

3. Whats wrong with him now? Granted, if someone has a fault, it will

be found

[WritingIsMyReligion]

6. He's dead.

That's what's wrong with him. :cry:

[Jamastiene]

144. That is the only thing I can think of that is wrong with him now

too. :cry:

He was just one of those people who transcended politics as usual and tried to do some good in this hateful cruel world. The truth is he was just not THAT into politics and he did save a lot of injured animals and animals who would have been either shot or killed some other horrible way for merely being "too close" to human habitats. Habitat destruction is one thing some people don't "get." Right here in NC, people are beginning to build homes in the mountains in larger numbers and then have the audacity to complain that they may see a black bear fro time to time. I mean, come on. They move into a bear's backyard and then call the bear the intruder and shoot it? Same bullshit happens in Australia with the crocs. Steve was just relocating them to keep them from being killed needlessly. Heaven forbid he had to touch them to get that done. :shrug:

I'm with you. Right now the only thing I can see that is wrong is that he is dead and people who think they know everything yet do nothing to help animals are still alive. Don't let them get you down. :hug:

[datasuspect]

8. goddamn humanity!

fuck humanity for being such a complicated tapestry of good and evil, ugly and beautiful!

when will people learn to behave CORRECTLY!!!!!

[Susang]

98. If by "behave correctly"

You mean "behave the way I want them to", then I'm with you brother! :patriot:

[datasuspect]

114. that's exactly what i mean

long time no see - how ya been?

[qnr]

9. Well, to balance things out, we did have a selection of GDers decrying the

tasteless posts in the lounge.

[L A Woman]

10. I'm just waiting for the inevitable "who cares?" posts...

people are dying Iraq! who cares? we should never spend a single waking moment thinking about anything else.:eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

12. Yeah, I never understand those who feel we can only care about one thing

at a time. Hell, I'm freaking ADD and I can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. Don't these people realize that if all our energy was focused on thinking about people dying in Iraq, that we would never accomplish anything, politically or otherwise?

[RevCheesehead]

11. Is that that croc hunter guy?

I'm so out of the loop. :shrug:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

13. Yeah, oddly enough he was killed by getting stung by a stingray through

the heart in a freak accident.

[RevCheesehead]

14. And people are cheering that?

Geez - must be Freeper Central in GD today. x(

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

19. Yeah, some people in that thread are truly astounding.

And by astounding, I mean sick. :puke:

[oneighty]

16. Freak accident

according to google although very rare it is not a new happening.

In our Navy years ago we were warned to stand clear of rays in general and the big ones in particular for that very reason.

On one occasion while mine hunting using SCUBA in about eighty feet of low visibility water I swam across the top of a very large stingray mostly buried in the sand/mud bottom. He came up out of the bottom with a rush. Just missed my tender body by golly.

A collision would have been an accident, nothing more.

In later years as a commercial fisherman I can attest to the size and numbers of these creatures.

180

[distantearlywarning]

15. It's not just in GD...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5589481

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. So? People who didn't like him should be forced into silence?

I bet if Rush Limbaugh died we'd have shitloads of people piling on him - would you care about piling on the dead then? Or is it only if it's piling on people you like?

I don't remember anything in the rulebook that says you can't criticize a dead guy.

[greatauntoftriplets]

20. You're right, they'd be celebrating that one.

Rather like many celebrated here when Reagan died.

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. I know I celebrated when Reagan died!

And I will when Rush dies.

[greatauntoftriplets]

24. My uncle died that same weekend....

So I was not in a partying mood. Let's just hope that some relative doesn't inconveniently die when Rush kicks the bucket.

[Midlodemocrat]

34. I didn't and I won't.

I lost too many family members in too short of a period of time to be able to dismiss someone's grief.

No matter how I feel about someone, there is someone who loves that person and is grieving and I feel it is unseemly to delight in their pain.

[blondeatlast]

46. There's a reason that a civilized society has protocols and manners.

Your last line is the reason there are strict ones around the death of someone. Thank you for having the proper perspective.

I will never celebrate the grief of another.

Not only have I experienced similar as you, I've been near that point myself on a couple of occasions. The last thing I want to think of is someone having a good giggle or worse over my demise--and my 9 year old son would tend to agree, I bet.

I was respectfully silent at Reagan's death. When Limbaugh dies, I'll do the same.

I thought it was the other side who wasn't supposed to be civilized.

[L A Woman]

115. me too

I wasn't a member here when Reagan died but I had a couple of co-workers who chose to sing "Ding Dong, the witch is dead." I just stayed quiet. I've lost too many people. I know how it feels.

