USSC Justice Scalia Dead at 79

[136 or 142]

Keep polishing that turd, buddie.  It's important that we understand how right you always are.

If you accept that I'm always right I'll accept what you seem to want everybody here to believe: that you're a genius with a brilliant sense of humor.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

If you accept that I'm always right I'll accept what you seem to want everybody here to believe: that you're a genius with a brilliant sense of humor.

Oh, dear, I've lost interest in you again.  It's okay though, I'm sure you'll find another leg to hump.

[GravitySucks]

Whatever.  My expertise is numbers. Innumeracy is a lot worse than illiteracy and is also much more serious.

For instance, whatever grammatical error I may have made, I think you understood my point.  But, if you get a decimal in the wrong place, it can have significant consequences.

[SredniVashtar]

It also seems to be becoming evident to me that SredniVashtar may not be so concerned that the Scalia family will be hurt by my writings but is writing his comments (over and over again) because he wants to pretend that he is superior to me.  That's a little hard to judge based on just these comments and a quick reading of his other posts doesn't seem to indicate that kind of behaviour, but, in my opinion, some of his replies to me do.

I said to you before, when you are considering whether to do or say something it's worth pondering whether it will do more good than harm. I think we can safely say that insulting a dead man will not do any good. If there's the slightest chance that what you say might cause some harm to his family (a remote possibility, admittedly) then why bother? I don't think it's superior to suggest that you probably haven't lived long enough to have lost anyone important yet. Let me tell you, in the days after they die, the last thing you want to hear is some idiot spouting off about them. Scalia might have been a public figure, but his family weren't, and the only people you would be potentially hurting would be them. That doesn't mean that you can't have your say, but it's a good idea to hold off for a little while. Remember the golden rule: do as you would be done by.

A good example of this would be the death of Mrs Thatcher. That old cow caused untold harm to various parts of the country (as YP would know well), but there was no point in publicly coming out immediately after her death and suggest that she would be rotting in hell. You can think it, but it's courteous to keep your views to yourself for the moment. All you would have done by screaming your rage would be to make you look bad. Reputations are not made or broken in the days after someone's death, so don't think that it's vital to get your view in straight away or it will be lost for ever. If that was the case then Jimmy Saville would still be regarded as some kind of secular saint, not the grisly pederast that he was. There will be various views about Scalia, and it will eventually work itself out in some kind of synthesis, the way history tends to do.

One other thing. The only people you are talking to when you come out with this stuff is those people who share your viewpoint. In other words, it's a circle jerk, like so much of the stuff that is birthed on Twitter and all these other bloody places. In fact, you will probably be putting off other people who might be sympathetic, but hear your strident hectoring and take the other side. There is a time to speak, but there is also a time to keep silent.

[136 or 142]

Oh, dear, I've lost interest in you again.  It's okay though, I'm sure you'll find another leg to hump.

Darn, who am I going to mock now?

Just me needing to get the last word in again.

[136 or 142]

Eats shoots and leaves.

I note the problem with the quotes isn't just confined to me.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

A good example of this would be the death of Mrs Thatcher. That old cow caused untold harm to various parts of the country (as YP would know well), but there was no point in publicly coming out immediately after her death and suggest that she would be rotting in hell.

At least Falkie had the decency to max out his mother's credit cards and rifle through her couch cushions for loose change before declaring on the internet that he hopes she burns in hell.

I'm not even sure our special needs child appreciates the burn of being compared unfavorably to Falkie.

[136 or 142]

I said to you before, when you are considering whether to do or say something it's worth pondering whether it will do more good than harm. I think we can safely say that insulting a dead man will not do any good. If there's the slightest chance that what you say might cause some harm to his family (a remote possibility, admittedly) then why bother? I don't think it's superior to suggest that you probably haven't lived long enough to have lost anyone important yet. Let me tell you, in the days after they die, the last thing you want to hear is some idiot spouting off about them. Scalia might have been a public figure, but his family weren't, and the only people you would be potentially hurting would be them. That doesn't mean that you can't have your say, but it's a good idea to hold off for a little while. Remember the golden rule: do as you would be done by.

A good example of this would be the death of Mrs Thatcher. That old cow caused untold harm to various parts of the country (as YP would know well), but there was no point in publicly coming out immediately after her death and suggest that she would be rotting in hell. You can think it, but it's courteous to keep your views to yourself for the moment. All you would have done by screaming your rage would be to make you look bad. Reputations are not made or broken in the days after someone's death, so don't think that it's vital to get your view in straight away or it will be lost for ever. If that was the case then Jimmy Saville would still be regarded as some kind of secular saint, not the grisly pederast that he was. There will be various views about Scalia, and it will eventually work itself out in some kind of synthesis, the way history tends to do.

