How bad does a person have to be, before it becomes OK, to celebrate their death?

Heh. I was thinking of asking a question just like this.

I don’t know. Some will say that it’s never acceptable because it reflects more on you than on the dead person. Death is universally tragic and it shouldn’t be celebrated. That’s generally my position, but I can’t fault someone for feeling relief when a certain awful person is dead (and I will make a distinction between celebrating, feeling relief, and not mourning). But I don’t know what the scale is. Is it okay to celebrate Bin Laden and Hitler’s death because they caused the deaths of many directly? What about indirectly causing death? What about someone who has abused or harmed you personally? What about simply being an awful influence on the world or society?

It’s a good question.

I never like to see celebration over a death, because the people who worshipped the evil leader will take that scene and use it to their advantage. I prefer quiet happiness or relief or whatever the feeling is.

I am just fine with Rush Limbaugh no longer being on the airwaves though. Ding dong the witch is dead is exactly what popped into my head when I first heard.

” At what point does celebration become acceptable?”
Acceptable to whom? I will happily (but probably privately) celebrate the deaths of more than one in the coming years, which I don’t believe makes me evil or awful, just human.
As far as I know, it happens to pretty much everybody, and I will feel delight when a death prevents the suffering of anyone else.

I don’t think it’s right.

But sometimes I do something that isn’t right. I might have done something like that this morning.

The world is a better place now that Limbaugh is dead. F*ck him and his family and friends. They are all dogshit.

We needn’t feign sadness at the loss of this asshole or offer respect to his loved ones. We should be happy. Is that celebrating? I don’t know or care.

I do not think it hs anything too with good or bad. It has EVERYTHING to do with whether the celebrators are like minded especially politically with the deceased.

Bad as Hitler. Bad as people who tortured during the Spanish Inquisition. Bad as people who lynched in the US and anywhere in the world.

I don’t celebrate anyone’s death, but am I suppose to feel sympathy over the death of a man who banked on inflaming the worst in his listeners? A man who played on racial prejudice, misogyny, homophobia, who use to mock people with HIV/AIDS. A man who stated that drug users should be executed while shoving fist-fulls of Oxycontin into his face. A man who spent decades boastfully lighting up while denying that there was any connection between smoking and lung cancer (oh yes, Rush, there is, there really is). Am I suppose to pity such a person?

Darth nailed it. He was a disgusting, vile man.

I dont think its right either, but depending on the person, it could bring me more peace of mind.
Feeling joy at someone’s passing seems macabre, not something I could naturally feel.

If this is about Rush, his on-air persona was hard to take often, not a fan. But he was a strong ProLifer.

We’re all meat, we’re all gonna die. Maybe we should try to live in such a way that people won’t want to celebrate our death.

I wonder how many abortions he paid for for women he knocked up.

It doesn’t matter if we think it’s okay, or society thinks it’s okay. It’s about if you think it’s okay or, more specifically, what kind of person you want to be.

I wouldn’t celebrate anyone’s death, nor would I pretend to know what they may have meant to other people. That said, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over the loss of certain people either.

I like the way Filmfann said it…“I shed no tears but I don’t cheer either.”

Rush Limbaugh levels of bad caused me to say “well, that’s one down” immediately. I don’t really have a graph of badness versus acceptable post mortem delay before cheering.

I just find it interesting that some people are acting like lacking sympathy is morally worse than anything Rush Limbaugh ever said. I don’t consider lacking sympathy for someone dead to be the same as “celebrating” either. I think it’s just the human tendency to not want to ever speak ill of the dead, no matter who they were.

@Desmosthenes I saw Reps arguing MLK’s past sins recently, but they acknowledged the good. It’s hella sad political bias blinds some to the value in our fellow humans.

@Demosthenes: “I think it’s just the human tendency to not want to ever speak ill of the dead, no matter who they were.”

Do you think this is a healthy thing? I mean we do speak “ill of” lots of dead people.

@KNOWITALL: “It’s hella sad political bias blinds some to the value in our fellow humans.”

