Thatcher's Dead.

[Varcolac]

Ding dong.

BBC News - Ex-Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher dies

I feel very strange at the moment. Her ideology and politics disgust me, I'm convinced she bears no small responsibility (with Reagan) for the current rubbish state of the world, but she was an old woman and it feels odd to celebrate her death.

Oh well. End of an era? Probably not. The private-school Oxbridge numpties in Westminster are rather keen on parroting her agenda so her rubbish lives on.

 

[petereanima]

Good riddance Maggie, rot in hell.

 

[Genome]

Come on. It's not over until we have destroyed her horcruxes!

 

[Solodini]

As posted by someone on Twitter: the only way I'll be involved in a minute's silence for her is if they ask for a minute's applause. If I air mail a stake down to one of you guys, can you use it to make sure?

 

[Scar Symmetry]

I can't revel in anyone's death. No matter how politically clued up we think we are, it does not give us license to insult the dead. That said, I wouldn't be sincere if I said I was sad on this day and that's only due to my own limited knowledge of her influence on world politics.

 

[petereanima]

No matter how politically clued up we think we are, it does not give us license to insult the dead.

I know many people think that way, but I have to disagree with this. The act of dying doesnt make any of that persons deed undone, any word unspoken. We can also talk ill about Hitler, no?

 

[Semichastny]

If Hell existed it would still not be a good enough punishment for this woman.

 

[elrrek]

Come on guys. Yes, she was a horror, but try to remember today a family has lost a mother and we are talking about a person who was very ill at the end.

I lived through this woman's time in power, I know what she did, I am really pissed about some of the stuff she did, but some of the words being posted on the internet today really are shocking and saddening.

 

[AxeHappy]

If the dead wish not to be spoken ill of, they shouldn't do things worth speaking ill of while they are alive.

I may not revel in her death...but I absolutely will call bullshit on the type of terrible person she was and her horrible politics. This was a person who called Nelson Mandela a terrorist.

 

[Vinchester]

As a foreign student currently in the UK, even I know a bit of why a lot of people dislike her.

But like all people she was a product of her time. Apart from her actions, I think it's also important to understand the circumstances that put her in power. What she did must seem to be a good idea to the majority back then? Frankly I don't have any in depth knowledge so I'm holding my tongue for now.

Shit I've just tempted myself to go wiki-frenzy while having work to do.

 

[crg123]

edit: opps

Actually I'll leave it since it shows how out of the loop I really am. Two British women name Margaret and I have no idea who either of them are. You can laugh at this American being ignorant of international politics haha

I just googled this woman (Sorry I'm out of the loop) and this came up

Margaret Beckett dinosaur slur as AV fight turns ugly | Mail Online

The mistake is because of Acle (from tesseract's') facebook post

Acle Kahney "RIP margaret beckett, former queen of the united states of england"

 

[BucketheadRules]

I can't be the only one reading these comments and being appalled by the lack of basic human respect...

I wasn't even born until 1995, by which time she'd been out of office for five years, so I have no idea about what it was like to live under her government... 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. And it is an absolutely unarguable fact that she had more balls than all of the sorry excuses for politicians currently in the UK government put together. Anyway, however bad you think Thatcher was, Blair was worse. He is a truly repugnant man (although I won't be cheering when he eventually pops his clogs, because that's wrong).

Not many women at the time would even have considered running for prime minister, let alone got in and set about doing stuff. She actually did stuff (for better or worse), which is a damn sight more than can be said for the ineffectual wastes of space who have been calling the shots since.

Anyway, regardless of whether you liked her or not (it seems like everyone here doesn't...) she didn't end her days as a politician - she hadn't been in politics for years. 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. I haven't any experience of her as a prime minister (in fact, how many of you do?) and so I can't express a particularly strong opinion on her either way, but I'm inclined to have at least a degree of respect for her because I can recognise that she did things which were good, as well as the oft-publicised negatives...

What some of you here are actually doing is celebrating the death of a human being. Isn't that the kind of thing that absolute cunts normally do?

Yep, you're mocking and insulting an old woman after she's died. I hope you're proud of yourselves.




EDIT:

Obviously I've been neg-repped for this, clearly the idea of basic respect for a fellow human being is less popular than I thought. I don't think time is some kind of "magic eraser" but I never claimed, either, that she was indeed "absolved" of anything. You have to look beyond the politics - she was a human being, she had a family, and latterly she was frail and old, in bad health. Despite everything she did wrong, she was a human being just like you or I, and you don't celebrate when a human being dies, whether you liked them or not. I know she wasn't perfect by any means (and never said ANYTHING to that effect) but regardless of how much you dislike her, you DO NOT rejoice in her death. It is not the done thing.

 

[Fat-Elf]

I would have no idea who she is without Wikipedia articles of Iron Maiden's albums.

 

[Varcolac]

I can't be the only one reading these comments and being appalled by the lack of basic human respect...

I wasn't even born until 1995, by which time she'd been out of office for five years, so I have no idea about what it was like to live under her government... 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. And it is an absolutely unarguable fact that she had more balls than all of the sorry excuses for politicians currently in the UK government put together. Anyway, however bad you think Thatcher was, Blair was worse. He is a truly repugnant man (although I won't be cheering when he eventually pops his clogs, because that's wrong).

I'd like to see you try. On almost every front her policies were abhorrent, and I can show you point-by-point how she was the catalyst for the possibility of nearly every awful thing that UK governments have done since, and a good deal of European governments' misdeeds to boot.

Not many women at the time would even have considered running for prime minister, let alone got in and set about doing stuff. She actually did stuff (for better or worse), which is a damn sight more than can be said for the ineffectual wastes of space who have been calling the shots since.