One other thing. The only people you are talking to when you come out with this stuff is those people who share your viewpoint. In other words, it's a circle jerk, like so much of the stuff that is birthed on Twitter and all these other bloody places. In fact, you will probably be putting off other people who might be sympathetic, but hear your strident hectoring and take the other side. There is a time to speak, but there is also a time to keep silent.

I've had two friends from high school die in their late 20s and early 30s.  I wasn't in contact with them before they died, but I attended the memorial of one of them.  One of them died as a result of drunk driving and the other was murdered in what turned out to be a truly bizarre incident (the police officer involved said he was drunk and died as a result of falling through a window, but it turned out years later that the police officer was not only lying, but was involved in some still undisclosed way in the murder.)

I've commented on the family thing.  My view is that however horrible it may be for them, if they are relatives of a public official, especially one as controversial as Scalia was, they should expect him to be criticized and attacked at all times.

I also remember a skit from "Not the 9 O Clock News" that mocked this desire to only say nice things about people right after they've died.

However, I think you make a fair point about preaching to the converted and, while I still feel there is a need to respond immediately to 'nice things' that are said about a person who has just died that are utter bullshit, I will try and do so without being insulting to the newly departed.

[136 or 142]

I'm not even sure our special needs child appreciates the burn of being compared unfavorably to Falkie.

Of course you appreciate it. You just commented on it.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

I've had two friends from high school die in their late 20s and early 30s.  I wasn't in contact with them before they died, but I attended the memorial of one of them.  One of them died as a result of drunk driving and the other was murdered in what turned out to be a truly bizarre incident (the police officer involved said he was drunk and died as a result of falling through a window, but it turned out years later that the police officer was not only lying, but was involved in some still undisclosed way in the murder.)

I've commented on the family thing.  My view is that however horrible it may be for them, if they are relatives of a public official, especially one as controversial as Scalia was, they should expect him to be criticized and attacked at all times.

I also remember a skit from "Not the 9 O Clock News" that mocked this desire to only say nice things about people right after they've died.

However, I think you make a fair point about preaching to the converted and, while I still feel there is a need to respond immediately to 'nice things' that are said about a person who has just died that are utter bullshit, I will try and do so without being insulting to the newly departed.

In real life, would you interrupt a moment of silence to bray your contrary opinion?  I hope not.  You'd exhibit some decency and decorum.  The same line of thinking is what SnootyVelcro is advocating here.

(I realize that you are coming around now; I'm just trying to punch the ball in from the two yard line)

[FearBoysWithBugs]

you

Courtesy laff

[136 or 142]

In real life, would you interrupt a moment of silence to bray your contrary opinion?  I hope not.  You'd exhibit some decency and decorum.  The same line of thinking is what SnootyVelcro is advocating here.

(I realize that you are coming around now; I'm just trying to punch the ball in from the two yard line)

Of course not.  I actually advocated here that rather than say nice bullshit about a person that the media should just cite the basic facts of their life and then give a moment of silence.  Those weren't my exact words, but, that was what I was getting at.

Of course, individual posters on-line will respond however they will.

BTW, since when have you ever exhibited decency or decorum?  I realize you think your 'funny' and are 'making jokes', but using terms like 'retard' and 'special needs child' is in pretty poor taste.  You're about the last person to preach to anybody.

Oh yeah, SrendiVashtar, when are you going to call out this idiot for using those terms?  It's far more likely that there are people here who are relatives or parents of mentally challenged people than there are family members of Scalia's here.

I personally have asperger's (and I 'got it' before it became 'trendy') which is likely why I'm skilled with numbers.

[SredniVashtar]

I've had two friends from high school die in their late 20s and early 30s.  I wasn't in contact with them before they died, but I attended the memorial of one of them.  One of them died as a result of drunk driving and the other was murdered in what turned out to be a truly bizarre incident (the police officer involved said he was drunk and died as a result of falling through a window, but it turned out years later that the police officer was not only lying, but was involved in some still undisclosed way in the murder.)

OK. I'm not trying to pull rank on you here, but those two situations aren't even remotely comparable to, for example, losing a parent. Until you go through it (twice, in my case) then perhaps you don't see why it's a good idea to leave a bit of space for things to settle before poking your oar in.