When someone like Limbaugh dies, there can easily be relief and joy (maybe even…celebration). The death represents the end of someone who spent their entire life dehumanizing people and causing harm. Their death is an indisputable positive. To insert some kind of “humanity” to the being that was Limbaugh would be wrong, and would do further harm.

@KNOWITALL

Ok, what good did Rush Limbaugh create in the world?

@hello321 I think this hesitancy to speak ill of the dead mainly applies to the recently deceased. It’s not as if we can’t properly evaluate the legacy of any dead notable figures. I think the criticism arises when the response in the immediate aftermath of their death is negative or mocking, or if the mocking is specific to their manner of death. Criticize Reagan all you want, for example, but I don’t think it’s right to mock his Alzheimer’s, as someone who lost a grandparent to Alzheimer’s. But mostly I think all this “respect the dead” stuff is just a means to call people out on hypocrisy and is not particularly useful. All the hand-wringing from conservatives right now…you’re not going to see them bemoaning the loss of Nancy Pelosi (and well you won’t see many liberals doing so either).

I’m reminded of a line from the Bible: “When the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.” – Proverbs 11:10

It may be human nature to not want to speak ill of the recently deceased, but it’s also human nature to feel relief or even celebration when a particularly awful person passes.

@KNOWITALL I would just like to see fair analyses of anyone and their legacy. Treating them like a saint because they died isn’t right. And I have a problem with dehumanizing anyone, even if the person being dehumanized engaged in dehumanizing as well. I like to try and be better than awful people. That’s just a personal thing for me, though.

@Desmosthenes I agree. Life is rarely that black and white.

It is a bit disturbing to see others taking joy in demeaning others, factual or not, whether its a figure like MLK or Rush. Both fallible humans who tried to do some good amidst their moral failings.

At least they tried.

^ What good did Limbaugh try to do?

He told the truth.

^ truth

Yeah, isn’t that the loaded word of the past few decades.

As a woman, I will not defend Rush Limbaugh.

But he’s made a fortune in a brilliant career and supported some foundations for leukemia, etc… Published 7 books. Trump gave him a medal. He fought the FCC and won, unheard of. A few good things.

^ None of those are good things.

@hello321 Sigh. Okay then.

Supporting charitable endeavors is fine and well, but I don’t really consider any of those others good in and of themselves. If the best thing you can say about someone is how much money they made then that doesn’t speak very highly of the person themself.

@Darth_Algar Yeah yeah, the first thing I said was about his ProLife work. I know it means nothing to liberals here, but to half the country, we appreciate that about him. Fighting for the most defenseless.

^ Right. The guy’s whole career was to push positions that were decidedly anti-life. And his opposition to reproductive freedom was informed by his misogyny, and is a reason to celebrate his death. The only good thing this guy might have done is to pet a dog once. Maybe.

@KNOWITALL

I see nothing about his “pro-life” stance in the post of yours I was responding to.

(And, frankly, he wasn’t pro-life at all. To him it was just an easy wedge issue to use to keep his listeners agitated and tuning in.)

Just enjoy your echo chamber of hate then. Shrug.

@KNOWITALL the irony of that statement is really escaping you.

Oh, for shit’s sake. Calling a spade a spade is not hate.

@KNOWITALL: “The fact is you choose not to educate yourself about someone and just call them names. Sad really for a person of your age.”

Do you think there is a single here – or anywhere in the US – that isn’t well-educated on Limbaugh?

You couldn’t even come up with anything he did that was good – except for the fact that he advocated for the state to control women’s bodies.

@hello321 I just refuse to make a list for you when as far as I know, you are fully capable of reading a book or article or bio like the rest of us. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t done some good thing’s in his life. It’s ignorant to even say that.

And hey, it’s perfectly legal in MOST states to kill fragile little babies who haven’t taken their first breath before they get a scalpel through the brain stem or torn apart piece by piece with a vaccum. But hey, freedom.

@KNOWITALL—do you view someone’s position on the pro-choice/pro-life issue as a measure of their moral character? You seem to be saying that since Limbaugh was pro-life, he’s a better person than his other actions would indicate. So on the flip side, if someone is pro-choice, do you think they are a worse person?

@sadiesayit This isn’t about abortion, it’s about respectful discourse. Thanks.

