What is the current policy on celebrating someone's death?

[Aurelian]

I just made the mistake of reading through the YES!! SWEET! (now who's the next one gonna be?) thread originated by DemonArchangel.

The thread is now closed, and Tosa edited DA's post to explain that while he had the right to express his views about the Catholic Church, he didn't have the right to celebrate someone's death. I guess I'm using the past-tense here because I also gathered from that message that DA will now be banned from the Tavern.

So, just in order to clarify the situation, I wanted to check in with the moderators and make sure that the nature of the offense was correctly identified. Was DA banned because he celebrated someone's death, or was he banned because he celebrated a generally beloved person's death? Or was he banned for some other reason entirely?

I only ask this because when Arafat died back in November of last year, there was some celebration going on (currently 26 pages in the past) from the same people who were offended by DA's post. I also expect to see a similar celebration whenever Castro kicks the bucket.

And yes, I realize the political and moral distinctions between Arafat, Castro, and the Pope. That's not the issue. Was the celebration of someone's death the problem, was it the celebration of that particular person's death, or was the real issue trolling?

I need to know the policy before I post my Johnnie Cochran and Frank Perdue threads; and I want to be ready for Jerry Falwell.

Thanks in advance.

[Redleg]

It was the trolling I beleive which got the thread closed. But you will have to wait for Tosa for confirmation.

[Big_John]

oh sweet baby jesus, there's going to be a jerry falwell thread?! i gotta stock up on beer.. i'm throwing a wild party when he kicks the bucket!

uh, anyway, that's a good point aurelian. i personally don't see the big deal with DAs original post. i thought it was kinda funny actually, if tactless. but i'm not a mod...

[Proletariat]

I'dve thought it was funny until he displayed so much emotional investment on the topic. Then it just seemed idiotic.

[Fragony]

Must have been drunk, first time I see him posting like that.

[Big_John]

I'dve thought it was funny until he displayed so much emotional investment on the topic. Then it just seemed idiotic.

i read the post right after DA made it, before anyone had replied. then i didn't check it until it had been closed (because i thought the thread would probably degenerate into what it apparently did).

but i see what you're saying.. i mean, even if one is violently anti-christian, i don't understand how the death of the pope could be seen as something to celebrate. it's not like they can't replace him. did JP the deuce have a positive effect on conversion rates or something?

[Pindar]

Whether its the declared issue or not: we have the juxtaposition of a terrorist, a dictator and two religious figures. What an odd sense of moral anemia.

[Togakure]

i read the post right after DA made it, before anyone had replied. then i didn't check it until it had been closed (because i thought the thread would probably degenerate into what it apparently did).

but i see what you're saying.. i mean, even if one is violently anti-christian, i don't understand how the death of the pope could be seen as something to celebrate. it's not like they can't replace him. did JP the deuce have a positive effect on conversion rates or something?

I think the issue is not so deep in the detail of what was said. Folks are free to be anti-whatever as they will. They are not free to violate the board's policy in expressing their anti-whatever. Staff has been very lenient in enforcing these policies, resulting in an increase in the pushing of boundaries. It seems obvious to me that DA's post was intended to rile the pro-pope folks who patronize the backroom. Harassing patrons is explicitly in violation of the board's policy. I won't bother to paste the policy here as I'm sure you are familiar with it. I too read the initial post before anyone responded, and predicted accurately what the outcome would be. I was surprised that the thread stayed open as long as it did.

Fraggony, where you been man? DA's been quiet for a while, but he's notorious for posting borderline topics in order to delight in the outrage of other patrons. Heh, I admit I often chuckle at how easily and shamelessly people take the bait, hook and sinker. But, all it would take would be for a subject to which I am sensitive to be posted in such a manner, and I would likely end up on the hook, thrashing in outrage. I've been hooked before, and it wasn't pretty.

The board doesn't benefit from this kind of crap. It's cheap, crass entertainment at best, and this board is better than that.

[Big_John]

we have the juxtaposition of a terrorist, a dictator and two religious figures.

it's a bit of stretch to call falwell a terrorist, don't you think?

[Pindar]

it's a bit of stretch to call falwell a terrorist, don't you think?