And even when Timothy McVeigh was executed, horrible as he was...there was no joy here. It's not about the person who dies as much as it is about those who loved them.

[Rabrrrrrr]

132. You are making the assumption that by celebrating Reagan's death

I was actually celebrating the grief of the living,l or dismissing the grief of the living. That's bullshit.

Why make that inane "leap of logic"? It makes no sense.

No, I celebrated his death, the death of an evil man who caused untold harm to millions and millions of people. But I greived with the family for the loss of their father, husband, cousin, etc. I did not delight in their pain, I merely celebrated the death of one of the most horrible (in terms of malicious and negligent) presidents we've ever had.

[Midlodemocrat]

135. If you did grieve for the family, and I believe that you did.

You were one of the few.

I didn't shed any tears that day either because of what a horrendous person he was. I also didn't post that I was glad he was dead. I wouldn't want anyone to put those thoughts in print, even cyberspace, about me or any member of my family.

I don't think there was a chance in hell that any member of his family read DU and saw those grave pissing posts, but I couldn't participate. It's just who I am.

I'm a person of faith. I believe that the Lord has plans for someone as evil as Bush or Cheney or Reagan, so my celebrating doesn't mean anything.

[Rabrrrrrr]

136. Ah, but you see - I, too, am a "person of faith" (though I'm actually

Christian, since I never call myself a "person of faith" as though that means something specific). I also believe that God has plans for people, even evil people. I also don't believe that my celebrating "means" anything.

But, my celebrating made me feel better.

Perhaps, someday, if you have the experience of someone in your life, someone who's truly awful and terrible and made your life hell, and they die (or if you have a friend in this situation) - you might understand why someone would be very glad that someone is dead, and not sad at all, and also understand why not it's not only not a bad thing to feel that way, but a good thing; and why it's also okay to speak ill of the dead.

Feelings are feelings - they have no moral or ethical value. Some people can be happy when someone dies; others can be very sad about the same person.

But we've gotten off the topic of this thread, which is that someone posited the theory that criticizing the dead is utterly wrong; which theory I think and believe and absolute and utter bullshit nonsense. No dead person is above criticism, and no one who criticizes should be told that they are "wrong" for doing so.

I remember a grief counseling with a young woman whose father had died - instead of the expected sadness and grief, she was happy, relieved, and felt free. He had abused her and the rest of the family for her whole life. She told me that she finally felt free to live her life, without fear, and without his terror fueling her every moment, even years after she'd left home.

[Midlodemocrat]

137. Actually, I have had someone in my life who made my life a living

hell from the time I agreed to marry her son. When she died, I felt nothing. Nothing. The only grief I felt was for my children who were too young to know what she had put me through.

I just don't feel right speaking ill of the dead. Must be the Irish Catholic in me.

I see what you are saying, though, Rabrrrrrr. And, I know from too many funerals in too short a period of time that people grieve very, very differently. Even to the point of not grieving at all.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

145. Midlo, if you read the most long-winded Irwin basher...

you would have learned that apparently as Irish Catholics, we're supposed to bash the dead. Apparently, my family raised me the wrong way. They taught me to drink and think of the good times at funerals, whereas if they were teaching me the true Irish Catholic way, I would have learned to speak ill of the dead. I guess you were also raised the wrong way.

[L A Woman]

40. Why wasn't anyone criticizing him yesterday?

If you were really that upset about all the horrible things he has done (???) why would you become verbal about it on the day the guy dies?

No, that's not the point. This is a matter of un-loved people being angry at the outpouring of love for someone else, therefore they look for all the bad things they can find to say to bring that person down. It happens time and time again. It's always the same people who do it and they always have an embarrassingly high number of posts.

It's not the same as criticizing Ann Coulter on the day SHE dies. We criticize her every day because she makes her living bashing liberals and this is a website designed for liberals. Same with Reagan.

But this is the Crocodile Hunter. Come on.

[qnr]

41. Why weren't you praising him yesterday? n/t

[blondeatlast]

48. Note carefully that she didn't praise him in that post.

Just pointing out a very obvious flaw in the logic.

Her point about Coulter is a damn good one, if you take the time to consider it. Edit: I don't necessarily agree with her point, but it's worth careful thought.

[qnr]

55. Semantics, the thought applies regardless. And personally, I don't

believe the point about Coulter was telling at all. This is a political board, of course she gets mentioned every day, and people expect her to have flames thrown at her. That doesn't preclude people discussing other individuals when those persons are forced into the arena.

[datasuspect]

42. how, pray tell, do you know who is unloved?

are you psychic?

