Strom Thurmond - DEAD

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, they should be honoured. However, this does not mean the rest of their lives become exempt from criticism.

I agree completely.

I don't see why the former statement must erase the latter one or make it any less true.

It shouldn't; my complaint is primarily about personal attacks. Criticism and critique is inevitable in a democracy and just fine.

A request which I find wholly objectionable, utterly without merit, completely unjustified by anything but crass appeals to militarist sentiment, and which I refuse to honour. If a veteran is a pedophile but dies, am I not allowed to criticize his disgusting behaviour now?

I would still support such criticism, even while they are dead. My complaint is when it turns into an attack on the character of the person. "Strom Thurmond was a segregationist" -- Okay, that's established fact, say that, that's fine with me, nobody will dispute it. Why, though, go into insults, go into jubilation, over his death?

He can't respond to them, and it isn't like he's some universally reviled individual. So, I would submit, maintain a balanced view of the dead, particularly those who's actions are not ones which can be so easily and decisively morally judged to weigh the whole of their character towards good or evil: Critique what they did, and what they were a part of, but why should one go ahead and lay insults upon a grave? It just seems utterly gratuitous and disrespectful.

[Gil Hamilton]

Paul Welllstone never risked his life in support of his nation, and was in fact engaged in opposition to our country's policies during a critical era, opposition which, in the long-term, has resulted in some of the most severe political divisiveness in our history. The protestors of the Vietnam Era crossed the line into sedition.

Thurmond? His politics were contemptible, but he could, at least, fight for his nation, and that is a far more admirable stand than any political stand--it shows you value something higher than mere political differences. Thurmond's record as a soldier is certainly more important than the record of any politician. The record of any soldier, even the lowliest private soldier, is more important than the record of any politician.

Get your head out of your case of romanticism, and be objective for a second. You'd never even hear of Thurmond except possibly as a blurb in some archive or a yet another name carved into a monument with hundred thousand other names. His political career and policies were a hundred times more indicative of who he was and effected many more people than his military career did. His politics were and are indefensible and are very much worthy of scorn. In the end, people aren't going to remember Strom Thurmond the paratrooper, but Strom Thurmond the Senator and the Segregationist.

[kojikun]

And again, I must ask: WHY?

Why the fuck does a dead soldier become exempt from criticism for anything he might do in the rest of his life? Adolf Hitler served in his fucking military, and he's dead now. Does that mean we're supposed to respect him?

Because Marina is a goosestepping nazi who believes absolutely obedience to the state is more important then devotion to the ideals of the state.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Get your head out of your case of romanticism, and be objective for a second. You'd never even hear of Thurmond except possibly as a blurb in some archive or a yet another name carved into a monument with hundred thousand other names. His political career and policies were a hundred times more indicative of who he was and effected many more people than his military career did. His politics were and are indefensible and are very much worthy of scorn. In the end, people aren't going to remember Strom Thurmond the paratrooper, but Strom Thurmond the Senator and the Segregationist.

Yes, and that's why he had to endure this while alive. He opened himself to it. But on an objective level, why should he be treated any differently than any of those others now that he is gone? Honoured for the sacrifice, irrespective of the end result of the rest of their lives. Does it matter if they died alcoholics, quietly going out "behind the woodshed" as the members of their generation did, to kill the memories? Or perhaps the occasional suicide? Or the ones who were wife-beaters because they'd seen their fathers beat their mothers? They're all to be remembered in the same fashion as the ones who can be fully held up to the public eye.

So why shouldn't Strom Thurmond the Segregationist simply be remembered the same way now that he's dead? Merely as a soldier? Does it matter that afterwards he was flawed, that he did these things, that he proved himself all-to-human? Should we punish him for making his flaws of a public nature? The punishment was already inevitable while he was alive, one grants, and necessary for the function of the Republic--but the punishment while he is dead, that is quite gratuitous. Let him rest with his comrades, all of them at once both gods and men.

[Gil Hamilton]

Paul Wellstone had no redeeming qualities. He was a politician; I would say the same thing about any other politician. Thurmond, on the other hand, gains his redeeming qualities from being a soldier--just as would any other soldier who has seen action, regardless of rank or position.

Bull and shit. First of all, Paul Wellstone did have redeeming qualities, most everyone does. Secondly, you claim that you'd say the same thing about any other politician, but that goes against your entire tirade in this thread. You are refusing to treat him as a politician, even though that ultimately who he was. Your double standard is completely nullifying your entire argument.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Because Marina is a goosestepping nazi who believes absolutely obedience to the state is more important then devotion to the ideals of the state.

The ideals of the State are what constitute the true nature of the State, and you are foolish to think that any State lasts very long which does not hold its soldiery in high regard.

