Are Dirk, Jesse, Wesley, Sean and Kim all the terrible people I think they are?
I'm asking because I want to understand if my position (of thinking these people are horrible people) is defensible.
I think when you stop to consider the stations of irony, and also the fact that you're describing social media interaction, there's more to it.
Also, "A good start," is the punch line to an old joke about drowning a hundred lawyers. And, sure, people are being insensitive, even extraordinarily so, because that's how social media works.
What makes this so horrifying is that it is the example you see. And, I suppose, within that, the opportunism of the cruelty. Think of it this way, when the report came in that the flat-earther had died in his rocket launch, everyone I know laughed. But nobody laughed when they watched the video of the failed launch. They laughed right up to the launch, and then stopped because they knew the next thing they were going to see was someone dying.
But that's still a different question, in its way. Would it make that much of a difference if the system, rated to 1300 meters, failed entirely at 2000, and they all died then? I remember people laughing when we lost
Challenger. When the question arose whether anyone survived the initial blast, they laughed harder.
Here's an obscure question: When they joke, are they leading or following? Are they establishing a joke or even outlook, or simply contributing their two cents?
And then think both forward and back. Today, and possibly for the next remainder of a lifetime, there is someone alive who is suffering both in body and mind, and how are we supposed to feel about the antivaxxer whose wife and child are dead, and whose long Covid symptoms are picked up on the public tab? Put that way, it's kind of a rough suggestion, but compared to the history that precedes, looking at that person's living misery and taking satisfaction in the idea that he did it to himself is an easy, even attractive behavior that entire cultures are conditioned by praxis to appreciate, seek, and pursue.
I also think it's important to note on the use of the word, "oligarchs", but that can wait; I can't tell if they're trying to vilify idiots or humanize oligarchs. It's not quite a Poe's Law thing, but the word comes up in a twit-trend that we're not going to understand until later.
Consider the idea that nobody has a solid definition of what art is, but most can tell you what isn't,
i.e., what doesn't meet their undefined standard. Part of what stands out is the question of timing; if we wait until they're dead, how much more acceptable or, at least, less unacceptable, does the joke become? Was it a quick death, or slow and fearful and agonizing, and to what degree does this change how we feel about the joke? Does the use of the word "oligarchs" license cruel satisfaction? Is the use of the word "oligarchs" actually appropriate? It is harder to affirmatively describe the appropriate range than to identify and disqualify what is inappropriate. What is an acceptable joke? Most won't set that boundary affirmatively, because they know their criteria will fail. But they will, meanwhile, tell you what is not acceptable.
But in all that, there is also the question of whether one
is terrible, or is
being terrible. It's a distinction far too forgetten in general, and even easier to overlook online.
Part of what you are trying to figure out has to do with how
defining the circumstance is. Again, generally terrible, or just being terrible in the moment; the reasons why matter, especially in the case of the latter.
And you would know these people better than the rest of us. Monstrous, mayhaps, but what are the particular implications vis à vis these individuals. Part of me wants to suggest that a coincidence of factors makes this particular iteration of common behavior seem particularly monstrous, as such, but that also suggests a valence of mundane monstrosity, and that discussion becomes its own messy monster.
