Thatcher's Dead.

[estabon37]

It's articulate. However, there's a lot to be said for quietly keeping one's opinions to oneself in the humble knowledge that they are only opinions, especially when death is involved. This kind of over-sensitive, pre-emptive journalism makes me wonder how someone gets paid to be so pedantic. Had the article been the last two sentences alone, I might have posted this myself.

I wish there were more pedantic analyses of world events like this one readily available. Journalism has declined severely in the time since Thatcher's reign, and I shudder to think what more she might have done if she were facing today's spineless, largely understaffed and politically disinterested media, instead of the more solid and less corporate Fourth Estate that existed when she was in power. Besides, I don't see how keeping quiet honours her legacy at all.

 

[Semichastny]

...there's a lot to be said for quietly keeping one's opinions to oneself in the humble knowledge that they are only opinions, especially when death is involved.

Here is the thing though, nobody is really asking for people to keep their "opinions" to themselves in the wake of Thatcher's death. Only those who have "negative opinions" are to keep to themselves.

This kind of over-sensitive, pre-emptive journalism makes me wonder how someone gets paid to be so pedantic. Had the article been the last two sentences alone, I might have posted this myself.

How is being over sensitive when people are demanding he and others be censored? Criticizers are being told their opinions should not be expressed in public because it might hurt someones feelings or it shows a lack of respect as if a person's death is more important then their actions, views, and legacy. When the person brought up hitler before I thought it was to illustrate this entire idea of not voicing negative opinions when a politician (or public figure) dies is completely fallacious and would be abandoned the second they were faced with a politician/person who was a monster.

Would these arguments have been consistently applied to Hitler? (EDIT: I know these arguments are not what you said I am just bring up what I saw)

You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"She ended her days as a frail old woman with failing health."

(Would it excuse Hitler if he died while his health was failing? No)


You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"[Criticizers are] mocking and celebrating the death of an old woman"

(Would it excuse Hitler if he died as an old man, or was a woman? No)


You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"I know she had her detractors and made some fiercely unpopular decisions which were, perhaps, not in our best interests, but you could equally argue that she did a lot of good things."

(Would it excuse Hitler if we unbiasedly reviewed some of his polices and agreed with a few? No.)

None of these reasons are good enough to justify silencing negative opinions in the wake of a death as I very much doubt they would be consistently applied. In fact I think this entire debate would be non existent if someone who society was taught (or naturally came to) not to hold a positive opinion on died.

"Even though I disagreed with the holocaust we still shouldn't be criticizing Hitler now that he is dead. He has family that are mourning, show some basic human respect." - Said no person ever

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

There it is!

 

[Semichastny]

There it is!

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3tsjvp/

 

[Repner]

As I'm sure most of you guessed, no one above the border is exactly weeping over her. In fact I'm sure I heard of party's in Glasgow.

 

[yingmin]

How is being over sensitive when people are demanding he and others be censored? Criticizers are being told their opinions should not be expressed in public because it might hurt someones feelings or it shows a lack of respect as if a person's death is more important then their actions, views, and legacy. When the person brought up hitler before I thought it was to illustrate this entire idea of not voicing negative opinions when a politician (or public figure) dies is completely fallacious and would be abandoned the second they were faced with a politician/person who was a monster.

Would these arguments have been consistently applied to Hitler? (EDIT: I know these arguments are not what you said I am just bring up what I saw)

You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"She ended her days as a frail old woman with failing health."

(Would it excuse Hitler if he died while his health was failing? No)


You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"[Criticizers are] mocking and celebrating the death of an old woman"

(Would it excuse Hitler if he died as an old man, or was a woman? No)


You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"I know she had her detractors and made some fiercely unpopular decisions which were, perhaps, not in our best interests, but you could equally argue that she did a lot of good things."

(Would it excuse Hitler if we unbiasedly reviewed some of his polices and agreed with a few? No.)