[Iceberg]

Because he was a public figure, a politician, and politicians do NOT become immune to criticism, either personal or political, when they die, Marina. Fuck, Wellstone wasn't even in the goddamn GROUND before people started pissing on his memory.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Bull and shit. First of all, Paul Wellstone did have redeeming qualities, most everyone does. Secondly, you claim that you'd say the same thing about any other politician, but that goes against your entire tirade in this thread. You are refusing to treat him as a politician, even though that ultimately who he was. Your double standard is completely nullifying your entire argument.

There is no double standard, because the entire argument revolves around treating Thurmond as a soldier instead of a politician now that he is dead. Wellstone never was a soldier and so cannot even really enter into this debate except as a stupid and facile tactic by yourself to try and divert attention from the real argument, which is: Do soldiers deserve, once they have died, to be accorded respect by the populace beyond other people, even if they were public figures?

[Iceberg]

There is no double standard, because the entire argument revolves around treating Thurmond as a soldier instead of a politician now that he is dead. Wellstone never was a soldier and so cannot even really enter into this debate except as a stupid and facile tactic by yourself to try and divert attention from the real argument, which is: Do soldiers deserve, once they have died, to be accorded respect by the populace beyond other people, even if they were public figures?

Thurmond was a politician for most of his adult life, certainly more of it than he spent as a soldier (most of which he spent in reserve while he was a politician). His political service outweighs his military service, as it constitutes the vast bulk of his public career.

[The Prime Necromancer]

A request which I find wholly objectionable, utterly without merit, completely unjustified by anything but crass appeals to militarist sentiment, and which I refuse to honour. If a veteran is a pedophile but dies, am I not allowed to criticize his disgusting behaviour now?

I would still support such criticism, even while they are dead. My complaint is when it turns into an attack on the character of the person. "Strom Thurmond was a segregationist" -- Okay, that's established fact, say that, that's fine with me, nobody will dispute it. Why, though, go into insults, go into jubilation, over his death?

Forgive me if I'm utterly off base, Duchess, but then you find the following exchange of dialogue perfectly acceptable:





Me: Strom Thurmond was a segregationalist and a racist

DoZ: ....

Me: Storm Thurmond fought tooth and nail against civil rights legislation, including setting the current record for longest filibuster while speaking against a civil rights bill.

DoZ: (still quiet)

Me: In light of these facts, I find Strom Thurmond to be a morally reprehensible human being, and thus, I have no sadness in my heart over his passing.

DoZ: PERSONAL ATTACK ON A VETERAN!!! CRUSH! MAIM!! KILLLLLLL!!!!




Don't you see anything a little *wrong* with that?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And again, I must ask: WHY?

Because the contribution of a soldier to society is more valuable than that of a politician--since soldiers fight for the society as a whole instead of just their political ideology, and moreover risk their lives in doing so instead of just their reputations--and so his contribution to America as a soldier outweighs his negative works as a politician.

Why the fuck does a dead soldier become exempt from criticism for anything he might do in the rest of his life? Adolf Hitler served in his fucking military, and he's dead now. Does that mean we're supposed to respect him?

Absolutely not. Especially not us, anyway--I don't know how the Germans would regard his military service, at any rate, but that's their own business. And, certainly, go ahead and criticize Thurmond--I've said that repeatedly. I'm just arguing against insulting Thurmond now that he's dead. There is a difference.

[Dark Hellion]

Do soldiers deserve, once they have died, to be accorded respect by the populace beyond other people, even if they were public figures?

Yes they do, however, bigoted assholes also deserve to be treated with scorn and indignant remembrance as well. Don't confuse service with some type of quasireligious freedom from responsibilty.
You seem to be far to capable of overlooking his culpability in his many actions simple because he was a veteran. Many of the arabic people who would gladely suicide bomb themselves into american targets are also veterans who fought for there country and its ideals, however, if they die you will say good riddance. Don't make soldiery into divinity or you will fall when you heros turn out to be mere mortals with the same vices as you and me.

[Iceberg]

And again, I must ask: WHY?

Because the contribution of a soldier to society is more valuable than that of a politician--since soldiers fight for the society as a whole instead of just their political ideology, and moreover risk their lives in doing so instead of just their reputations--and so his contribution to America as a soldier outweighs his negative works as a politician.

No offense intended, Marina, but screw that. Five years of service as a soldier during World War II, however admirable, do not cancel out five decades of political history, particularly political history which is as morally questionable as Senator Thurmond's.

[kojikun]

The ideals of the State are what constitute the true nature of the State, and you are foolish to think that any State lasts very long which does not hold its soldiery in high regard.

And ofcourse we ALL know that the ideals of a state are ALWAYS supported regardless of what leaders say. Oh, wait, I just forgot the past 300 years of history, sorry, let me start over.

