Death of a Douche.

I am not happy Breitbart is "dead". I am happy he is gone, and out of the public eye, because of the poison he has brought to politics here. There's a difference. Hard to understand for those that live in a black and white world, but there it is.

That is all…

Big difference indeed. He left behind 4 children afterall.

True, and a wife. For them, I am sorry, if he was as good of a husband and father as the obits have said.

"I don't remember being the one weeping like a girl over mean words and vitrolic language. That was a leftie thing manufactured to counteract the Tea Party. Much like right here in WatchLand, you can be as mean as ya like, but you can't run to Mommy if you get it right back. Y'all started the whole holier-than-thou bullshit about civil discourse, but you discarded it as soon as you had an opportunity. Do as I say, not as I do? Hypocrisy."

"She admitted repeatedly to violating federal discrimination laws. But she kinda made it up to her victim later on… What a saint."

Once again, dteowner speaks Truth and troglodyte statists fail to appreciate it.

Drithius said:

Big difference indeed. He left behind 4 children afterall.

Click to expand...

And Ted Kennedy left behind wife, three children, two stepchildren and four grandchildren. Breitbart haven't shown any compassion to him or them. What goes around comes around I say.

Drithius said:

No, I can't recall ever being happy when someone died. And I find it quite arrogant of you to try pronouncing judgment on such a statement. The world is full of of dictators, murderers, & rapists; simply wishing them dead won't solve anything.

Click to expand...

Again I agree with you. Completely.

pibbur

Here we are suddenly deeply within one of the oldest philosophical discourses : Is murdering a Tyrant allowed or not ?

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Here we are suddenly deeply within one of the oldest philosophical discourses : Is murdering a Tyrant allowed or not ?

Click to expand...

Some people just need killing. It doesn't follow, however, that such a death (or any death for that matter) should be taken lightly.

Sometimes a person inflicts pain on a large group of people. Sometimes this happens repeatidly, sometimes with transgressions too great to forgive. Getting rid of that person becomes a release and might be neccessary for life to go on and for people to rebuild and begin to grow again. The release is probably the most important part here in which the death, even the killing of that person, is probably the most likely thing that will happen.

Breitbart was a douche. I feel bad for his family, but this country is better off without him.

Check this short video for a small taste of what a raging moron this guy was. Real conservative hero:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

My take:

An old guy named Joe who had lived in my building with his wife for the last 20 years died just this week. He was a nice man, to the point of getting to know the names of every single person in the building. He didn't just know my name, he knew what I did for a living, asked where I was travelling this year, and followed up after my trip, asking how we liked it. Now he's dead. Just like Breitbart is dead, and you and I will some day be dead.*

Breitbart was a loudmouthed lying bully. He woke up every morning and made his living being a loudmouthed lying bully. He had charisma and could speak well on camera for the most part, and he was smart about getting platforms together on the internet to sell his loudmouth bullying bullsh!t. He made his entire reputation and living on being a lying, loudmouthed bully. I didn't know him. But I have known some lying loudmouthed bullies in my life, and out of all the billions of fellow humans on this planet, I put them in a lower rank as far as how much I care about them or repect them. The people I choose to live with and love do not make their livings being loud, lying bullies. If they did, I would purposely avoid them and disassociate myself from them. Again, there's another several billion of you bipeds out there I can choose to spend my short time with, or caring about.

So I didn't know him, but it's my personal belief -- based on the many tirades, lies and mass media platforms and appearances that he chose to try to foist on me - some times successfully - that he wasn't a good person. In fact, I don't just disagree with his weird bellicose radicalism, but I think that he's been a major player in the poluting of the world I live in. I don't think he's a monster, but I think his net effect on the world was negative, him and his tinpot army of liars and media sycophants and crazed spotlight seekers.

See, there is no god to judge him. Just a bunch of us, stranded here on earth. I judge people by their actions. I don't actively mourn the hundreds of people who died on the planet since I read the news of breitbart's passing. And I don't mourn for breitbart. In fact, I think his being gone is a small net positive.

Did I want him dead? No. Ideally he would have woken up this morning and said "I'm not going to be a lunatic loudmouthed media hungry bully anymore" and then followed through with that plan. But it didn't work out that way. He's dead, just like the guy in my building is dead. Just like you and I will be dead. I don't believe in forgiving people who were professional destructive assh0|3s in life. I don't want this moron who spent every day with his army of wannabe media clowns pissing in the punchbowl of life getting elevated to a respected position by doing what comes naturally for all of us: dying. Screw that. Oh yeah, sorry for the kids. Truth is though, your dad was a self promoting d!ck who made sure that the entire world knew it every morning, on teevee or the internet. And it'll all be there for you to read while you grow up. You can thank good old dad for that.

I judge him by his actions and behavior. Just like I do everyone. Just like you do. Just like everyone does. I don't want to see this bozo put up on a pedestal as a brave truth teller just because he gave good interview and was friendly in the green room.

I have several billion people who I care about more than him. Good riddance. I'll be gone soon too. So will all the posters on the Forvm, but not one of us has been the tiniest scintilla of a c0ck-n)zz|3 that breitbart was.


*reading this again, the story about the guy in my building Joe sounds apocryphal. It isn't.

