Nancy Reagan, an Influential and Stylish First Lady, Dies at 94

[Flagg]

Therefore I find it perfectly acceptable to hate those in power and express my joy when they die. It is a position forged by lifetime experiences and it will not change just because it is impolite or improper or something.

I will only observe that practicing this inability to just stop hating people even for a short time, such as at the hour of their death, has a drawback with consequences. Namely, it is very good practice for becoming insane and malevolent and utterly, utterly lacking in perspective when one actually gets any power.

Practicing some minimum degree of graciousness toward designated 'class enemies' at certain times is not a weakness. It is an affirmation of the idea that civilization has values more important than hatred, such as the belief that death is undesirable and sad.

Sorry, but no, it totally depends on who does the dying in determining that the death in question was undesirable and sad. Hitler and Stalins deaths were both desirable and far from sad. When Dick Cheney's supply of hearts runs out, I will celebrate, same with the rest of the Iraq War-Monger Bunch. Some peoples deaths are only sad because they didn't happen before they could cause damage. No one cried in theaters (well, maybe psychopaths) when "Buffalo Bill" from 'The Silence of the Lambs' got shot full of holes and couldn't finish his woman suit.

[Gandalf]

I find the idea that if you "weren't alive or over <insert arbitrary age here> then you don't get to have an opinion" far more odious than the idea that she's "off limits" because she was a spouse despite her giving political advice based on what some con artist she paid (I'm assuming) a fuckton of money to see and get "readings" from said.

To be fair, there's an argument that people who never actually experienced what it was like to see Nancy Reagan as First Lady, and who never experienced the social and cultural environment in which she did what she did, lack context that might be needed to judge her. And that without this context, one should think twice about judging her as harshly.

What is this magical experiential knowledge that can't be gained via study, which also apparently precludes people from having negative opinions?

[Simon_Jester]

Gandalf, the knowledge gained through experience isn't magic, but most people do not study hard enough to acquire it.

MOST people under 40 who have strong opinions on the Reagan years are not themselves historians of the Reagan years. They do not know as much about the Reagan years as a politically and historically literate person who lived through those same years does.

There are no doubt exceptions to that rule. I'm sure there are any number of bright young graduate students in history departments across America who are every bit as qualified to comment on the Reagan years and on Nancy Reagan's impact as people like Tev, Broomstick, and (maybe, I don't remember how old he is) Thanas.

Thing is, I'm not one of them. So far as I know, none of the rest of us are either.

So if you pay attention to what I actually said, I said "one should think twice." One should think carefully, because one is speaking of a period and a person one knows only through the history books. History books recent enough that they are actively distorted by our opinions of current events, even!

I try to be careful in making judgments like that. Because I am aware that my knowledge of the past immediately before my birth may be highly, comically incomplete. So I try not to lecture people of my parents' generation on how the political figures they knew in their youth were monsters, just as I try not to lecture combat veterans on how to behave in combat.

I don't have all the facts on those eras, and while I have a right to my opinions, I do not have a right to pretend I'm in possession of all the facts. Assuming otherwise is blind arrogance.

Therefore I find it perfectly acceptable to hate those in power and express my joy when they die. It is a position forged by lifetime experiences and it will not change just because it is impolite or improper or something.

I will only observe that practicing this inability to just stop hating people even for a short time, such as at the hour of their death, has a drawback with consequences. Namely, it is very good practice for becoming insane and malevolent and utterly, utterly lacking in perspective when one actually gets any power.

Practicing some minimum degree of graciousness toward designated 'class enemies' at certain times is not a weakness. It is an affirmation of the idea that civilization has values more important than hatred, such as the belief that death is undesirable and sad.

Sorry, but no, it totally depends on who does the dying in determining that the death in question was undesirable and sad. Hitler and Stalins deaths were both desirable and far from sad. When Dick Cheney's supply of hearts runs out, I will celebrate, same with the rest of the Iraq War-Monger Bunch. Some peoples deaths are only sad because they didn't happen before they could cause damage. No one cried in theaters (well, maybe psychopaths) when "Buffalo Bill" from 'The Silence of the Lambs' got shot full of holes and couldn't finish his woman suit.

Pardon me, but I didn't say we should always be expected to exercise our "stop hating people" ability.

It's when we cannot exercise it at all, or never perceive the need to even try to do so, that the situation becomes toxic.