And ofcourse we ALL know that Marina is a crack smoking idiot who can't separate reality from nazi fantasy.

Thats better.

[Durandal]

And again, I must ask: WHY?

Because the contribution of a soldier to society is more valuable than that of a politician--since soldiers fight for the society as a whole instead of just their political ideology, and moreover risk their lives in doing so instead of just their reputations--and so his contribution to America as a soldier outweighs his negative works as a politician.

This isn't mathematics. Soldiers are just as capable of being assholes as the rest of the population.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes, and that's why he had to endure this while alive. He opened himself to it. But on an objective level, why should he be treated any differently than any of those others now that he is gone? Honoured for the sacrifice, irrespective of the end result of the rest of their lives. Does it matter if they died alcoholics, quietly going out "behind the woodshed" as the members of their generation did, to kill the memories? Or perhaps the occasional suicide? Or the ones who were wife-beaters because they'd seen their fathers beat their mothers? They're all to be remembered in the same fashion as the ones who can be fully held up to the public eye.

So why shouldn't Strom Thurmond the Segregationist simply be remembered the same way now that he's dead? Merely as a soldier? Does it matter that afterwards he was flawed, that he did these things, that he proved himself all-to-human? Should we punish him for making his flaws of a public nature? The punishment was already inevitable while he was alive, one grants, and necessary for the function of the Republic--but the punishment while he is dead, that is quite gratuitous. Let him rest with his comrades, all of them at once both gods and men.

Because death doesn't change who a person was. It doesn't change his policies and what his goals were. People do good things in life and bad things, but the good things to don't make the bad things go away, nor should they. Being dead doesn't absolve them of anything.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Me: In light of these facts, I find Strom Thurmond to be a morally reprehensible human being, and thus, I have no sadness in my heart over his passing.

Don't you see anything a little *wrong* with that?

I would severely question your finding Thurmond "morally reprehensible" without taking into account his military service first; but having an emotionally-neutral state over someone dying is not something I could get myself upset over.

[kojikun]

I would severely question your finding Thurmond "morally reprehensible" without taking into account his military service first; but having an emotionally-neutral state over someone dying is not something I could get myself upset over.

Ofcourse. Its quite clear that fighting for racism is VERY noble and worthy of recognition. Gods, just shut up you stupid cunt.

[Gil Hamilton]

Now, Kojikun, I don't think Marina had that coming. While I think she's being a bit fuzzyheaded and dense on the issue (like a tennis ball packed with granite), let's not go overboard with the personal attacks, eh?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Because death doesn't change who a person was. It doesn't change his policies and what his goals were. People do good things in life and bad things, but the good things to don't make the bad things go away, nor should they. Being dead doesn't absolve them of anything.

Agreed. That's why I defended Manji when he attacked Wellstone. It doesn't absolve them of the bad--and it doesn't absolve them of the good, so to speak. Now, why the good counts for more in this case will be answered in response to Durandal's post.

[Howedar]

That was uncalled for.



I frankly don't see the big deal that he's dead. Okay, say he was a great soldier and that makes him beyond reproach. Well then it is highly inapporpriate to criticize him when he's alive. Or, maybe he was an evil, evil man. Which means its just as okay to criticize him now as when he was alive.

People are criticized behind their backs every day. I criticize GWB, and I criticized Clinton. They have no chance to respond to these criticisms. They might as well be dead in this respect.

[Howedar]

In the first line I was referring to Kojikun's referring to Marina as a stupid cunt.

[Gil Hamilton]

Agreed. That's why I defended Manji when he attacked Wellstone. It doesn't absolve them of the bad--and it doesn't absolve them of the good, so to speak. Now, why the good counts for more in this case will be answered in response to Durandal's post.

But you spaz out now? So you admit the double standard.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Because the contribution of a soldier to society is more valuable than that of a politician--since soldiers fight for the society as a whole instead of just their political ideology, and moreover risk their lives in doing so instead of just their reputations--and so his contribution to America as a soldier outweighs his negative works as a politician.

This isn't mathematics. Soldiers are just as capable of being assholes as the rest of the population.

We agree--and that should be reasonably open for critique. But why should it dominate against what is arguably a far more resolute action? It takes great resolve to do what he did on the battlefield; you say that this is not mathematics? So, then, are the evil deeds ones that must triumph in our memory, or can the image of that resolve, in general, prevail? Or should the measure be balanced? And in a balanced measure, why would a sensible person resort to personal attacks on the dead, and on those where judgement can be thrown in either direction, depending on the deeds viewed?

[kojikun]

In the first line I was referring to Kojikun's referring to Marina as a stupid cunt.

Take PRIDE in the word! Those women from the Vagina Monologues do.