I've commented on the family thing.  My view is that however horrible it may be for them, if they are relatives of a public official, especially one as controversial as Scalia was, they should expect him to be criticized and attacked at all times.

The family would be used to it during his life. It's a totally different situation when they die. People are much more vulnerable then. Nobody is saying that he should be hereafter put on a pedestal, just that it does no good to assail someone in the days after their death.

I also remember a skit from "Not the 9 O Clock News" that mocked this desire to only say nice things about people right after they've died.

You're talking about hypocrisy. I'm talking about a period of respectful silence. You don't have to pretend you liked him, just bite your lip for the time being, and then roast the old boy as much as you like.

However, I think you make a fair point about preaching to the converted and, while I still feel there is a need to respond immediately to 'nice things' that are said about a person who has just died that are utter bullshit, I will try and do so without being insulting to the newly departed.

There's nothing wrong with offering a different view. If you make it factually based, and not personal, then you are more likely to get your view across. Simply firing a lot of insults at someone who is no longer in a position to respond only weakens your case. No doubt you feel strongly about all this, it's just a question of knowing the right time to say something.

[SredniVashtar]

Oh yeah, SrendiVashtar, when are you going to call out this idiot for using those terms?  It's far more likely that there are people here who are relatives or parents of mentally challenged people than there are family members of Scalia's here.

OK, FurryBallsWithoutBriefs, stop going around calling people 'tards and shit! This is your final warning!

Happy now?

[136 or 142]

OK. I'm not trying to pull rank on you here, but those two situations aren't even remotely comparable to, for example, losing a parent. Until you go through it (twice, in my case) then perhaps you don't see why it's a good idea to leave a bit of space for things to settle before poking your oar in.


The family would be used to it during his life. It's a totally different situation when they die. People are much more vulnerable then. Nobody is saying that he should be hereafter put on a pedestal, just that it does no good to assail someone in the days after their death.

You're talking about hypocrisy. I'm talking about a period of respectful silence. You don't have to pretend you liked him, just bite your lip for the time being, and then roast the old boy as much as you like.

You know, those are your feelings.  At the memorial (which was less than a week after his death, if I recall correctly) most of the speakers were making jokes about his life and after the memorial I, along with several members of his friends and family went to a small discotheque to go dancing.

I realize that it's well known for instance that people should plan a funeral beforehand so as not to be taken in by an undertaker at this vulnerable time, but I'm not so sure that the vast majority of people are as vulnerable after a death as you seem to think they are.  Obviously his father was especially distraught, but, then, he outlived his son.  I never spoke to his mother, so I don't know how she felt, but, the rest of his family seemed to have the attitude of 'life goes on.'  Probably a defense mechanism, but it might have kicked in had they heard negative things about him.

[136 or 142]

OK, FurryBallsWithoutBriefs, stop going around calling people 'tards and shit! This is your final warning!

Happy now?

No.  This comment is just idiotic, and in my view, undercuts your arguments. 

You seem to be saying 'be respectful to people who have been in situations I've been in, but otherwise, I don't really care.'

It sounds like you're basically the same selfish jerk you accuse me of being.

[Yorkshire pud]

but I'm not so sure that the vast majority of people are as vulnerable after a death as you seem to think they are. 

Again!!! You do it again! That is a grotesquely arrogant and completely out of touch thing to think let alone express as a notion worthy of note. From a personal point of view I lost my mother in the autumn of 2014; my father's life as far as he was concerned, ended with hers, they'd been married 53 years. He went from an admittedly grumpy old sod to a destroyed and listless small man who weeps at least once a week because the only woman he ever loved was taken from him. Vulnerable? Yeah, I can show you vulnerable; he's 80 years of age and wishes his own demise.

I have no doubt the same can be said of most close family members towards their loved ones. You say you have Aspergers so perhaps it's unfair to try and preach about reactions you find difficult to understand, but hey, sue me.

[136 or 142]

Again!!! You do it again! That is a grotesquely arrogant and completely out of touch thing to think let alone express as a notion worthy of note. From a personal point of view I lost my mother in the autumn of 2014; my father's life as far as he was concerned, ended with hers, they'd been married 53 years. He went from an admittedly grumpy old sod to a destroyed and listless small man who weeps at least once a week because the only woman he ever loved was taken from him. Vulnerable? Yeah, I can show you vulnerable; he's 80 years of age and wishes his own demise.