None of these reasons are good enough to justify silencing negative opinions in the wake of a death as I very much doubt they would be consistently applied. In fact I think this entire debate would be non existent if someone who society was taught (or naturally came to) not to hold a positive opinion on died.

"Even though I disagreed with the holocaust we still shouldn't be criticizing Hitler now that he is dead. He has family that are mourning, show some basic human respect." - Said no person ever

First off, we're not talking about people criticizing Thatcher. What people are doing is rejoicing in the fact that she's dead, which is entirely different from "criticism". And I will say unequivocally that taking pleasure in the death of a human being, ANY human being, does make you a worse person. There have been plenty of people who have died during my lifetime whose beliefs or actions I found objectionable, but I was never HAPPY that they had died, because that is monstrous. It's spiritually poisonous.

Second, I would argue that the Hitler analogy is symptomatic of a larger problem. It's not without reason that Hitler has become such a boogeyman to society; however, I think that the way we talk about Hitler, Nazism and fascism in general is thoroughly counterproductive, certainly to meaningful discussion of them, but also to understanding them. When you reduce Hitler to a demon, to a living embodiment of evil, it becomes impossible to understand how he was able to do what he did. I am in no way asking anybody to excuse the things Hitler did, but it's critically important to remember that Hitler was a human being, and so were those around him. He certainly didn't work alone, so if Hitler was a monster, where do you draw the line? Was everybody in his cabinet a monster as well? Every government employee? Every soldier, every concentration camp guard, every factory worker making war materiel? Everybody who voted for him? Hell, let's pull it back even farther: were the delegates at the treaty of Versailles also monsters, for putting Germany in such a shitty position that electing Hitler seemed like a good idea? These are all questions that can be discussed - although this thread is not the place for them - but my point is that however reprehensible and disgusting his actions may have been, they were the actions of humans. So yes, feel perfectly free to criticize Hitler, but give him the basic level of human decency that every human being deserves, even though he didn't do the same.

 

[Semichastny]

...I will say unequivocally that taking pleasure in the death of a human being, ANY human being, does make you a worse person. There have been plenty of people who have died during my lifetime whose beliefs or actions I found objectionable, but I was never HAPPY that they had died, because that is monstrous. It's spiritually poisonous.

I do not agree, you have outlined more or less a thought crime. Anyone who does not respond to death the way you think they should is now declared a "worse person". Nevermind that people have different thoughts, feelings, and responses to death. This is just shallow moral judgment, I do not recognize any type of spirit / spiritual force. If some imaginary part of a person that has as much chance as a unicorn to exist is poisoned, that does not concern me. If you want to argue semantics and say celebrating death is psychologically harmful you will have to cite studies.

Second, I would argue that the Hitler analogy is symptomatic of a larger problem. It's not without reason that Hitler has become such a boogeyman to society; however, I think that the way we talk about Hitler, Nazism and fascism in general is thoroughly counterproductive, certainly to meaningful discussion of them, but also to understanding them. When you reduce Hitler to a demon, to a living embodiment of evil, it becomes impossible to understand how he was able to do what he did.

Sure I completely agree, I am well educated about how hitler came to power and I think anyone who lives in a democracy or cares about democracy should understand it too. Small issue though, I didn't reduce Hitler to a demon. I was merely trying to point out that many of the reasons given why people shouldn't (or should be ashamed) celebrate or insult or criticize Thatcher would not stand up if we applied them to a less debatable person. Every point I made would stand on it's own even If I did not use Hitler, and If that truly is to be called in to question I will reword the argument.

I am in no way asking anybody to excuse the things Hitler did, but it's critically important to remember that Hitler was a human being, and so were those around him. He certainly didn't work alone, so if Hitler was a monster, where do you draw the line? Was everybody in his cabinet a monster as well? Every government employee? Every soldier, every concentration camp guard, every factory worker making war materiel? Everybody who voted for him? Hell, let's pull it back even farther: were the delegates at the treaty of Versailles also monsters, for putting Germany in such a shitty position that electing Hitler seemed like a good idea?

