![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Convention
I keep meaning to write this and never seem to find the right opportunity to do so. This is probably somewhat controversial.
As I see it, there are lots of conventions about 'socially acceptable' behaviour, many of which we follow without realising it (ie. not picking one's nose in public or eating non-fast food with cutlery). (Yes, some of these conventions differ from culture to culture ie. there are places where the custom is to eat with one's hands, but that's not important right now).
There are other conventions that we see as outdated and old fashioned eg. the chaperoning of young women. There are others that have been deprecated ie. the one about men not wearing hats in church isn't very relevant when people wear hats so rarely.
Then there are others again that have been deliberately challenged and have mutated into conventions more appropriate for 2005 ie. it's now conventional to hold doors open for the elderly, those with physical disabilities, those with small children, those carrying heavy objects.
And then there are the ones I see people ignoring without any real thought as to why they're doing so. Where I come from it is disrespectful to start tearing into someone's reputation on the day of his/her death and for a couple of months afterwards. I'm willing to have the argument if anyone considers this convention outdated or old fashioned. My point of view is that the convention is intended not to protect the dead from criticism permanently (ie. I'm quite happy to listen to people insulting Hitler and Stalin) but to avoid adding unnecssarily to the grief of the living. Why should the relatives and friends of people who have died have to listen to insults directed at their dead friend/relative when they are in the throes of intense grief? And no, I don't accept 'I'm writing in a newspaper they don't have to read' or 'I'm writing on the internet so they shouldn't go looking for it' as acceptable reasons for insulting someone in the immediate aftermath of their death. As far as I'm concerned there's a time and a place for dissecting someone's life and immediately after his/her death isn't it. Have some respect. The other side to this is 'well, if she'll say that about him today, what on earth would she say about me if I drop dead tomorrow?'.
And I'll give you all fair warning now - if I see anyone dissecting Baroness Thatcher's politics when she dies, I am likely to let rip. I won't say she doesn't have faults - we all have faults, but she *is* someone I admire a lot.
As I see it, there are lots of conventions about 'socially acceptable' behaviour, many of which we follow without realising it (ie. not picking one's nose in public or eating non-fast food with cutlery). (Yes, some of these conventions differ from culture to culture ie. there are places where the custom is to eat with one's hands, but that's not important right now).
There are other conventions that we see as outdated and old fashioned eg. the chaperoning of young women. There are others that have been deprecated ie. the one about men not wearing hats in church isn't very relevant when people wear hats so rarely.
Then there are others again that have been deliberately challenged and have mutated into conventions more appropriate for 2005 ie. it's now conventional to hold doors open for the elderly, those with physical disabilities, those with small children, those carrying heavy objects.
And then there are the ones I see people ignoring without any real thought as to why they're doing so. Where I come from it is disrespectful to start tearing into someone's reputation on the day of his/her death and for a couple of months afterwards. I'm willing to have the argument if anyone considers this convention outdated or old fashioned. My point of view is that the convention is intended not to protect the dead from criticism permanently (ie. I'm quite happy to listen to people insulting Hitler and Stalin) but to avoid adding unnecssarily to the grief of the living. Why should the relatives and friends of people who have died have to listen to insults directed at their dead friend/relative when they are in the throes of intense grief? And no, I don't accept 'I'm writing in a newspaper they don't have to read' or 'I'm writing on the internet so they shouldn't go looking for it' as acceptable reasons for insulting someone in the immediate aftermath of their death. As far as I'm concerned there's a time and a place for dissecting someone's life and immediately after his/her death isn't it. Have some respect. The other side to this is 'well, if she'll say that about him today, what on earth would she say about me if I drop dead tomorrow?'.
And I'll give you all fair warning now - if I see anyone dissecting Baroness Thatcher's politics when she dies, I am likely to let rip. I won't say she doesn't have faults - we all have faults, but she *is* someone I admire a lot.
no subject
Of course I think that people are open to criticism and of course I respect people's rights to freedom of expression. All I want is for people to exercise some discretion/thought/care in how they choose to use their rights. It's a convention not a rule. IMO, respect for the grieving triumphs truth for a certain period after someone's death (I don't know exactly how long - again it's a convention, not a rule - however long seems appropriate in the circumstances). Breaking a convention just means many people will consider you rude, not that you've done something unlawful.
Personally, I loathe the mawkish twaddle which is spouted on the death of a public fgure.
Yes, I agree - and certainly agree that the reporting ought to be somewhere in the middle. I'm not saying we should praise people who've done awful things, just refrain from mentioning the awful things till they've been dead a little while.
George Best - I think I'm too young to understand all the fuss about him.
no subject
This is just one reason why I think truth, or an attempt at the truth, has to come before anything and everything. Another, as I kinda mentioned before, is that if the person in question was in a position of power, it may be imperative to publish immediately if one is trying to discover the truth about their actions - it is not unknown for documents to 'disappear' upon the death of the person ostensibly responsible for overseeing them. For example, publishing an expose on the day of a person's death may bring forward essential information from other sources, which delaying might cause to be lost.
no subject
I was really disappointed to have missed the Outrage demonstration at the memorial service for David English, the person who gave the world the front page headline "Gay Gene Abortion Hope" - the idea that parents who discovered that they were expecting a child with the 'gay gene' could (and in the Mail's view, should) have it aborted.
(Mrs Thatcher knighted him and gave a peerage to the religious leader who was quoted supporting the idea.)
George Best - I think I'm too young to understand all the fuss about him
Probably. At his playing peak, he was bigger than Beckham, Owen and Rooney combined.