When, in other words, we cannot be bothered to "practice some degree of graciousness toward designated 'class enemies' at certain times."

You don't hate a massive war criminal or a serial killer just because they are a 'class enemy,' because they politically supported someone rich while you favor people who are poor. You hate them because of specific, horrible actions that were not merely mistaken or wrong, but actively, deliberately evil.

It's when we lose the ability to tell the difference between "this person was on the wrong team" and "this person was horrible and every bad thing that happens to them is just an opportunity to feel schadenfreude" that we start going bughouse crazy about politics and related issues.

It's not a good thing, to believe that death is always good when it happens in the enemy camp.

[Flagg]

I find the idea that if you "weren't alive or over <insert arbitrary age here> then you don't get to have an opinion" far more odious than the idea that she's "off limits" because she was a spouse despite her giving political advice based on what some con artist she paid (I'm assuming) a fuckton of money to see and get "readings" from said.

To be fair, there's an argument that people who never actually experienced what it was like to see Nancy Reagan as First Lady, and who never experienced the social and cultural environment in which she did what she did, lack context that might be needed to judge her. And that without this context, one should think twice about judging her as harshly.

What is this magical experiential knowledge that can't be gained via study, which also apparently precludes people from having negative opinions?

You didn't get to see her sitting on Mr. T's lap on the nightly news telling kids not to use drugs the day it happened?

Frankly, I find that position just plain bizarre. I mean you can say someone who was alive during xyz may have a bit more insight than someone who didn't, and they'll likely have an anecdote or 2 about how they felt and their opinion on the general mood at the time. That doesn't make them any more of an authority on the issue than someone who did research on the subject, however. Especially since many facts that come out after the time/event in question (and whatever emotions were prevalent at the time and may have clouded the issue have long since dissipated) can shed far more light on the subject than what a living witness of the times (I was one) can offer.

[Flagg]

I will only observe that practicing this inability to just stop hating people even for a short time, such as at the hour of their death, has a drawback with consequences. Namely, it is very good practice for becoming insane and malevolent and utterly, utterly lacking in perspective when one actually gets any power.

Practicing some minimum degree of graciousness toward designated 'class enemies' at certain times is not a weakness. It is an affirmation of the idea that civilization has values more important than hatred, such as the belief that death is undesirable and sad.

Sorry, but no, it totally depends on who does the dying in determining that the death in question was undesirable and sad. Hitler and Stalins deaths were both desirable and far from sad. When Dick Cheney's supply of hearts runs out, I will celebrate, same with the rest of the Iraq War-Monger Bunch. Some peoples deaths are only sad because they didn't happen before they could cause damage. No one cried in theaters (well, maybe psychopaths) when "Buffalo Bill" from 'The Silence of the Lambs' got shot full of holes and couldn't finish his woman suit.

Pardon me, but I didn't say we should always be expected to exercise our "stop hating people" ability.

It's when we cannot exercise it at all, or never perceive the need to even try to do so, that the situation becomes toxic.

When, in other words, we cannot be bothered to "practice some degree of graciousness toward designated 'class enemies' at certain times."

You don't hate a massive war criminal or a serial killer just because they are a 'class enemy,' because they politically supported someone rich while you favor people who are poor. You hate them because of specific, horrible actions that were not merely mistaken or wrong, but actively, deliberately evil.

It's when we lose the ability to tell the difference between "this person was on the wrong team" and "this person was horrible and every bad thing that happens to them is just an opportunity to feel schadenfreude" that we start going bughouse crazy about politics and related issues.

It's not a good thing, to believe that death is always good when it happens in the enemy camp.

Fair enough, but you made no distinction in the post I quoted. You simply said that "death is undesirable and sad" and didn't seem to make any allowances for that not always being the case. So thanks for clearing that up.

[Purple]

My issue here, and I think Broomstick and Tev share this, is that there's something deeply toxic about the habit of hating everyone who's "on the wrong team," including spouses and children if they allow themselves to be seen publicly aligning themselves with that "wrong team."

It's one thing when you can't (or choose not to) say good things about someone when they die if they actively screwed things up and were malevolent and harmful and corrupt and so on.

It's another matter entirely when people who, by all evidence, meant no harm and had some respectable virtues, but who happened to be aligned with the side that in retrospect led to problems we now face is so thoroughly hated that you can't even say "rest in peace" about them without someone deciding this is somehow grounds to dump on them and everything vaguely associated with them.