As a person who just argued that even the act of celebrating a death is "monstrous" and makes an individual a "worse person" you kind of shoot your slippery slope in the foot here.

These are all questions that can be discussed - although this thread is not the place for them - but my point is that however reprehensible and disgusting his actions may have been, they were the actions of humans. So yes, feel perfectly free to criticize Hitler, but give him the basic level of human decency that every human being deserves, even though he didn't do the same.

This is little more then an Argument by assertion.

 

[Fat-Elf]

... what is up with the Finnish education system? That's beyond shocking.

Maybe that's why it's ranked #1 because we don't concentrate on some old hag causing troubles in UK in 1980's.

 

[petereanima]

Before people hang themselves up on Godwins Law and the according internet photos, simply replace the "H" name with any other, who has the blood of over thousand on hands.

Oh, and FWIW - I did not "rejoice" in her death.

But fun-fact: "Rejoice" was her choice of words when asked critically about the Falkland war and the victims.

That old lady didnt give a single fuck about thousand families, so I really don't feel the need to give a single fuck about her family's feelings or to keep my opinion about her to myself. Why should I?

 

[elrrek]

It's fine holding an opinion, it's fine expressing that opinion, but the manner in which opinions have been expressed is this past day is the part that has really shocked me in this episode.

 

[Jakke]

What I want to see in the discussion about Thatcher's legacy is nuance. What I am going to say would make some go knee-jerk to "lol neo-con", but then you're an idiot.

Thatcher did not have an easy task, Britain was going completely in the shitter, politicians dared not break wind before asking the labour unions, and the public sector was a hulking beast of inefficiency.
My attitude to Thatcher has been that sometimes something has to be sacrificed to save the greater majority, such is the burden of leadership. A leader has to be prepared to take uncomfortable, or unpopular decisions, and I believe that Thatcher had to. Thatcher's policies of low inflation and a decrease in public spending also gave results, by -87, the economic growth was strong (despite decreasing industrial output), the unemployment was decreasing, and that won her the third term.


We can't forget either that she was an extremely confrontational politician, and as such, she was often seen as more hostile than she possibly really was. The unions had not encountered a politician like her either, so when they did what they usually did (use the threat of a strike), she called their bluff.
That was also a mistake that Argentina did, as they learned the hard way that Thatcher did not back down (for better or worse). People also tend to forget that the Falklands War was not a war that she started, but rather that she was attacked (and Argentina is recognized as the aggressor by the UN), and I do say that as far as a war go, it was handled pretty well. The british garrison had to be ordered to stand down to not be massacred by the Argentinians, and that order came from Thatcher.

We also had an extremely confrontational politician in Sweden, namely prime minister ("state minister", or "national minister") Olof Palme. He had the same style as Thatcher, but reversed, as he was a democratic socialist (and Palme was active before Thatcher, so technically, she had his style).
He was shot in -86, and when he did, the socialists when into a psychosis fueled by grief (that I don't think they've completely recovered from yet), while the conservatives celebrated. Because of this, I hypothesise that the hatred/love for a politician is not based on politics, as much as it is on leadership-style. Thatcher was a confrontational person, as with Palme, and they got hated for it. Granted, they both did things that might be considered unsuitable today, but I don't think neither deserve the hate they receive.
After WWII, charismatic politicians were something that Europe was skeptical of (for obvious reasons), which made them become targets, and of course invited comparisons to Hitler and Franco (which to this thread's discredit already has happened. Come one guys...)

My final relfection is that Thatcherism seems to have worked, it wasn't pretty at all, and I'm certain someone would do it differently. What I would want however is, instead of all the "lol she-devil", is for people to suggest instead what the fuck she could have done differently. Criticism without suggestions is just reactionary, and I loathe that shit. I firmly believe that she really saw no other way of saving Britain than to throw some people under the dubble-decker to save the majority. She also helped to invent the soft-scoop ice cream, and for that I will always be grateful.