[idgiehkt]

76. wow.

I think you've hit on it. I don't know how loved or unloved the people who are jerking themselves off on this are but it's really kind of pathetic. Especially considering he's left behind a wife and two kids...

Every since I heard this early this a.m. I've been thinking about how I wouldn't even know what the hell a 'goana' (if that's the right spelling, lol) is, if not for him. I was mesmerized by him from the first time I saw him. I remember the show when his dog died, that was pretty upsetting because my dog was about the same age when she died and it was pretty emotional.

[Rabrrrrrr]

131. Why do you make assumptions about me? Why be so silly?

Did I pile on Steve? No, I complimented him. I have no need to pile on Steve - but I also have no need to criticize or downgrade anyone who feels like dissing him. There is nothing "holy" or "sacred" about dying that makes one immune to criticism.

[Deja Q]

45. Yes, we should be silenced. Only one form of thought is allowed.

Seig heil.

Like I said, I'm sorry he died; especially in a way that's bound to be somewhat painful.

He had his good points, but he had points that were legit to be brought up as well.

[LostinVA]

67. That's not the point anyone is making at all n/t

[qnr]

68. You most certainly are n/t

[LostinVA]

73. No, I'M not

Are you just wanting to pick a fight with me or something?

Weird.

[qnr]

75. No, I'm not picking a fight, however, you aren't facing facts. People are

attempting to censor the thoughts of others. That's obvious. If you feel I'm being disrespectful to you (which isn't the case) feel free to put me on ignore.

[CBGLuthier]

109. What you call censor

Society calls politeness.

But that is dead too I guess.

[qnr]

112. If you say so. most of the comments I've seen making points against him

were polite. This isn't some hero worship fest. The man was a man, with good points and bad. Until everyone starts hero worshiping everyone that died yesterday, whether they were well known, or some unknown innocent being macheted to death by neighboring villagers, I'll continue to say that public figures are open to discussion of their bad points, recently deceased or not.

[Rabrrrrrr]

134. Don't make fun of Hitler! He's dead, you heartless fucking bastard!

Hitler was a FUCKING HERO! And I know that, because HE'S DEAD! ALL DEAD PEOPLE ARE FUCKING HEROES WHO ARE BEYOND CRITIQUE!

And shut up about Nixon, Pol Pot, Torquemada, and Attila, too. Bastard. :grr:

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

72. I wouldn't be. No one should be wished dead. I wouldn't cry

over Rush, I certainly wouldn't attack him. I feel as human beings, especially as the supposed morally superior human beings, we should be above wishing others harm or cheering at their pain. Be it Rush or Steve Irwin, I'm against people attacking them or being happy they're dead.

[Joe Fields]

128. There is a difference between Rush Limbaugh and Steve Irwin, my friend.

Rush is one evil motherfucker. Steve Irwin did this world one hell of a lot of good. But go ahead and pile on Steve, if it makes you feel better.

[Rabrrrrrr]

130. But don't you see the value judgments you are making?

Rush is evil to you - and to me - and to probably most people on DU. He's a hero to the conservatives. So who's right? Why is right to pile on Rush but not Irwin?

Obviously, here at DU, Irwin was fantastically liked and fantastically unliked? Who's judgment is right? I say they are all right.

You also made the ignorant value judgment that *I* feel like piling on Steve - I liked Steve, and I am not one of the people piling on.

[qnr]

18. Well, I have no desire to "pile" on him, but I don't feel any need

at all to play "let's be nicey-nice" police just because he died. If people didn't like him and want to speak out about it, that's their perogative, there are many threads honoring him.

[datasuspect]

22. it is unfortunate that he died

but i can't understand being genuinely, emotionally, personally impacted by his death, unless of course you knew him personally.

what i find strange is the emotionalism people display about people who are strangers to them.

this is not to say it isn't unfortunate and that one can have sympathy for those who survive him - that is appropriate.

[qnr]

25. That's the way I feel. Personally, I never watched him, other than some

advertisements. Those alone were enough to make me dislike him, so I can understand where other people are coming from. It doesn't mean they're "glad he's dead" or that they don't empathize with his family.

[datasuspect]

27. maybe it is a function of age

i dunno, but gross displays of public emotionalism that i can't seem to find a basis for are very off putting to me.

[qnr]

35. Yeah, Billy Mays and those other pitchmen make me feel the same

way.

[qanda]

30. Well, my son cried when I told him this morning

He said that Steve is the reason he is so interested in bugs and maintaining his ecosystem. So, I guess for parents everywhere who have to tell their children about this, it is personal.