Hatred is a toxic thing. Hating people you disagree with is still a form of hatred, even if we think we have a reason for doing it.

[this is not me dumping on Flagg]

Sign me up for that as well.

[K. A. Pital]

Goodness my, I did not pretend to have a full factual overview of the person's life at my disposal when I made my comments.

Should I always? Paris Hilton is not a war criminal. Would I be a bad person for saying good riddance when she dies? Why exactly should I join the mourning - shall there be any?

There's some sort of moral high ground in mourning shitty people or even good people who are nonetheless opposed to everything you stand for, I grant that. It is something like a turn-the-other-cheek moment where you can shine.

But I guess I will still have a beer when some random person belonging to the rich elite loses posessions or even life. That's not cruel, her relatives are not on this board reading the threads. I haven't made anything to inflict this outcome on said person.

Schadenfreude is one of the few pleasures that is available to the lowly and defeated, and as I am defeated, I will still stand by this. Being a hypocrite is not really my thing. If I don't feel sad when a particular person dies because I feel that person is not worth being sad at all, I can't be made to feel sad by mere social custom...

[Purple]

The way I see it, and this is my opinion only, people who you consider your political opponents occupy a particular niche where you really should not allow your self to hate them simply because it leads to all sorts of unwanted political behavior such as tribalism, party instead of platform loyalty, lack of a desire to compromise etc. Overall it's just a negative habit to have.

[K. A. Pital]

Paris Hilton is not even a political opponent, but I still wouldn't bother with mourning or witholding bad comments about her personality. Perhaps hate is too strong a word and I was mistaken to describe this feeling as hate. There is enough casual disgust that when they die, I am naturally inclined to comment it with good riddance.

[Purple]

Paris Hilton is not even a political opponent, but I still wouldn't bother with mourning or witholding bad comments about her personality. Perhaps hate is too strong a word and I was mistaken to describe this feeling as hate. There is enough casual disgust that when they die, I am naturally inclined to comment it with good riddance.

I generally agree. Really as I said I only make the exception for political opponents in order to ensure I don't build up a bad habit.

[Simon_Jester]

You didn't get to see her sitting on Mr. T's lap on the nightly news telling kids not to use drugs the day it happened?

Frankly, I find that position just plain bizarre. I mean you can say someone who was alive during xyz may have a bit more insight than someone who didn't, and they'll likely have an anecdote or 2 about how they felt and their opinion on the general mood at the time. That doesn't make them any more of an authority on the issue than someone who did research on the subject, however. Especially since many facts that come out after the time/event in question (and whatever emotions were prevalent at the time and may have clouded the issue have long since dissipated) can shed far more light on the subject than what a living witness of the times (I was one) can offer.

A random person who lived through events may not know more about them overall than a highly informed person who didn't live through them.

But... to give an example...

Immediately after 9/11, there was a lot of popular support for a lot of stupid shit. Some of us were saying it was stupid at the time. Some of us weren't. I was just barely old enough to even have an opinion on those issues (an underinformed, fifteen year old opinion). But I remember a hell of a lot of people who were scared, who were talking up "this changes everything" and so on.

Someone five or ten years younger than me wouldn't have any real memory of this happening because they just plain did not participate in public discourse at that time. They might honestly have no concept of just how widespread the fear of terrorism was after 9/11, or to what extent it motivated the public to back idiotic policies by President Bush and by Congress at the time.

This could, for example, create a distorted picture- say, because it might reasonably lead young people to imagine that the climate of fear was engineered by the Bush administration. It wasn't; they didn't have to engineer it, it was already there. They capitalized on it but they didn't invent it.

Remembering what it was like to experience certain events can grant a very important perspective. I'm not saying people shouldn't comment on events they didn't experience, or didn't experience as an adult. But a certain degree of caution and circumspection is in order. They may know something younger people do not. Sort of like how I would be cautious and circumspect in discussing combat with a combat veteran- they've been there, and I haven't. Or how I'd be cautious and circumspect in discussing sexual harassment with women- they've experienced a hell of a lot more of it than I have.

So I consider it the height of arrogance to stake out strong positions, especially hateful positions, on recent historical events that one does not personally remember.

Fair enough, but you made no distinction in the post I quoted. You simply said that "death is undesirable and sad" and didn't seem to make any allowances for that not always being the case. So thanks for clearing that up.