Sorry, my mistake. I get confused sometimes.

[Voigtkampf]

The comments “I thought it was funny” reveal to me the fact that I have absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever; I never found it funny when someone dies and another one rolls over laughing and cheering.

My position is to never be glad of someone’s death; even if my greatest enemy, I will pay the deceased the necessary respect and act upon “de mortis nihil nisi bene” saying. Even if the deceased deserved absolutely no respect, I would still show no satisfaction or joy over his demise whatsoever, because I would not feel it at all.

This clearly shows that I am still stuck in the Middle Age mentality and should probably strain harder to attain the level of a modern person’s morality of dancing on someone’s grave.

[Quid]

The comments “I thought it was funny” reveal to me the fact that I have absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever; I never found it funny when someone dies and another one rolls over laughing and cheering.

Ditto. I fail to see anything remotely 'funny' about the post. DA has been known to be extremely anti-Christian, which is his right. However, it seems ok to many people nowadays to so blatantly abuse their privilage to have free will and continue to disrespect other people's opinions.

My position is to never be glad of someone’s death; even if my greatest enemy, I will pay the deceased the necessary respect and act upon “de mortis nihil nisi bene” saying. Even if the deceased deserved absolutely no respect, I would still show no satisfaction or joy over his demise whatsoever, because I would not feel it at all.

Again, I can only echo this.

This clearly shows that I am still stuck in the Middle Age mentality and should probably strain harder to attain the level of a modern person’s morality of dancing on someone’s grave.

Join the club. Let's meet on a graveyard and have a practice session. Maybe we can learn a thing or two.

I find posts such as DA's deeply repulsive and distasteful. I find the idea of 'celebrating' someone's death so off the head that I can only shake it. Whether Arafat or the Pope, neither is cause for celebration. One may be cause to hold one's gob, the other to respect other's believes.

The follow-up of the before-mentioned thread has been quite predictable and I would hope that the board takes actions against those who thought it permissable to vent their anger in an unacceptable manner (although I have read otherwise already). What I had read in that thread borders on the kind of many other fora and does not make this one any more special than any other. I hope that the situation will be vindicated and the concerned dealt with appropriately.

Cheers

Quid

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Although I thought the thread in question was reprehensible, as I thought the thread celebrating Arafat's death was, I do not feel it should have been closed. If we are allowed to celebrate the death of one, surely we should be able to celebrate the death of anybody?

[therother]

I think that any post expressing glee at someone's death should be inappropriate here. I also think, no matter what the provocation, that personal attacks on any member should be just as inappropriate.

[Templar Knight]

I would agree that the celebration of the death of someone is unaceptable, but someone posting a thread knowing full well of the reactions of the community is just stupid and their opinions should be kept to themselves.

[Hosakawa Tito]

A childish "class clown" type cheapshot stunt to get attention and demonstrate how "kool I am" to thumb my nose and moon the recently deceased leader of the Christian faith. At best pretty poor judgement, at worst a deliberate act to inflict more grief and pain on those who do respect and care deeply about such a man as the late Pope. For those that found it amusing, what can I say, you were the target audience I guess.

I only ask this because when Arafat died back in November of last year, there was some celebration going on (currently 26 pages in the past) from the same people who were offended by DA's post. I also expect to see a similar celebration whenever Castro kicks the bucket.

And yes, I realize the political and moral distinctions between Arafat, Castro, and the Pope. That's not the issue. Was the celebration of someone's death the problem, was it the celebration of that particular person's death, or was the real issue trolling?

I need to know the policy before I post my Johnnie Cochran and Frank Perdue threads; and I want to be ready for Jerry Falwell.

If you are truly struggling to make this distinction, than I suggest avoiding the temptation altogether.
http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Although I thought the thread in question was reprehensible, as I thought the thread celebrating Arafat's death was

There was no thread celebrating Arafats death merely one noting it. Yes I and others said we were glad hes gone but saying we celebrateed his death is a bit much. Its also quite one thing to say that your glad a man who was known as a terrorist and who it can be proved is responsible for hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths is dead to that of the Pope who always was against death and dead his best to save men both physically and spiritually. I suppose it would have been wrong to celebrate Hitlers death at the end of WW2.