[datasuspect]

33. well he is a child

and you are an adult.

when i was six, i cried because my pet worm died. children are very precious in that respect, but that quality would be very strange in an adult.

[LostinVA]

47. I'm 41, and it upset me, too -- as it did my 36 year old SO

If you don't like to exhibit emotions over something like this, fine. But, you have no right to criticize those of us who do. And yeah, that's what I said: no right.

The quality is "not strange" in an adult -- it's called empathy. If you honestly can't understand that, then you must not have it.

[datasuspect]

with all due respect, this has nothing to do with my "rights" and

your assessment thereof.

i did not criticize you or anyone else.

you have your opinion. crying about a dead worm at age 36 (in the example i illustrated) would seem STRANGE to me. for me, personally, to weep at the death of a teevee star i do not know personally, would be strange for ME. your mileage may vary, i have no opinion about your personal life, that is your business.

i have plenty of empathy, your presumptive statements notwithstanding, i just don't wear it on my sleeve and weep for every single horrible thing on earth. i don't have the capacity for it. i know few people who do.

you certainly do not know me personally and are in no way qualified to make judgments about me PERSONALLY.

if you think you have the RIGHT, you need to learn more about personal boundaries.

on edit: i watched a good friend of mine get shot in the face about 10 feet from me. they shot me too and i was hit in the ankle and right shoulder. they shot him three more times in his torso and groin. i cried about that. i knew him and the situation was up close and personal.

so i think in some ways, my experiences have hardened me somewhat, it doesn't mean i am inhuman.

[qanda]

54. Gosh, I was just thinking the exact same thing

Why do I even have to explain my emotional well-being to anyone. I'm glad that I'm not too old to still have feelings about someone's untimely demise. I'm 38 and even my 68 year old mother was upset about hearing this awful news.

[datasuspect]

56. please, the last thing i want in my life

is an explanation of your emotional well-being.

i certainly hope you have good emotional well-being, but i think you missed the point of my post entirely.

but that's okay, i will leave you to your grief and bereavement. i have no need to belabor any point with you.

[TimeChaser]

57. I cried

[hfojvt]

61. what is a stranger?

I am a stranger to Leonard Nimoy. He has never seen me, read a letter from me, or even, perhaps, read one of my posts. He does not know my name or anything else about me. The reverse, however, is not true. I have seen Nimoy on TV and in the movies. I have read one of his books ("I am Spock"). It is a one-way relationship and artificial, in the sense that I see Spock more than I do Nimoy, but he is not a stranger to me.

I would compare Irwin, perhaps, with Thomas Frank (author of "What's the matter with Kansas?" and a recent article posted at Commondreams.org which I may get around to reading.) I have, however, seen him in person, had him autograph his book (and he scribbled all over it too, wtf?) and gave him my article inspired by his book. Still, we are mostly strangers, but perhaps I had the expectation or anticipation that he would write more books and articles, that he would continue to impact my life in a positive way by providing entertainment and/or information. Thus I would lose something by his death and make that an occasion to acknowledge his past positive impact on my life.

[datasuspect]

66. in my world

a stranger is someone who is not immediate family or close personal friends.

like i've repeated ad nauseum, your mileage may vary.

[hfojvt]

94. but then, old classmates would be strangers

and so, in my family, would first cousins (except for the ones who exchange letters). Shouldn't there be gradations in there between strangers - old 'friends' - people you know - acquaintances - co-workers - casual friends - close friends?

But I guess if I consider it. My old college room-mates. We were strangers, then lived together for a school year or two, and then became strangers again, but I tend to keep people in my memories and in my affections.

[datasuspect]

113. you create and live in your own world

i create and live in mine.

[hfojvt]

123. what ever happened to

"I'd rather live in his world
than live without him in mine"? :D

[datasuspect]

127. that pulled out on a midnight train to georgia

[Texasgal]

121. When JFK was killed

a whole nation cried.

How do you explain that?

People connect, it's human nature.

[Gormy Cuss]

37. There is another option, namely to keep quiet for a bit.

Refraining from speaking ill of the dead during a mourning period was a standard practice in this country not that long ago. It was consideration for those who mourn and a basic civility that by social contract we knew would be extended to those we mourn when they die. No one was expected to say nice things if the person was bad. It was just considered poor manners to harp on it publicly immediately after the fact. This was respected even when none of the persons present knew the dead.

People who see nothing wrong with using a person's death announcement as an opportunity to opine in their informed or uninformed way may have a right to thumb their noses at social convention but exercising that right shows that they are inconsiderate louts.