What I was saying there is that "death is undesirable and sad" is one of the values of a civilized society- and frankly, I'll stand by that. That doesn't mean that only death is undesirable and sad, or that there are no situations where death is the lesser of two evils.

But when we start viewing death as a positive good when it happens to broad categories of people... nothing wholesome can come out of that worldview.

Goodness my, I did not pretend to have a full factual overview of the person's life at my disposal when I made my comments.

Should I always? Paris Hilton is not a war criminal. Would I be a bad person for saying good riddance when she dies? Why exactly should I join the mourning - shall there be any?

There's some sort of moral high ground in mourning shitty people or even good people who are nonetheless opposed to everything you stand for, I grant that. It is something like a turn-the-other-cheek moment where you can shine.

But I guess I will still have a beer when some random person belonging to the rich elite loses posessions or even life. That's not cruel, her relatives are not on this board reading the threads. I haven't made anything to inflict this outcome on said person.

Schadenfreude is one of the few pleasures that is available to the lowly and defeated, and as I am defeated, I will still stand by this. Being a hypocrite is not really my thing. If I don't feel sad when a particular person dies because I feel that person is not worth being sad at all, I can't be made to feel sad by mere social custom...

I suppose my view on such things is informed by Frances Harper's take.

"Do not cheer; men are dying."

And I believe it good, to continue to practice the virtues of civilization even when dealing with enemies, for it affirms that civilization is larger and grander and greater than its enemies. And I would argue that one of the practices of civilization is to refrain from taking too much delight in the suffering of others. Because many of the worse practices of barbarism come from enjoying that suffering so much that one starts going out of one's way to inflict it.

[Flagg]

After 9/11 the Bush administration did everything in its power to heighten the level of fear to get their war in Iraq with their color coded nonsense. Not to mention how there would be a terror warning every time Democrats held an event. But these are all things someone can look up for themselves.

Frankly I find this idea that if you weren't alive or of a certain age during xyz, then you don't get to have an opinion arrogant and against everything this board is supposed to be about.

I wasn't alive during the Kennedy assassination, so I guess I must yield the floor to an idiot 30 years older than me who thinks the CIA, Castro, and the Mafia teamed up to shoot him? Despite Oswald being a Marine (One shot one kill!) getting it done in 3 shots, I must keep my mouth shut because I'm a millennial but some stupid asshat happens to be a baby boomer and says he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn?

I wasn't there for the moon landing, so despite the fact that I'm intelligent enough to realize that if we faked it the USSR would have outed us faster than a Tabloid in John Travolta's hot tub I have to shut up because someone who was 9 at the time says it was shot on a sound stage because the flag moved?

It's a ridiculous position to hold. Literally the only insight that can be shared is anecdotal and general information on how people felt at the time, which you can get just by doing cursory research.

The only real exemptions to this are the participants, and in some cases they may well have reason to lie. Like Watergate.



---------

And sorry, but as in the case of Pol Pot, to borrow a phrase from Stephen King "Sometimes, dead is better."

[Simon_Jester]

After 9/11 the Bush administration did everything in its power to heighten the level of fear to get their war in Iraq with their color coded nonsense. Not to mention how there would be a terror warning every time Democrats held an event. But these are all things someone can look up for themselves.

Frankly I find this idea that if you weren't alive or of a certain age during xyz, then you don't get to have an opinion arrogant and against everything this board is supposed to be about.

It wouldn't seem so ridiculous if you weren't exaggerating.

This isn't about "you weren't there so shut up."

It's about "don't assume you know all the facts without a damn good reason."

The point is to keep some awareness of the possibility that people who have personally witnessed a thing might know something about it that I, who am not an eyewitness, might not know, and which might be significant.

I mean, seriously, what this board is supposed to be about is in large part intellectual integrity. Part of having intellectual integrity is being able to admit one MIGHT not be in possession of all the facts. Because it's impossible to have a meaningful truth-oriented conversation, unless one has the mental humility to admit that other people may know something important, but which we ourselves are not aware of.

Transparently wrong opinions can be rejected out of hand, regardless of who promotes them. People aren't right because of experiences, they're right because they're factually correct, or wrong because they're factually wrong.

The point is that facts take many forms, knowledge takes many forms, and there are many differences between having all the facts and having few of the facts. Reading a couple of books or Internet articles does not make me, or anyone, an instant expert on a subject I haven't experienced. It may arm me with facts that the person with the experience does not know... but it doesn't arm me with all the facts.