@KNOWITALL: “This isn’t about abortion, it’s about respectful discourse. Thanks.”

@KNOWITALL: “Just enjoy your echo chamber of hate then. Shrug.”

@hello321 Really great point there, kid. You really showed me!

@KNOWITALL: “This isn’t about abortion, it’s about respectful discourse. Thanks.”

@KNOWITALL: “Really great point there, kid.”

Look, I’m not the one who values “respectful discourse”. But you apparently do not either. You have called this an “echo chamber of hate”, called people immature, and repeatedly called people uninformed – despite the fact that I’m very well informed about Limbaugh.

Your guy is was a really bad person who caused tremendous harm and death. If you want to celebrate his legacy of recycling a can once or whatever, go right ahead. But when you name evil shit as one of the good things he’s done, expect some pushback.

Wow, @KNOWITALL you are just all over fluther being angry today. I don’t know what’s going on with you, but maybe taking some time off might make you feel better.

@hello321 You do know there are secular groups who are also Pro Life right? Even Democrats.
Look at these posts all because I said Rush wasn’t all bad in my opinion.

@canidmajor This Newspeak is hard on Libertarians, it does make me angry.

No. The first thing you said was “But he’s made a fortune…”

@Dutchess_III Is that what triggered everyone?

Honestly I thought it would be one comment and done. Its not even an interesting topic.

What is setting everyone off is you defending such a despicable, disgusting human being. That was my opinion of him even in the 80s when I was born again.

@Dutchess_III Interesting, another instance of two different perspectives.
I literally wrote that as a woman I wasn’t defending Rush Limbaugh but he did a few good things.
Maybe I should have listed the things about him I didnt like as well so there was no misunderstanding.

Ted Bundy once answered phone lines on a suicide prevention hotline. His good doesn’t out weigh the horrible bad in him. I feel the same about Rush Limbaugh.

@chyna: And apparently Ted was fairly good at it.

@KNOWITALL

No, what’s “setting eveyone off” is your barrage of snide comments while calling for “civil discourse”.

The guy is gone. Leave it at that. If only he had take Bill O’liarly and Sean Assity with him.

@KNOWITALL—I wasn’t talking about respectful discourse, I was responding to your comment about Limbaugh and abortion issues. It seemed odd to me. It seemed like you were saying: well, he wasn’t a good man, he did many harmful and despicable things, but I appreciate that he was pro-life.… because I wouldn’t say the reverse if he had been pro-choice. His being pro-choice wouldn’t somehow excuse the harm. I wouldn’t somehow accept the harm simply because it was advantageous to my position on an issue, and I didn’t understand why it seemed like you were.

But I think I see now that I was misreading your statements. If I understand correctly, you don’t see his other actions to be as harmful as others on this thread see them. (Which may explain why you’ve also offered what seems to me an inexplicable comparison between Limbaugh and MLK Jr.)

Limbaugh was undeniably a popular, successful radio persona. There are clearly millions of people who thought his persona and his actions were just fine. It’s not like that’s news. But it also shouldn’t be news that he was controversial because many others saw his persona and actions as corrosive and actively harmful. That’s not news either.

@OP—I don’t think that it’s only about being perceived as “bad.” I think it’s also about how much power/influence an individual has over others, and about how much interactions are “parasocial” (one person facing a “public” or “audience”). No one but Limbaugh’s close family knows who he was as an individual. That’s just a fact. Most know Limbaugh the public persona… and regardless of how closely or not closely that public persona matches the individual, it’s a different type of “relationship” to have. Death means something different in that context, and I think that can be okay as long as it’s understood for what it is.

When someone wields a lot of influence, and they use that influence in ways that cause harm, from certain perspectives their death means an end to harm, not a loss of “life.” I think ultimately that’s what people who are celebrating are celebrating, and I’m sure some are doing it with more tact than others, but I’m not going to be the one to judge that.

I’ve seen comments on other threads related to this topic that go something like: “It says more about the person celebrating the death than the person who died.” I’m not sure that’s true. I think it says how the person celebrating perceived the person who died—as someone who wielded the power and social status they had in ways that caused harm. I don’t think it says much else “about” the person celebrating, though.