[Red Harvest]

I celebrated Arafat's death, and see no shame in it whatsoever. He was a terrorist leader and still active in promoting it. There are a select few like Arafat that would qualify for such distinction: Idi Amin, Stalin, Hitler, Ceaucescu, Osama Bin Laden (whenever it might happen), Pol Pot. (I personally would add the genocidal fascist nationalist Milosevic as well although it would no doubt anger many Serbs and their supporters.) So far Arafat's passing has been heavily net positive in the region from what I can tell, both for Palestinians and those around them. When the moment of decision came, Arafat showed his true character by blocking peace for his own purposes and to the detriment of his own people. History is speaking for itself.

However, I can't see any justification for celebrating the death of the pope. My views are very much counter to the Catholic church's espoused positions, yet I see no reason to cheer the loss of someone who was attempting to do good, even if I differ with his views in many instances. There are some others whose motives I doubt and won't mourn passing, but I won't be coming here to dance on their graves either. (Intolerant extremist religious types of all faiths tend to fall into that category for me.)

Oh, and for the record: Saturnus was not happy with those of us who said what we thought about Arafat and handed out warnings.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Oh, and for the record: Saturnus was not happy with those of us who said what we thought about Arafat and handed out warnings.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Well, in that case I retract what I said earlier. It was right the thread was closed, and celebrating people's deaths on this board should not be allowed.

[Togakure]

Interesting.

[Kongamato]

Let's not fool ourselves; this is a Western forum. Besides a few notable exceptions, the overwhelming majority of our members come from the US, Canada, Britain, and Europe. Events like the death of Bin Laden or the Pope will generate a near-unified opinion here, and the moderators should take this into consideration. I think that the moderators already do this with a common-sense keep-the-peace style. They should take a very broad, Western-centric view when dealing with potentially inflammatory geo-political exchanges. I feel that this would best represent the wishes of the community.

Slightly OT: I've recently wondered about the Org's 9/11 bans. Just what happened here on that day? I remember reading about a sarcastic thread that got posted then that wound up getting people banned. Could someone tell me, or is it best not to open old wounds?

[LittleGrizzly]

you can read it near the back pages of the backroom, i read it a few months ago. It was closed shortly after 9-11 so look around then.

[Goofball]

Whether its the declared issue or not: we have the juxtaposition of a terrorist, a dictator and two religious figures. What an odd sense of moral anemia.

Another example of moral anemia are people who believe that their own beliefs are so far superior to everybody else's that anybody disagreeing with them are morally anemic.

There are many who believe that the Pope has played a terrible (if not downright evil) role in the spread of AIDS in Africa by steadfastly refusing to use the Church's considerable influence in that region to promote the use of condoms. In fact, by doing quite the opposite, actually forbidding the use of condoms, one could make the argument that he was actively trying to exacerbate the HIV epidemic in Africa.

I don't say I believe this to be the case, though the argument could certainly be made.

What I am saying is that there are many moral people (though their morality may differ from yours, Pindar), who might very well consider the Pope to be below Arafat's level. After all, there are millions who consider Arafat to be a freedom fighter.

But to call them morally anemic is simple arrogance.

I personally was among those who was very happy to see Arafat die, and though I have not reread that thread, I am certain that my posts were not very complimentary to the decedent.

But if the mods are going to ban or warn DA for being disrespectful to one dead public figure, I think they should have another look at the Arafat thread and apply some retroactive bannings for the disrespect that was shown to another.

Either that or they should acknowledge that Org is a forum based on Christian/western values and morality, and dissenters will not be tolerated.

[PanzerJaeger]

And the moral relativists jump out of the woodwork to equate Yasser Arafat to the Pope. Theyre so progressive..

I could go on about the degineration of morality such leftist thinking leads to, but that would be a topic for the backroom.

[Goofball]

And the moral relativists jump out of the woodwork to equate Yasser Arafat to the Pope. Theyre so progressive..