I wasn't alive during the Kennedy assassination, so I guess I must yield the floor to an idiot 30 years older than me who thinks the CIA, Castro, and the Mafia teamed up to shoot him? Despite Oswald being a Marine (One shot one kill!) getting it done in 3 shots, I must keep my mouth shut because I'm a millennial but some stupid asshat happens to be a baby boomer and says he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn?

I wasn't there for the moon landing, so despite the fact that I'm intelligent enough to realize that if we faked it the USSR would have outed us faster than a Tabloid in John Travolta's hot tub I have to shut up because someone who was 9 at the time says it was shot on a sound stage because the flag moved?

It's a ridiculous position to hold. Literally the only insight that can be shared is anecdotal and general information on how people felt at the time, which you can get just by doing cursory research.

See above. When we're making historical judgments about the legacy of persons or the political climate of an era, hell yes the facts get distorted.

Are other distortions possible? Are people who experienced the events in question often themselves biased? Yes.

But to me, it is still at least worth paying attention to facts brought to my attention by people who had more access to the relevant knowledge than myself. It is worth seriously considering that maybe they think as they think because they know things I don't know.

I work with teenagers every day; I've got lots of experience with people who believe that life experience isn't important because they're in possession of all the facts that truly matter. It's... instructive to behold how they treat each other and their surroundings as a consequence.

And sorry, but as in the case of Pol Pot, to borrow a phrase from Stephen King "Sometimes, dead is better."

[sighs]

You're not hearing me.

I came out and said there are cases where death is the lesser of two evils. But death is still an evil. Taking glee in it is an ugly thing and lends itself to barbarism. The only reason to celebrate a death is to celebrate safety or peace or some such thing, brought about by that death. People had a reason to celebrate the downfall of Naziism because it meant they would live and not die, and that others would live and not die.

But celebrating the death of Leni Riefenstahl or whoever, long after she ceased to pose an actual threat to anyone, is pointless. Indulging a barbaric impulse.

[TimothyC]

Just to be clear, I was explaining the post I quoted, not agreeing with it. I've got a Kasich logo as my avatar here for goodness sake!

[Flagg]

After 9/11 the Bush administration did everything in its power to heighten the level of fear to get their war in Iraq with their color coded nonsense. Not to mention how there would be a terror warning every time Democrats held an event. But these are all things someone can look up for themselves.

Frankly I find this idea that if you weren't alive or of a certain age during xyz, then you don't get to have an opinion arrogant and against everything this board is supposed to be about.

It wouldn't seem so ridiculous if you weren't exaggerating.

This isn't about "you weren't there so shut up."

It's about "don't assume you know all the facts without a damn good reason."

The point is to keep some awareness of the possibility that people who have personally witnessed a thing might know something about it that I, who am not an eyewitness, might not know, and which might be significant.

I mean, seriously, what this board is supposed to be about is in large part intellectual integrity. Part of having intellectual integrity is being able to admit one MIGHT not be in possession of all the facts. Because it's impossible to have a meaningful truth-oriented conversation, unless one has the mental humility to admit that other people may know something important, but which we ourselves are not aware of.

Transparently wrong opinions can be rejected out of hand, regardless of who promotes them. People aren't right because of experiences, they're right because they're factually correct, or wrong because they're factually wrong.

The point is that facts take many forms, knowledge takes many forms, and there are many differences between having all the facts and having few of the facts. Reading a couple of books or Internet articles does not make me, or anyone, an instant expert on a subject I haven't experienced. It may arm me with facts that the person with the experience does not know... but it doesn't arm me with all the facts.

I wasn't alive during the Kennedy assassination, so I guess I must yield the floor to an idiot 30 years older than me who thinks the CIA, Castro, and the Mafia teamed up to shoot him? Despite Oswald being a Marine (One shot one kill!) getting it done in 3 shots, I must keep my mouth shut because I'm a millennial but some stupid asshat happens to be a baby boomer and says he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn?

I wasn't there for the moon landing, so despite the fact that I'm intelligent enough to realize that if we faked it the USSR would have outed us faster than a Tabloid in John Travolta's hot tub I have to shut up because someone who was 9 at the time says it was shot on a sound stage because the flag moved?

It's a ridiculous position to hold. Literally the only insight that can be shared is anecdotal and general information on how people felt at the time, which you can get just by doing cursory research.