People like Morrissey who dances on her grave has not shown me in any way that they'd do a better job. I want some nuance instead of "OMG, she was Jesus" or "OMG, she was the devil", could I please have it?


... Pretty please?

But fun-fact: "Rejoice" was her choice of words when asked critically about the Falkland war and the victims.

Well, that's not really true, is it? What the question was was if Britain would declare war on Argentina, and she said to the effect that people should "rejoice over this victory, and we'll deal with the problem of Argentina when it comes up". Rejoicing over military victories is as old as war itself, and it still happens everywhere. What you also "forgot" to mention is that she also mentions the sacrifices of the British military directly afterwards.
This sort of mudslinging on Thatcher is what I am so insanely tired of, people just throw shit at her, and hopes that something will stick. Saying that people should give thanks to the soldiers and marines who died is in no way controversial, but when uttered by Thatcher, it apparently becomes someting similar to Palpatine ordering order 66 to be carried out.

The victims eh? The three Falklanders who died, or the military casualities? Then also understand that soldiers know that they might get killed, this is something they're prepared for, and they are by no means victims. Pinning the civilian casualitites on Thatcher is ridiculous, and I hope that you see why.

 

[123321123]

I think Thatcher did more harm than good overall. What bothers me is that hatred for her is either misguided or misinformed.

 

[petereanima]

edit, nevermind.

 

[Friendroid]

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blake1970]

Margaret Thatcher was 'barbaric' and 'a terror', says Morrissey

Margaret Thatcher was 'barbaric' and 'a terror', says Morrissey - Telegraph

 

[ArtDecade]

Norway Massacre Is Nothing Compared To Actions Of KFC, say Morrissey

Morrissey says Norway massacre 'nothing compared to actions of KFC' | Metro News

(I kinda take what he says with a grain of salt)

 

[thatguy87]

She ended her days as a frail old woman with failing health. What people are doing in this thread is, basically, mocking and celebrating the death of an old woman - an old woman who leaves behind a family.

Karma cares not for you or your family.

 

[Rook]

I came here basically to say what Jakke said but nowhere near that concisely. So much of this hate is by people with it indoctrinated into them when they weren't even alive (or barely) when she was in power - any one of the three terms.

All I know of Thatcher I learned for myself, as Jakke said given the hand she was dealt how many options were there. She came to power at a time where the trade unions held the country to ransom and the power would black out unexpectedly at random times during the day.

Honestly. Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is utterly ridiculous. The ignorance I'm hearing is just abhorrent. Shameful, just shameful.

 

[vampiregenocide]

It's hard for me to rejoice in her death because A. I wasn't alive when she was in power and B. she hasn't had any political influence in some time, so her death does not change anything.

I respect her for having the courage to do what she did in a very male-orientated profession, but I know enough about her to dislike her as a politician. So while I don't rejoice in her death I also don't exactly feel bad about it.

I don't think it is bad rejoicing the death of some people though, depending on whether it is warranted or not. If someone is a really shitty person and hurts people, like Hitler for instance, then yes I think being happy they're dead is understandable. Not sure I'd put Thatcher on that level though. However you could argue Blair...

To be honest I'm more disgusted that people have been linking to anything that Morrissey has had to say. That moron has his head so far up his own ass it's difficult to tell where he starts.

 

[Semichastny]

Honestly. Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is utterly ridiculous. The ignorance I'm hearing is just abhorrent. Shameful, just shameful.

Who exactly is "Comparing Thatcher to Hitler"? Neither I or the other person who brought up Hitler were actually comparing them. We were demonstrating that the idea people are trying to demand for new social norm of "not speaking ill of the dead" or "celebrating the dead" would not hold if we used someone with a less debatable life. IE, since the primary reason for this respect and silence they demand comes from the death and not the person then by their standards Hitler should be treated the same as her, which is where the real comparison between them is located. Read what I wrote and you will see how I attack the notion that they could be compared or treated the same under the social norm people are trying to push. If your not referring to this forum post, then I apologize.