[qnr]

38. There's another option, people can keep their respectful opinions to

themselves too. Personally, I have been keeping my opinions on Irwin himself to myself for the most part. But to me, people praising him are just as annoying as those speaking ill of him.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. Yes, there is no need to air praise either.

I understand that the praise can be annoying too. The difference is that praising the recently dead has wide acceptance in our society and is considered polite behavior.

I was late to recognize the importance of this ritual because I lost no one close to me until I was in my 20s. Seeing it from the other side made me realize why the ritual of speaking no ill had merit.

[qnr]

53. Perhaps, I disagree with both aspects, and I've lost many n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

91. Why, if I might ask?

Are you speaking of the anonymous posters of praise and derision, or about anyone reacting to deaths in general?

[qnr]

95. The posters. I'm just sitting here thinking of hundreds of thousands of

people that once had hopes & aspirations, yet never came before the public eye. Somehow they fell, revolutions and insugency in their country. Inexplicable accidents, loss of jobs that left them foundering in their own bodily fluids under a cardboard box.

In my opinion, a simple RIP or dissenting remark should be sufficient for someone like Steve Irwin, Peter Jennings, George Washington, Jesus, Ghandi, Hitler, Reagan, etc. on their death. These people had all the attention and glory already. Not saying that you can't discuss them any time you want, I just don't approve of this glorification/scorn of these individuals while the there are so many others that have died on the same day.

[ForrestGump]

116. Nice sentiment,

seriously, but the world doesn't work that way. Some people's lives touch, in a meaningful way, only a few people's lives; others' can touch the lives of hundreds, thousands, or millions.

We are not all equal in that respect.

[buddhamama]

118. somewhat disagree, Mr.Gump

from any great movement there arises a Leader. but, there would not be a leader nor a movement if there were not followers, believers, what have you.

Steve Irwin had the personality and conviction of his beliefs to propel him into the spotlight, and, people responded.

but, without the response of millions he'd be a nobody, touching "only a few people's lives".

[Jamastiene]

141. Yeah, but I'd bet he would have saved the same amount

of animal lives without the celebrity. That's what he was about. The animals did matter to him. The animals like the koala he saved recently who had lost an ear and had been hit by a car and who is now ready to live in the wild once again instead of dying slowly and painfully in agony would have still been touched by his presence. Truthfully, he did touch millions of human hearts and lives, but the more important point was that he saved as many wild animals, including more than a few endangered ones, as he could. That's all that matters in the end; the animals.

I took a day away from DU and the bitter coldhearted remarks against him and thought about it. The animals mattered more to him than some sniveling jerk who feels the need to take pot shots at him after he is dead and can no longer defend himself. That is what I will remember most of all; one wild animal means more to me than all the people who hate Steve Irwin. Anyone who hates me for that can lump it. Tough shit. That's the way it is.

[buddhamama]

142. agreed.

i have nothing but respect for the man and what he did. my post above was not directly related to Steve.

[ForrestGump]

59. The speaking ill of him irked me not so much for its very fact

-- there will always be a**holes, and there are plenty on DU -- but because it was inevitably couched in falsehoods, such as denying that he was a 'real' conservationist. That is what really got me going. Speaking ill of the dead in a case like this -- he was not a hateful, evil person like Limbaugh or Coulter -- is bad enough, but using lies and ignorance as ammunition to that end is intolerable.

[qnr]

62. I understand. I'm don't know much about him, just vaguely didn't like him

-- I just feel that expressions should not be limited to positive comments only. If someone dislikes him, and wants to discuss it, it is their right, just as it is the right of those that feel the need to make positive comments.

Note, however, that I'm not defending "lies" on either side, just the fact that both sides should be able to speak freely. Speaking ill of the dead? If it's not lies, it seems to me that it is now "speaking ill" if it related to fact. It's just another aspect of the person.

[datasuspect]

39. not having an instantaneous means of electronic communication

which automatically can give anyone (not just a few people like teevee stars or radio personalities) a wide audience was a standard situation in this country not that long ago.

the anonymity of the internet often gives people internal permission to "let it all hang out" for good or ill.

i take all of it with a grain of salt.

for this message board to affect my psychological state in any significant way would be the day i walk away from it for quite some time.

[LeftyMom]

43. Exactly.

No reason to drag one's issues with a person out as soon as they're dead. I'm not crazy about how the guy made a living but I still feel bad for his family, both of his kids are very young.

[petronius]

65. Exactly - if you have nothing good to say, then say nothing

At least until the body is buried and there has been a reasonable mourning period for the family and friends. It's just common courtesy, and I personally prefer to follow that rule no matter who the deceased is.