See above. When we're making historical judgments about the legacy of persons or the political climate of an era, hell yes the facts get distorted.

Are other distortions possible? Are people who experienced the events in question often themselves biased? Yes.

But to me, it is still at least worth paying attention to facts brought to my attention by people who had more access to the relevant knowledge than myself. It is worth seriously considering that maybe they think as they think because they know things I don't know.

I work with teenagers every day; I've got lots of experience with people who believe that life experience isn't important because they're in possession of all the facts that truly matter. It's... instructive to behold how they treat each other and their surroundings as a consequence.

And sorry, but as in the case of Pol Pot, to borrow a phrase from Stephen King "Sometimes, dead is better."

[sighs]

You're not hearing me.

I came out and said there are cases where death is the lesser of two evils. But death is still an evil. Taking glee in it is an ugly thing and lends itself to barbarism. The only reason to celebrate a death is to celebrate safety or peace or some such thing, brought about by that death. People had a reason to celebrate the downfall of Naziism because it meant they would live and not die, and that others would live and not die.

But celebrating the death of Leni Riefenstahl or whoever, long after she ceased to pose an actual threat to anyone, is pointless. Indulging a barbaric impulse.

You are more than free to hold the opinion that the death of a dick, even when it is long after they caused harm, is not something to celebrate. I don't agree. Since this is a matter of subjectivity rather than objectivity, I honestly don't see the point of going round and round on it. Impasse reached, I'm fully prepared to agree to disagree.

But Tev literally said that if people weren't above the age of 8 when Ronald Von Ray-Gun, traitor in chief, was in office then they don't get to have an opinion. That's anathema to what this board stands for. That's really all I've taken issue with. I don't think Nancy Reagan deserves to be shat upon in death and I've said why several times already. But simply being alive and aware of the goings on and general attitudes at the time doesn't give your opinion more validity than that of someone under <insert arbitrary age here>.
As I said before: Many times more information about certain events and time periods comes to light after, sometimes decades after, said events and time periods occurred. And I put more trust in the knowledge of people who've studied the events rather than someone who just happened to be alive during that time period, with the obvious exception of the actors involved. Does that make more sense?

[Flagg]

Just to be clear, I was explaining the post I quoted, not agreeing with it. I've got a Kasich logo as my avatar here for goodness sake!

Yeah, I got that due to the " " emote. But were you over 8???

[Gandalf]

The conversation advanced while I was asleep in my superior GMT+11 time zone, so I'll jump back in here. Flagg, visionary that he is, said pretty much everything that I was going to say.

But Tev literally said that if people weren't above the age of 8 when Ronald Von Ray-Gun, traitor in chief, was in office then they don't get to have an opinion. That's anathema to what this board stands for. That's really all I've taken issue with. I don't think Nancy Reagan deserves to be shat upon in death and I've said why several times already. But simply being alive and aware of the goings on and general attitudes at the time doesn't give your opinion more validity than that of someone under <insert arbitrary age here>.
As I said before: Many times more information about certain events and time periods comes to light after, sometimes decades after, said events and time periods occurred. And I put more trust in the knowledge of people who've studied the events rather than someone who just happened to be alive during that time period, with the obvious exception of the actors involved. Does that make more sense?

Another downside of the "You weren't there" argument is that it's essentially the same rationale used to shut people out of international discussions by making up a source of authority. "You aren't American, so STFU" is a common enough sentiment on the internet, and I don't see how this is any different.

Gandalf, the knowledge gained through experience isn't magic, but most people do not study hard enough to acquire it.

MOST people under 40 who have strong opinions on the Reagan years are not themselves historians of the Reagan years. They do not know as much about the Reagan years as a politically and historically literate person who lived through those same years does.

There are no doubt exceptions to that rule. I'm sure there are any number of bright young graduate students in history departments across America who are every bit as qualified to comment on the Reagan years and on Nancy Reagan's impact as people like Tev, Broomstick, and (maybe, I don't remember how old he is) Thanas.

Thing is, I'm not one of them. So far as I know, none of the rest of us are either.

I need to make sure I'm reading this right. You're equivocating the qualification of being a grad student studying the reign of Von Reagan with being alive in 1972*?

[Simon_Jester]

That would be an understatement.

"Every bit as qualified" does not in my mind exclude "more qualified than."

And I say 'graduate' simply because, frankly, I suspect that the average history student may NOT know more about the politics of the '80s than the average intelligent person who lived through them. Whereas students who specialize in that subject or in a related area would know more.

