Comment by hugh3 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hugh3 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The retweeted quote is so in keeping with Dr. King's beliefs it is no surprise that so many people would attribute it to him.

Except if you think about MLK's life you'd think "What the hell context would this have been in? Who is this dead 'enemy' who killed 'thousands'?"

The (fake) quote does come across to me as a bit too holier-than-thou. It's a form of cost-free conspicuous po-facedness to which you set your facebook status to mark yourself as being morally superior to the less sophisticated USA-USA chanting crowd. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing MLK would have said, because MLK wasn't all that into "Hey look I'm better than you" type announcements.

There's a scene in Return of the Jedi where the Super Star Destroyer crashes into the Death Star. Everybody else on the bridge cheers, but Admiral Ackbar looks sad and bows his head, acknowleding the awfulness of the loss of life even if they were evil enemies who were trying to kill everyone. The listed quote is propagated by Ackbar wannabees with a George Lucas level view of what being morally sophisticated looks like.

So then how do you express the sentiment? I felt very uncomfortable hearing about the "celebrations" occurring after bin Laden's death. How do you say something like, "dude, death sucks, no matter who's on the receiving end of it," without coming off as playing the moral-superiority card?

On a side note, your post has a bit of a holier-than-thou feel to it.

I think it's a property of the sentiment itself, rather than the quote. But that's just me - I like it when evil people meet their comeuppance; I thought it was good that OBL was executed, although I'm not the air-punching, brewski chugging type. If I were to find and post a quote indicating my sentiments, no doubt there'd be people thinking I was a dick; it's not going to keep me awake at night.

My feelings were similar. On one hand it is perfectly normal and natural to be happy to see justice served at the end of a gun... we humans are social creatures, and the desire which we have to see wrongdoers punished is a normal and natural part of our emotional makeup.

On the other hand, as a civilized person I think that actively glorying in the death of an enemy is a bit unseemly. So I felt a bit of quiet satisfaction, made a few pithy comments to mark the occasion, and poured myself a glass of my most expensive whisky.

So basically in answer to the grandparent question: I think the appropriate response is to keep quiet about it. Let other folks express their own feelings about this historic occasion without feeling the need to elevate yourself above them.

I also think it unseemly; especially when the enemy is one of circumstance and in a better world...

But this guy? He killed men, women and children to make a political point. He sacrificed his own, to make his point. He sat back in his mansion, rich and pampered, paying to have people killed.

I admit to a little glorying, to an unseemly degree. Just this once.

>But this guy? He killed men, women and children to make a political point. He sacrificed his own, to make his point. He sat back in his mansion, rich and pampered, paying to have people killed.

The same could be said about thousands of people on both sides of this war. Personally, as long as there are people willing to take his place, I'm not rejoicing one bit.

Wait - really? Implying me and you too?

Consider the strike force on this one: volunteers, entered under enemy fire and Arrested the bodyguards they encountered, found the guy and disabled the young woman guarding him by wounding her in the leg; retreated with his body; had to blow up the disabled helicopter but first Dragged the Enemy Bastard's personal bodyguard to safety(!), then left all while under fire.

There's a word that describes all that, but its not 'terrorism' its...wait...let me think...Heroism! Yeah, that's right.

Bin Laden was a bad person, sure. But there are a lot of bad people in this world. Why was he specifically killed, and why is he singular in his ability to motivate Muslims to terrorism? Why is he going to be any less effective in his death than in his life? I just don't see the value in his death. Terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq have no shortage of leaders, or of new recruits. The only real purpose I see in his death is making a new martyr - much more powerful than the hunted man who died.

A dead martyr has no money. So there's that. The rest remains to be seen.

There's no good way to say it, even if that's what you're feeling. It's tacky at best and insensitive at worst.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com