Of course, I'm sure that the the people speaking negatively on DU would never dream of saying those things to a relative/friend of Irwin, and there's very little danger of our words ever getting to the family; that's a reasonable position and it may justify a freer way of speaking here, but I prefer to err on the side of etiquette/courtesy (i.e. too much rather than too little).

[qanda]

23. I just don't understand why people see the need to dishonor the dead

I don't care who it is. If it were a family member of theirs, they wouldn't want someone to bring up their every fault when they died. It's sad that even Democrats can be so heartless.

[qnr]

26. It's not "heartless" - if they had no "heart" they wouldn't care, one way

or the other.

[datasuspect]

29. maybe because the world is filled with many different types of people

who think, understand, and feel in many different, unique ways?

shit, i celebrate that.

[Kajsa]

125. Well stated, qanda.

I know the proponents of right after the death character bashing
call it "free speech" and cry that we are trying to "censor" them.

It's a matter of civility and sensitivity.
Either you've got it or you don't.
Timing is everything.

[greguganus]

28. Maybe someone said he's a republican?

:shrug:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. I read on another thread that he's not a liberal and liked Bush. So...

if that's really true I guess we are required to dislike him now and get all snarky about his death. :sarcasm:

[blondeatlast]

63. Especially when the DUer making that claim has been asked a few times

for a credible source and failed to provide such (and not by me, btw).

Somehow, it all sounds more like, well, you know... that OTHER site.

[qnr]

64. Nobody is required to do anything, which includes "keeping quiet," if they

feel that something needs to be said.

[LostinVA]

69. I think posters are discussing courtesy, not censorship n/t

[qnr]

71. No, they're discussing censorship. If someone has something to say

relating to an aspect of the person in question, and it isn't a fabrication, they are entitled to make it known.

[Shakespeare]

77. No, what they're doing is crying "censorship" to excuse despicable words.

And that is a revolting "use" of free speech. If you choose to do that, fine; just spare me the outrage when you get called on it.

[qnr]

78. I'm not outraged in the least. I haven't said anything about him. But you

are operating with a very restricted mindset. How is discussing something that the person in question did "despicable" -- wouldn't that make the person that did it despicable also?

You should think these thoughts through before posting.

[Shakespeare]

81. No, what's despicable is the armchair piling on....

...by people who either know very little about Irwin's life and endeavors, or who simply get their jollies by being an asshole. And when somebody responds by saying "wow, what an asshole-ish thing to say," the reaction is, invariably, outrage. "I can say whatever I want," blah blah blah. Yep, you can. And I can call it for what it is. How brave, how COOL you are to trash Irwin before the body's cold. I didn't think it was funny when posters did that when Reagan died, and I don't think it's funny or cool or in any way defensible that they're doing it now. It is the very worst side of human nature, and it's sickening.

The posters I'm referring to aren't "discussing" anything he did--they're just being obnoxious for reasons that defy explanation.

[qnr]

82. Ah, but there's the rub. People *can* say whatever they want. Not saying

that that is particularly good, but you can rant about it until your dying breath, and all you're doing is "saying whatever you want."

Personally, I think this whole thing is foolish, on both sides.

[Shakespeare]

84. Which is exactly what I said....

I just find it a bit much when they extend their free speech rights to include outrage over having people actually react to what they say.

[qnr]

87. yeah, but you reacted to them, so they're within their rights to react

to your reaction. It's an escalating spiral, true, but so many things are.

[ForrestGump]

86. And some are just overly impressed with

their powers of logic, by the look of it. I've seen machines that exhibited more human feeling. And the kind of people I'm referring to seem to pride themselves on their machine-like, binary responses and reactions.

But perhaps I'm not being logical. It's the human side of me, Jim. I need to get in touch with my inner Vulcan.


What the hell...I can only assume such people watched too much Star Trek and became obsessed with being Spock.

[datasuspect]

88. i can distill the argument thusly:

if a, then b

b

therefore a.

[ForrestGump]

90. I like

the ears.

[datasuspect]

92. i like chocolate milk

and wet puppy noses in the springtime when the air smells like snuggle.

[ForrestGump]

99. How very fascinating

[LostinVA]

79. Bingo n/t

[Omphaloskepsis]

31. This pretty much sums up things for me.!!

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/54501#1423560

[greguganus]

32. Let's form a gang and go over to GD and kick their asses! n/t

[Joey Liberal]

36. Piling on? NOT

One moron makes a stupid post and you call it "piling on"?