Also, I will note that I would trust Tev, Broomstick, and Thanas to be more accurate commentators on events than the average person who lived through the 1980s. So the average undergraduate history student, say, might very well NOT have a better sense for what happened in the 1980s and its consequences than they do. Whereas, again, a specialist who had made a study of such things would, at least I hope so because otherwise they'd be a crappy excuse for a specialist.

[LadyTevar]

NOW, since my statement seems to be at issue here, let's take another look at it, shall we?

{quote="LadyTevar"]please, tell me this: Were you alive during Reagan's 8yrs in office?
And by alive, I mean above the age of 8, when you're smart enough to understand what was going on.
If the answer is "no", as I fully expect none of you are my age, then apologies for being dickheads and GTFO.[/quote]

Now... WHERE IN THIS DO I SAY YOU CAN"T HAVE AN OPINION?
I ask you to apologise for being dickheads and dumping shit on a dead woman, because none of you were alive to be there. I then go on to explain what I felt she did right. I DO NOT TELL YOU YOU CAN"T DISAGREE WITH ME.

But, Now, I'll put this so you folks can understand -- I DO NOT LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE SPEAK ILL OF THE DEAD. Thus, I yell at KA Pital and those with him. I'm Still Looking at KA PITAL for being a jackass in this thread, with his "I hate rich people" speel.
Fine, Hate Rich People. We all do. DO IT ELSEWHERE, so the rest of us can have an intelligent conversation about how Nancy Reagan's life affected us and America as a whole.

Speaking of which, I always thought that Nancy Reagan was a throwback to Eleanor Roosevelt, who also pushed for reforms and worked just as hard as her husband to improve the country. After Eleanor, there was a spate of First Ladies who fell back into the 'seen, not heard' mode. What did Bess Truan do? Jackie Kennedy was well-known for her clothing, and for putting up with Kennedy's ladies, but what else? What of LadyBird Johnson, or Pat Nixon? Betty Ford has her clinics, but really, is that a good thing? Rosilyn Carter?

After nearly 40 years of quiet, complacent First Ladies, Nancy Reagan's strong political support of her husband, and her indorsement of a Cause was surprising, and also very emboldening for the rising class of Working Women. I understand many women took Nancy's step forward as a way to show women can be more than just a wife, they can work and have a family as well. Something that was needed, as the 80s was also the point where Women were truly breaking into the working world (mainly because it was the point where families started needing two breadwinner to pay bills).

[Gandalf]

NOW, since my statement seems to be at issue here, let's take another look at it, shall we?

{quote="LadyTevar"]please, tell me this: Were you alive during Reagan's 8yrs in office?
And by alive, I mean above the age of 8, when you're smart enough to understand what was going on.
If the answer is "no", as I fully expect none of you are my age, then apologies for being dickheads and GTFO.

Now... WHERE IN THIS DO I SAY YOU CAN"T HAVE AN OPINION?[/quote]

The "GTFO" seems somewhat damning there. Would you be similarly annoyed if someone born in 1990 posted a somewhat positive response to Reagan's death?

But, Now, I'll put this so you folks can understand -- I DO NOT LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE SPEAK ILL OF THE DEAD.

This is a viewpoint I've never been able to grasp. Does this apply to all deceased?

[Zaune]

*sigh* You know what I think? Whatever Nancy Reagan did with her life, cheering about the fact she's dead is crass in the extreme. Let's not do that, huh?

[LadyTevar]

Again, Gandalf... I meant the GTFO more to those dumping on the dead without reason (see KA PITAL), than to anyone givig INTELLIGENT responses.

As for speaking Ill of the Dead, there's a line between intelligently discussing how they tried to make a change, and dumping shit on them for how it turned out 30+yrs after the fact. (See KA PITAL).

Thank you Zuane. That's how I should have put it to begin with.

[Flagg]

Tev, just admit you wanted everyone who doesn't think Nancy Reagan was a wonderful woman to not comment, so you threw a tantrum. Because it's clear to everyone but Simon_Paragraphs that that's exactly what happened.

[Broomstick]

Betty Ford has her clinics, but really, is that a good thing?

Yes, actually it was.