I never knew Mr. Breitbart. After reading a bit about him, he reminds me a lot of Michael Moore, who was also always up for a joke. The problem, it seems, is when people take guys like these seriously.

To feel happiness for another person's death? Why not? Isn't it pleasant to imagine your rival's body spasm on the ground as their eyes, full of terror, fight to control their body. Their pants stained with their own urine is almost comical. The clotting blood forming on their face from when they hit their head on the ground gives the appearance that their injury from falling is more serious than whatever it is that is, from the wretched smell, wrenching feces from their gut. Their eyes are fading, but they are trying to focus; trying to say something. Maybe your mouth curls into a smile when all they are able to get out is a stuttered moan. The twitching becomes slower and their is nothing left in their eyes. They are dead; brain dead at least. It is time for you to celebrate.

Honestly, we are all making fools of ourselves with our moralizing about things most of us have never known. Even worse when we think we are winning some political battle by speaking rudely to strangers. But, hey, we're all destined to be fools anyway, so at live your life in a way that is meaningful to you, whether that involves pissing on other people's graves or criticizing the pisser.

I believe it is immoral to forgive someone because they are dead. If a person, when alive, have done terrible deeds, those terrible deeds aren't suddenly ok. We judge, sometimes harshly, in order to set a standard for those who are still alive, and we should be consistent to send the message that if you are a bad person, people will not hold you in positive regard, even after your death, so you should be a bad person while you are alive only if you are ok with that.

JemyM said:

I believe it is immoral to forgive someone because they are dead. If a person, when alive, have done terrible deeds, those terrible deeds aren't suddenly ok. We judge, sometimes harshly, in order to set a standard for those who are still alive, and we should be consistent to send the message that if you are a bad person, people will not hold you in positive regard, even after your death, so you should be a bad person while you are alive only if you are ok with that.

Click to expand...

That is quite nicely said. My only criticism would follow:

1. Jemy bases his ethics on logical cause and effect.
2. Logical cause and effect dictates that one ought not have any care about how they are regarded after their death.

For what special reason, derived through the same methods as your originally stated moral, should someone care about others' opinions of them after they are dead? It appears to be a useless thing. If this is true, the original moral may be valid, but is also useless.

For example, "I believe it is immoral to care about what people think about oneself after oneself is dead. It sets a standard of holding a person back from the way such person would have lived for the sake of imagined hurt feelings."

I do not say this to insult you, but I say it because I think you are worthy of the conversation (I am not insulted if you simply disagree with me for reasons that you or I cannot communicate and understand).

Yes, I reflected on this after writing it. Here are my assumptions;
1. The dead is dead. The dead is merely a symbol or example for the living. We cannot judge who's dead, only do so symbolically for those who are alive.
2. Some care about what people will think about them when they are dead, while they are still alive. We judge (1) in order to send a moral message for those alive.
3. Those who do not care must be dealt with in a different manner, again perhaps as a warning example for others.
4. There are disagreements on what behavior is unjustifiable and justified, hopefully we can rely on dialectics and democracy to help the better viewpoint to win out in what our culture believe is right or wrong.

zahratustra said:

And Ted Kennedy left behind wife, three children, two stepchildren and four grandchildren. Breitbart haven't shown any compassion to him or them. What goes around comes around I say.

Click to expand...

Teddy was old and had led a good and hard long life. Not that his family doesn't deserve compassion (I despise the Kennedys and even I wouldn't say they don't deserve compassion), but Breitbart was in the prime of his life and leaves behind children that only had him for a few years. Big difference.

JemyM said:

Yes, I reflected on this after writing it. Here are my assumptions;
1. The dead is dead. The dead is merely a symbol or example for the living. We cannot judge who's dead, only do so symbolically for those who are alive.
2. Some care about what people will think about them when they are dead, while they are still alive. We judge (1) in order to send a moral message for those alive.
3. Those who do not care must be dealt with in a different manner, again perhaps as a warning example for others.
4. There are disagreements on what behavior is unjustifiable and justified, hopefully we can rely on dialectics and democracy to help the better viewpoint to win out in what our culture believe is right or wrong.

Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time.

I have an intense interest in reasoned ethics because of my belief in respecting other peoples' beliefs (choice over all). But that respect can only go so far. For example, one good thing that the Chinese government has done in Xinjiang is to stop the Uyghur Muslims from murdering young women who have been raped (justice over religion). But I fear my personal development of underlying theory is too immature to latch onto truly practical applications.

And your moral is inherently practical (or do I mean actually useful?), but it seems perhaps a bit manipulative if caring how one is viewed after death is illogical (since your proposed moral is logical). One does not, in the reasoned sense, have goals, hopes, or feelings after one is dead.

And between democracy and dialectics, I'll choose dialectics, but I fear it is indeed more of a popularity contest rather than one of careful thought. Indeed, another poster clearly voiced their value in popularity over thought in this very thread!

I didn't know this guy, but I can't help but wonder, don't liberals have an 'Andrew Breitbart' of their own? I am not quite familiar with the dirty side of politics, but I think liberals may have people like him too. This guy can't be one of a kind.

Does it matter? Would it make it OK? No.