[LostinVA]

70. There's been way more than one post -- Writing is correct

[idgiehkt]

80. I think there are three or four threads on it right now

here's my contribution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2045471&mesg_id=2045471

this attitude just kind of wears me out. It's more from people who are emotionally removed from the subject matter, I haven't read any posts from anyone who is or has been vehemently opposed to the work Irwin did. It's just kind of a slap in the face to people who were fond of him or thought he had a good influence. It's the same feeling I get when people knee-jerk against animal rights activists without ever considering that the A.R. movement takes on so many facets of right wing corporate culture, i.e., the freaking devil. People don't think enough before they pick a side to bitch from, they just jump on the bandwagon and that drives me nuts.

[Jamastiene]

143. Correction: More than one moron

has made some stupid posts these last few days and the Steve Irwin hatefest continues to pile up.

[bridgit]

51. got that right, WIMR...

x(

[deadparrot]

58. Honestly, I never had any strong feelings about the guy,

so I'm just staying out of this. I never watched his show; my most protracted experience with him was during the whole kid-near-the-crocodile hoopla.

It's very tragic, especially seeing as his he had a young family, but I don't feel strongly enough about it either way to get into flamewars.

I think people here are divided into two camps: those who think it's impolite to criticize someone soon after death (especially a sudden, tragic one), and those who want to speak their minds about a public figure's more questionable actions. I don't adhere to strictly one or the other, but I think that both are valid in moderation. It's the extremists on either side who stir up the flames.

[alarimer]

89. Criticism is one thing (and acceptable in my opinion)

But one particular post I am thinking of was actually, gleefully, celebrating his death.

[deadparrot]

129. There are almost 100,000 members on DU.

If there was only one post celebrating his death, I'm shocked that it was so low. There are a few nuts in every bunch; it's the law of large numbers. Is it sick? Yeah. But that's the price of being part of a large community, IMHO. :shrug:

[Haole Girl]

83. I don't think we're going to win over any undecided voters

in '08 when people can make mince meat out of an animal lover. Geez! Can you imagine what they'll do with the opposing Democratic candidates? I wasn't here in '04, but I shudder to think of it.

[datasuspect]

85. i would fear the day that someone based their voting decision

on steve irwin and his maltreatment on a political discussion board on the internet.

that's a scary thought.

[blondeatlast]

96. As one on the "Speak no ill of the dead" side of the matter, I agree.

That's a voter WAY too easily led.

:scared:

[blondeatlast]

97. If that's what you are worried about, it's probably a very good thing

that you missed 2004.

Gear up now, it's coming as soon as the first week of November passes. Or better yet, remain relatively safely in the Lounge.

[Maestro]

93. It's more respectful in LBN

btw. Regardless of his politics, he was a family man who did well for the plight of many animals. RIP.

[ContraBass Black]

100. How is this different from when anyone else dies?

Everybody is hated by somebody at DU.

[astral]

101. qnr, you forget that is what the topic is about!

The topic is about exactly what you are doing. NObody is trying to 'censor' you by speaking up about your attitude. It is a part of the American way that is lost by so many, just as has been said here, to show some respect and reverence to the one who has passed on and to those who feel the pain of their passing.

Reverence is a word you could not comprehend, though, I can see that. It is a dimension of the human psyche that some people in here have. I was humbled reading the articles and the notes (not just on this board, but here too) from people about how heartbreaking this is for people all around the world who knew him and his work, even though I did not, I did catch him tormenting a snake on Animal Planet not long ago when I was around a television, and that's my only exposure to the fella.

He was a passionate human being who cared about how he spent his life. He had a woman and kids who love him. Many children as well as adults across the country (and other countries) are shedding tears over his passing.

If you have no heart, that's okay. If you have no compassion, that's okay. If you want to come to this thread and BRAG about it, that's perfectly allright, too.

You inspired me to make a reply. I hope that, too, was allowable.

Peace.

[ContraBass Black]

102. Is this directed to me?

[astral]

103. Actually, no, I was directing it at qnr.

I don't usually feel emotionally mixed up with celebrity deaths, and certainly not with this one except for sympathy for the tragedy and unfairness of sudden unexpected death. To me it is an occasion to show a little respect for it as a tribute to the sacredness of being a human being.

[ContraBass Black]

104. Ah, ok.

I was rather shocked to think I had provoked that.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[qnr]

105. I forget nothing of the sort. I wasn't feeling censored. I have no opinion

on Steve Irwin. However, I stand by my opinion, people are entitled to state their opinions, just as you are entitled to state your opinions about their opinions, and on and on, ad infinitum.