Betty Ford did two things that were quite important. First, she was open about having breast cancer and a mastectomy. That happened in 1974. For those of you who don't remember, weren't around at the time, or haven't studied the period in question, in those days people didn't talk about cancer, didn't admit to having cancer, and even doctors often hesitated to tell their patients the diagnosis. It's really hard to come up with a disease that it "not spoken of" in such a manner - AIDS during the 1980's/1990's is somewhat comparable. When her cancer and surgery were announced TV news readers stumbled over whether or not it was even allowed to say "cancer" on TV. Really, her coming forward about it not only raised public awareness, it removed a lot of shame and whispering and was the start of modern fund-raisers and patient advocacy.

Second, the whole Betty Ford clinic thing - alcoholism was either a joke or something One Did Not Speak Of, and drugs were only for low-class riff-raff and hippies, it didn't happen in our neighborhood! But, of course, it does... Coming forward as an upper-class woman admitting she had a problem was, like with her cancer, a big deal at the time and brought out into the light of day something that generations had swept under the rug.

I understand many women took Nancy's step forward as a way to show women can be more than just a wife, they can work and have a family as well.

Not only that, but a conservative woman could be more than just a wife. There was an upsurge in women, particularly conservative women, launching into politics and business after the kids were grown, or at least school age, and she was at least part of the inspiration for that. (Needing two incomes to support the average family was also part of that, too.)

Yes, the "just say no" campaign was silly and not very effective. It was mocked pretty much from the start by comedians and late-night TV. On the other hand, it wasn't terribly oppressive, either, and was probably the least-toxic part of the "war on drugs".

Frankly, I blame Nixon.

After Nixon resigned we got Ford, but Ford was never elected president, he was appointed to replace the Vice President, who had resigned, then the president resigned... and holy shit! We have a non-elected president! OMG! Democracy in flames! Nevermind that Ford was very careful to remain largely a placeholder, and by most accounts did a good job of running the PotUS end of the government until the next election - there was no way in hell he was going to be elected. Basically, anyone the Democrats nominated was going to win. So we got Carter. I still think part of Carter's problems were international events over which he had little or no control, but the upshot was that by the end of his term most people were very unhappy with how things were and there wasn't a chance in hell he'd be re-elected. Basically, anyone the Republicans nominated was going to win. And after the Nixon fiasco the Republicans very much wanted someone who was squeaky-clean and looked "presidential".

So they hired an actor.

No, really, both Ronnie and Nancy in many ways were actors playing the parts of President and First Lady. Oh, Reagan was a real politician, too, but a good chunk of his success was his acting ability. The two of them might have been mediocre by Hollywood standards, but that still made them better actors than the majority of politicians in Washington, DC and damn, they really did have the roles down cold. At the time there was much talk of bringing "dignity back to the office of president", and that phrase came from Nixon being forced to resign, Ford being a total klutz, and Carter being just a little too "down home" casual for most peoples' taste in head of state.

Was that the only factor at work? Of course not, but it was one of many.

[Flagg]

Again, Gandalf... I meant the GTFO more to those dumping on the dead without reason (see KA PITAL), than to anyone givig INTELLIGENT responses.

As for speaking Ill of the Dead, there's a line between intelligently discussing how they tried to make a change, and dumping shit on them for how it turned out 30+yrs after the fact. (See KA PITAL).

Thank you Zuane. That's how I should have put it to begin with.

Sorry, but I call total bullshit. You didn't even take the time to recognize that TimothyC was not agreeing with the person who didn't want Nancy to "RIP" and lumped him in with those that were glad she's dead.

And furthermore, K.A. Pital gave a reason for his statement. Namely, that she supported her husbands policy.

And let's not pretend that this is the first time you've just lashed out at people with a differing opinion than yours by making an authoritative statement and then telling them to shut up. The Fallout 4 thread being an example, where I was criticizing how stupid I felt the premise was, followed by you telling me that what I was criticizing is why it's a beloved classic and that I should STFU or GTFO.

And frankly, Nancy Reagan had a lot of input into policy positions taken by her husband (something you didn't need to be alive or of a certain age at the time to know) so I don't find it unreasonable for people to criticize her now that she's worm food.

Really, when horrible people (not that I think she was, I don't) die is when all of the shitty things they did while alive get glossed over, so as far as I'm concerned it's the time when they absolutely must be criticized. Otherwise all of the horrid shit they did in life gets buried with them. So if you don't like it when the dead get hammered on due to their actions in life, don't go into the thread to make a +1 RIP post or grow a thicker skin.