I have no doubt the same can be said of most close family members towards their loved ones. You say you have Aspergers so perhaps it's unfair to try and preach about reactions you find difficult to understand, but hey, sue me.

I was just pointing out my experience. 

Also, I stand by what I said earlier.  What makes you so special in that making insulting comments about a recently deceased person is terrible but using terms like 'retard' and 'special needs child' aren't?  Your situation sounds horrible but you and your father are far from the only ones with a sad situation.

Only family members in your situation are worthy of respect?

What makes you an expert on family members with mentally challenged children?

If we're going to start being respectful  around here and start preaching to those who aren't, let's respect everybody's situation and not be saying "my situation is worse than yours" as if it can be measured on some sort of scale.

I'd say I'm sorry to you about your situation and I am sorry for your father, but I find it hard to feel any sympathy to a person who wants to be treated with respect for his situation but seems to be completely lack empathy for anybody else's.

[Yorkshire pud]

I was just pointing out my experience. 

Also, I stand by what I said earlier.  What makes you so special in that making insulting comments about a recently deceased person is terrible but using terms like 'retard' and 'special needs child' aren't?  Your situation sounds horrible but you and your father are far from the only ones with a sad situation.

You going all Falkie on us? I haven't said you're retarded or special needs. And no, as I said, my father's situation isn't unusual, I'd say from my experience it's the norm. But you thought the opposite? Oh well.

Only family members in your situation are worthy of respect?

Nope..I didn't say that either

What makes you an expert on family members with mentally challenged children?

Nothing; you said you had Aspergers. I have a close friend whose daughter has it too...and?

If we're going to start being respectful  around here and start preaching to those who aren't, let's respect everybody's situation and not be saying "my situation is worse than yours."

Nope; not sure anyone said that either...

[136 or 142]

"You going all Falkie on us? I haven't said you're retarded or special needs. "

No, but fearsboyswithbugs did use those terms and you didn't call him out on them.  In fact, I think you exchanged pleasantries with him over some stupid pedantic matter.  So, it seems you couldn't care less about people who use terms like that.

It probably is the norm for the spouses of the recently deceased, but for other family members, that's not what I saw from my one experience. I can't comment on the children.

I would make one other point, but out of respect for your situation, I won't.  So, I hope that pleases you.

[onan]

What is the right amount of time to wait? Poor taste is the fuel that runs this place. I kind of smirked when the term decorum was brought into this conversation. Personally, I don't care how friendly Scalia was with others.

[SredniVashtar]

I was just pointing out my experience. 

Also, I stand by what I said earlier.  What makes you so special in that making insulting comments about a recently deceased person is terrible but using terms like 'retard' and 'special needs child' aren't?  Your situation sounds horrible but you and your father are far from the only ones with a sad situation.

Only family members in your situation are worthy of respect?

What makes you an expert on family members with mentally challenged children?

If we're going to start being respectful  around here and start preaching to those who aren't, let's respect everybody's situation and not be saying "my situation is worse than yours" as if it can be measured on some sort of scale.

For a start, I was talking about a general rule regarding the period immediately after someone's death. I think everyone is better off for respecting that rule, and it would be a difficult job for anyone to argue the opposite. Maybe you really didn't know that before, so at least you have learned something today. The equivalent sort of insult would be, for example, to go up to a child with Down's and make fun of them - which would also be wrong, obviously.

If you're worried about your feelings being hurt on an internet forum, though, then I think you'd be better off going elsewhere. You are going to be called names and you'll have to learn to deal with it. They are also meaningless, so don't take them to heart. It's just banter, that's all. There is a very clear difference between using words with precision in a way to hurt someone, and throwing words out as chaff in a light-hearted exchange.

[onan]

For a start, I was talking about a general rule regarding the period immediately after someone's death. I think everyone is better off for respecting that rule, and it would be a difficult job for anyone to argue the opposite. Maybe you really didn't know that before, so at least you have learned something today. The equivalent sort of insult would be, for example, to go up to a child with Down's and make fun of them - which would also be wrong, obviously.

If you're worried about your feelings being hurt on an internet forum, though, then I think you'd be better off going elsewhere. You are going to be called names and you'll have to learn to deal with it. They are also meaningless, so don't take them to heart. It's just banter, that's all. There is a very clear difference between using words with precision in a way to hurt someone, and throwing words out as chaff in a light-hearted exchange.

Oh yeah, that's what your mom said.

[Yorkshire pud]

"You going all Falkie on us? I haven't said you're retarded or special needs. "

No, but fearsboyswithbugs did use those terms and you didn't call him out on them.