Panzer, you are the one being the moral relativist here if you think it's okay to celebrate one person's death but not another's. Because that is what this discussion is about. If you read my post, which I honestly don't think you did (other than the part that said "Today, 08:44 Goofball") before judging it, you would see that I was by no means equating Yasser Arafat to the Pope. I personally hated Yasser Arafat and everything he stood for, and I think the Pope was actually an all right guy for the most part. But that is not the point of this thread. The point is, do we allow the celebration of one death but ban people for the celebration of another?

For the purpose of that discussion, I set aside by own biases about whether Arafat or JP2 were "good" or "bad" guys for a moment. Maybe you should do the same.

On the other hand, you can stay within the boundaries of your comfortably held, unshakeable ideas of who is "good" and who is "bad" and brook no discussion of the matter whatsoever.

But please, don't jump into the thread, spout the same conservative dogma that you always do, and then make snide remarks about how those who disagree with you are not "progressive."

[PanzerJaeger]

I wasnt refering to you in particular Goof.

My point: The Pope and Yasser are not on the same moral level no matter how you shake the eight ball.

Your point: But please, don't jump into the thread, spout the same conservative dogma that you always do, and then make snide remarks about how those who disagree with you are not "progressive."

Point taken. Ill see you in the backroom.

[JAG]

I think it is amazing that someone gets banned for celebrating one figures death yet others are not for doing EXACTLY the same thing - pure hypocrisy. The late popes direct actions in terms of condemning condoms and other contraceptive measures, has helped cause thousands - if not millions - of people in Africa especially, to get and / or die from HIV, he is in effect advocating genocide. Now this is a view some might have - I share it - now if I wanted to exclaim relief at his passing - which I did not do nor think was appropriate - should I be banned? If yes I think that is very, very out of order. There were members of this board who celebrated Arafats death with exactly the same kind of objections - that he causes the death of many others through his actions - and no one was banned. It is clear double standards, simply because one figure is not thought of as highly as another, or some members are more vocal in their views of mods and so get away with blue murder.

It is a disgrace that Demon got banned, complete disgrace. Where is this much vaunted free speech we hear the people who took offence cry about constantly when they want to abuse and throw hatred on us 'moral relativists'. One rule for some a complete and utter contradiction of that rule for others.

I happen to think Demon made an inappropriate post because when a figure passes like the pope OR Arafat, there is nothing gained by bashing a dead man / woman. However I think it is disgusting that a member is banned for merely uttering an opinion at the wrong time. What is worse that all the flame Demon received is not even going to be acted upon, where are the rules for these people? What gives them a right to flame him in the way they did? Disgraceful miss judgment and miss management of the situation.

[PanzerJaeger]

The late popes direct actions in terms of condemning condoms and other contraceptive measures, has helped cause thousands - if not millions - of people in Africa especially, to get and / or die from HIV, he is in effect advocating genocide.

Wrong. The Pope did not force those people to have sex without knowing their partner.

This blame people are putting on the Pope for AIDS is idiotic. He didnt create it. He didnt give it to people. If the africans who got aids followed the moral directives of the Catholic church as they are taught, AIDS would not be the epidemic it is.

Arafat on the other hand signed death warrents for many people.

[doc_bean]

Well DA did intentionally upset a lot of people, we all know there are some quite religious people in the backroom, some of them catholic However, I don't agree with a full ban, maybe a temporary ban or a significant raising of his warn level would have been better. I don't think it's the content of his original post was so bad (I've heard that quite a few times) but his wording and his follow up posts did show that he just liked to push some people's buttons.

[AntiochusIII]

Backroom's invasion of Watchtower

"We successfully invaded the Watchtower, sir!"

"Very well, I'll find a good, sturdy place to stand on and shout, like Leonardo Di Caprio (I like that name): MISSION ACCOMPLISHHH!!!!!!!"

"And what is the next order, sir?"

"Set up an intelligence command center, spread the news to the media, and let us continue our debate. Bring a lot of beers, as well, the Watchtower's moderators are conquered and they'll be good beer-serving servants."

"Sir YES SIR!"

"Oh, and one last thing, celebrate the death (ban) of that contradictory figure (Demon + Archangel!) with more and more beer, too. Canadian, preferably..."

-----------------------------------------

How sad.