[qnr]

106. When you start showing equal tribute to the sacredness of the thousands

of other people that died on the same day, then I'll contemplate agreeing with your position. What, we can say nothing but good things about one person, yet totally ignore others? Sorry. Don't think so.

[ForrestGump]

117. We don't KNOW those faceless thousands, or what they did and wanted to do;

we do know Steve Irwin, in a way, and what he did and wanted to do.

The argument is not only absurd -- I agree with the spirit of it, but the reality is something else -- but dictates to others how long and in what way they should acknowledge the death of one person who, by his deeds, stood out from those thousands in the eyes of millions of people around the world. Nice ideal, maybe, but fantasy.

[qnr]

126. So? People aren't dictating to others, when they tell them they have to

make positive comments? You've got your thoughts on the matter, I have mine. You find mine foolish, I find I have no interest in your way of dealing with some celebrities death. There are billions of people in the world, each individual, what a surprise that people think differently.

[CBGLuthier]

107. No surprise for me

I know this kind of thing brings out the holier-than-thou elite assholes who can't even seem to realize that the guy wasn't killed while doing one of his "dangerous" things.

He was killed by a pure bit of bad luck while on a fairly routine dive.

I don't think he was some kind of jerk nor some great person just because he was on TV.

I do know he had a passion that I envy and that he spent most of his money building a zoo that is supposed to be a wonder.

So fuck those who piled on. They are just jealous because none of them have ever cared about anything as much as Steve Irwin did.

[LSK]

108. huh??? the positive posts outnumber the negative 100 - 1

What GD are you talking about?

[begin_within]

110. Steve and a friend...

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/09/04/irwin2_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg

[LSK]

111. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2046861&mesg_id=2046861

[Fox Mulder]

119. I know.

It makes my stomach churn just seeing those posts. :grr:

[Kajsa]

120. Well dear lounge friends, I verbally shot

one extremely offensive, cold hearted A-hole
right in the butt in one GD thread.

He needed the wake up call.

:nuke:

Steve was a joy and inspiration.
My entire family is so sad to hear of his death.

:cry:

[L A Woman]

122. An awful lot of people in this country don't think celebrities are real

I won't use any geographic generalizations, but let's be honest - a lot of Americans do not see celebrities as humans. They are on the "teevee" or in magazines and they are not real. For those of us who see celebrities on a regular basis, we know they ARE real and just because the term "celebrity" is slapped on them, doesn't mean that when they die we have an open invitation to rip apart their lives and diminish their accomplishments.

Every so often I will log on to DU and see a thread entitled, "My mom died today" or "My brother died today." Would it be appropriate for me to ask the poster if his/her newly-deceased relative had ever voted Republican? Ever had sex before marriage? Overweight? A drug user? Or any other behavior I may not approve of? And then suggest that maybe the death wasn't really a big deal? After all, the person clearly wasn't perfect! And I have never met the person, so why should I care?

No. It would not be appropriate. And it's no more appropriate when the person in question was famous.

To tear down a person after they have died is the hallmark of a loser and a coward. It's his tiny moment of power...his time to feel a moment of superiority ("well, he wasn't that great because ____ and _____"). It's much easier than actually accomplishing something yourself.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

124. HAH! I leave here for a few hours and look what happens.

:rofl::rofl:

[WindRavenX]

133. lol, flamewars everywhere

I am disgusted. Disgusted. Over a man who did GOOD for the enviroment. ::Shakes head::

[Redneck Socialist]

138. DU: We flame everything

Sometimes I think that should be our unofficial motto.

[Rabrrrrrr]

139. We're a passionate people.

The nice thing about the existence of the flaming is that it shows that we are NOT of one, homogenous, monolilthic mind; and that to be a democrat does not mean one specific end-result in opinion and thinking.

It's also one of the reasons that we have such a hard time showing the rest of the world what we believe in, and forming an agenda, and having just a few bullet points to say at the debates... but, what the hell.

[Redneck Socialist]

140. Well, that's looking at the positive side of things

It depends on the subject for me I guess. Flaming during the primaries? For me that's all well and good, a fine example of our passions even. Flaming over a guy that just was killed, eh, not so attractive an attribute in my mind.

[Leopolds Ghost]

146. They even made fun of Jack Sparrow when he died. >-(

See for yourself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5596449

On a slightly more serious note, here's what I think Steve would have to say about DU "wildlife":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2050710

[Mojambo]

147. Fascinating thread.

Now who, exactly, is this Steve Irwin fellow?

[LSK]

148. the crocodile hunter

Hes on animal planet all the time.