I'm not his fucking keeper!  Take your thumb out of your fucking arse and put some big boys pants on..."It's not fair, the big boys are saying things about me and the other boys won't tell them off'

In fact, I think you exchanged pleasantries with him over some stupid pedantic matter.

Yeah, and we've also exchanged insults in the past . Hey, fucking life...it's how it goes.

It probably is the norm for the spouses of the recently deceased, but for other family members, that's not what I saw from my one experience. I can't comment on the children.

Maybe you should write a mathematical formula (and possibly a power point presentation) that established appropriate grief and distress for any given relationship with a deceased human? The definitive article?

[SredniVashtar]

Oh yeah, that's what your mom said.

I shall make an exception to the 'waiting' rule for you, though. I've got some good stuff down that it would be a pity to waste, and I'm just waiting for you to snuff it before I set the dogs loose! 

[136 or 142]

For a start, I was talking about a general rule regarding the period immediately after someone's death. I think everyone is better off for respecting that rule, and it would be a difficult job for anyone to argue the opposite. Maybe you really didn't know that before, so at least you have learned something today. The equivalent sort of insult would be, for example, to go up to a child with Down's and make fun of them - which would also be wrong, obviously.

If you're worried about your feelings being hurt on an internet forum, though, then I think you'd be better off going elsewhere. You are going to be called names and you'll have to learn to deal with it. They are also meaningless, so don't take them to heart. It's just banter, that's all. There is a very clear difference between using words with precision in a way to hurt someone, and throwing words out as chaff in a light-hearted exchange.

You know, I'm going to take fearsboyswithbugs advice on this and not respond point by point (not that that was exactly his advice) other than to point out that I'm rolling my eyes at the nonsensical distinctions presented here and the idea that "words used with precision" and hateful "words used in a lighthearted exchange" are easy to discern.

Oh yeah,  I guess I will make another point. Given what I just wrote above, I think you still have a lot to learn as well, the main one being that if you're going to demand respect for your situation then you probably shouldn't be telling other people how they should respond to other people's hate filed words in other situations no matter in what light they may be expressed.

[136 or 142]

I'm not his fucking keeper!  Take your thumb out of your fucking arse and put some big boys pants on..."It's not fair, the big boys are saying things about me and the other boys won't tell them off'

And you're not my keeper either!

So, why don't you take your thumb out of your fucking arse and put those big boy pants on and suck up my comments?

I don't expect you to fight other people's battles, but I don't see why I should be so sympathetic to your's either that I'm going to censor myself because your situation is so special.

You're clearly saying you and only you deserve to be treated kindly for your situation.

Well, not only am I not going to do that, I'm going to tell you to go fuck yourself.

[SredniVashtar]

What is the right amount of time to wait? Poor taste is the fuel that runs this place. I kind of smirked when the term decorum was brought into this conversation. Personally, I don't care how friendly Scalia was with others.

I was trying to remember how this discussion started. I think it was because someone asked why people should be respectful after someone had died, and I said it was just a courtesy we give to the families. It doesn't matter a damn on here, of course, where it's a free-for-all, but usually people stay quiet until after the funeral before saying what they really feel about someone. That doesn't mean that you have to say nice things about someone you disliked, just that it might be better to moderate it sometimes.

I feel like Emily Post. I shall have to start 'The SV Etiquette Corner'. First of all, Onan, the tablecloth isn't there to wipe your mouth on. You're welcome. 

[albrecht]

Back to the subject. Why no autopsy and in keeping with C2C/ArtBell themes IF he was killed who did it?

ps: regarding the other subjects. There is no such thing as Asperger's anymore (in the USA, if you are in Canada or another country than you could have it per WHO ICD material, though.) Haven't you all been updated on the latest DSM? So sorry 136, but, like Pluto, you have been demoted to being, in the USA at least, simply on a "spectrum." 

[Yorkshire pud]

And you're not my keeper either!

So, why don't you take your thumb out of your fucking arse and put those big boy pants on and suck up my comments?

I don't expect you to fight other people's battles, but I don't see why I should be so sympathetic to yours either that I'm going to censor myself because you're situation is so special.

You're clearly saying you and only you deserve to be treated kindly for your situation.

Well, not only am I not going to do that, I'm going to tell you to go fuck yourself.

Thank fuck for that. And what you clearly think is anything but..If you insist on putting words in others' mouths at least be polite and ask if you can first.