Starting wars with random middle eastern states and rolling back the welfare state to the point of insanity isn't "doing stuff"? Could've fooled me. The again, Thatcher did that too... Desert Storm I, privatisation...

Anyway, regardless of whether you liked her or not (it seems like everyone here doesn't...) she didn't end her days as a politician - she hadn't been in politics for years. 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. I haven't any experience of her as a prime minister (in fact, how many of you do?) and so I can't express a particularly strong opinion on her either way, but I'm inclined to have at least a degree of respect for her because I can recognise that she did things which were good, as well as the oft-publicised negatives...

What some of you here are actually doing is celebrating the death of a human being. Isn't that the kind of thing that absolute cunts normally do?

Yep, you're mocking and insulting an old woman after she's died. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

I'm mocking and despairing of an utterly awful politician's influence on modern politics. Her relentless championing of the free market and the scorn she poured upon state institutions is still a very relevant political point of view today. Just listen to Osborne and Gove for half a minute. Privatise this, cut that, bail out banks, close libraries, privatise schools, cut benefits. The litany of cuts and privatisations, and the endless scrabbling for the coins at the coat-tails of big capital goes on. Her influence is felt every day.

I'm not celebrating her death. I feel great discomfort doing that. There's a street party going on about half a mile from my front door in celebration of her passing, and I'm most definitely not going to it. However, to ignore the utterly reprehensible elements of her political career is to paint her as a saint, and that she most certainly was not.

I won't celebrate her death, but I'm sure as hell not going to mourn her. A senile old lady who damaged the world in her prime has passed. I shed no tears, but I sing no songs of victory.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

I'm surprised a thread involving a discussion on whether or not it's appropriate to celebrate someone's passing has gone this far without anyone invoking Godwin's Law.



Oops!

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

Thatcher = Hitler.





Amidoingitright?

 

[ArtDecade]

I would have no idea who she is without Wikipedia articles of Iron Maiden's albums.

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

 

[Semichastny]

"This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. "Respecting the grief" of Thatcher's family members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.

But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.

Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and his ANC as "terrorists", something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Indonesian dictator General Suharto ("One of our very best and most valuable friends"). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, "across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted – and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown."

To demand that all of that be ignored in the face of one-sided requiems to her nobility and greatness is a bit bullying and tyrannical, not to mention warped. As David Wearing put it this morning in satirizing these speak-no-ill-of-the-deceased moralists: "People praising Thatcher's legacy should show some respect for her victims. Tasteless." Tellingly, few people have trouble understanding the need for balanced commentary when the political leaders disliked by the west pass away. Here, for instance, was what the Guardian reported upon the death last month of Hugo Chavez:

To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance."

Nobody, at least that I know of, objected to that observation on the ground that it was disrespectful to the ability of the Chavez family to mourn in peace. Any such objections would have been invalid. It was perfectly justified to note that, particularly as the Guardian also explained that "to the millions who revered him – a third of the country, according to some polls – a messiah has fallen, and their grief will be visceral." Chavez was indeed a divisive and controversial figure, and it would have been reckless to conceal that fact out of some misplaced deference to the grief of his family and supporters. He was a political and historical figure and the need to accurately portray his legacy and prevent misleading hagiography easily outweighed precepts of death etiquette that prevail when a private person dies.

Exactly the same is true of Thatcher. There's something distinctively creepy - in a Roman sort of way - about this mandated ritual that our political leaders must be heralded and consecrated as saints upon death. This is accomplished by this baseless moral precept that it is gauche or worse to balance the gushing praise for them upon death with valid criticisms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history."


-Glenn Greenwald

 

[Scar Symmetry]

I was sat next to a Northener in the Barbers today, mid-30s. I overheard him explain to the Persian Barber about how even though she'd completely fucked over him and his family, he still couldn't comprehend the vile way people had been talking about her on the day of her death. Had a lot of respect for that guy.

 

[Scar Symmetry]

"This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. "Respecting the grief" of Thatcher's family members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.

But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.

Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and his ANC as "terrorists", something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Indonesian dictator General Suharto ("One of our very best and most valuable friends"). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, "across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted – and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown."

To demand that all of that be ignored in the face of one-sided requiems to her nobility and greatness is a bit bullying and tyrannical, not to mention warped. As David Wearing put it this morning in satirizing these speak-no-ill-of-the-deceased moralists: "People praising Thatcher's legacy should show some respect for her victims. Tasteless." Tellingly, few people have trouble understanding the need for balanced commentary when the political leaders disliked by the west pass away. Here, for instance, was what the Guardian reported upon the death last month of Hugo Chavez:

To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance."

Nobody, at least that I know of, objected to that observation on the ground that it was disrespectful to the ability of the Chavez family to mourn in peace. Any such objections would have been invalid. It was perfectly justified to note that, particularly as the Guardian also explained that "to the millions who revered him – a third of the country, according to some polls – a messiah has fallen, and their grief will be visceral." Chavez was indeed a divisive and controversial figure, and it would have been reckless to conceal that fact out of some misplaced deference to the grief of his family and supporters. He was a political and historical figure and the need to accurately portray his legacy and prevent misleading hagiography easily outweighed precepts of death etiquette that prevail when a private person dies.

Exactly the same is true of Thatcher. There's something distinctively creepy - in a Roman sort of way - about this mandated ritual that our political leaders must be heralded and consecrated as saints upon death. This is accomplished by this baseless moral precept that it is gauche or worse to balance the gushing praise for them upon death with valid criticisms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history."


-Glenn Greenwald

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.