(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	sandglass 2011-06-21 09:04 pm UTC (link)
	Why would he do that? I just. I don't get it. It's so thoughtless. He's been on the Internet for a long time, he has to know how public it is! (Reply to this)(Thread)

anidraugluin
2011-06-21 09:11 pm UTC (link)

"Thoughtless?" The guy drank and drove! He was responsible for the death of passenger and could have killed god knows how many other drivers or pedestrians. Are we supposed to pretend that he didn't engage in an extremely hazardous activity that was a danger to the lives of others just because he's dead?

That kind of "polite" erasure is why so many people aren't aware that driving under the influence IS such a big problem. I'm sick of it, and I side with Ebert.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	anarchicq 2011-06-21 09:13 pm UTC (link)
	And the comment wasn't even particularly snide or witty. It was pretty much just stating facts. If anything it came across (to me) as "Sigh, not another one. When will kids learn?" (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sandglass 2011-06-21 09:18 pm UTC (link)
	While you wrote this, I was writing up my explanation that he's not hurting people who drink and drive, but those mourning Dunn. While I agree with the sentiment, but the execution is thoughtless. Also, I meant "Thoughtless" as in, "How was he so thoughtless as to not foresee how this would blow up?" Maybe he and I have something in common, who knows. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	anidraugluin 2011-06-21 09:26 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, now I see. Sorry, I parsed your words incorrectly. I agree that Ebert probably should have foreseen his tweet exploding, since he's a fairly internet-savvy gentleman. Then again, he's not one to shy away from a bit of controversy, that's for sure. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	miraba 2011-06-21 10:05 pm UTC (link)
	I'm sure he had some idea what would happen and decided it was still worth posting. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sandglass 2011-06-21 09:16 pm UTC (link)
	To clarify: I didn't mean that what he said was wrong, but he's not being an asshole to Ryan Dunn or even other people who drive drunk, he's being an asshole to the people mourning Ryan Dunn. Ebert has written up an explanatory blog post, too. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

rosehiptea
2011-06-21 09:27 pm UTC (link)

I'm glad he clarified his thoughts in a longer post, but I still don't think he deserved to have his Facebook taken down (though it is back up now.)

Was it insensitive to the family and friends? Yeah, I guess I can't deny that. But this portion of a comment on that post speaks to me:

As for thinking of Ryan's family? Shouldn't HE have been the first one to do that? Respect for family works both ways. If you worry about how your family will be without you, perhaps you should be thinking twice about driving at very high speeds in a car you can't control in a questionable state of competence.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sandglass 2011-06-21 09:30 pm UTC (link)
	See, that comment is something I can entirely agree with. The repetition of an empty slogan bugs me, but that comment really cuts to why it's so important to push drinking safely and in moderation. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	notjo 2011-06-22 02:36 am UTC (link)
	It's always faaaascinating to me what will be ruled by the powers that run websites what is offensive enough to warrant immediate action and what is not. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

eleutheria
2011-06-22 09:48 am UTC (link)

Seriously. Racists, rape apologists, and Neo-Nazis aren't offensive enough (and don't even get me started on some of the shit I saw on Facebook after Osama bin Laden's death), but saying that you shouldn't drink and drive on another website, even, apparently is.

I'm reminded of LJ during Strikethrough. Neo-Nazis and pro-ana people urging "thinspiration" on people? Not offensive enough. Harry Potter porn? OMG, bring it down!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

ekaterinv
2011-06-23 08:46 pm UTC (link)

No shit. I'm nearly as angry about the people wagging their fingers at Ebert for pointing out that drinking before driving, and speeding like that, are complete jackassery, as I am at the jackasses who drink and drive. I'm very close to someone who has a drinking problem and who has gotten behind the wheel drunk many times, and if he killed himself doing so and anyone tried to whisk that away supposedly in order to spare my feelings, I would go ballistic. I spent enough of my life trying to pretend a drinking problem wasn't there and wasn't traumatic -- the last thing I'd want is other people trying to pretend it away as well. Nothing like enabling a dead dude!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	ladyrogue 2011-06-21 10:09 pm UTC (link)
	That was kind of where I was going with it. That and the police have said they don't know if he was drunk or not. He probably was, but I still wouldn't want to say something like that until it was for certain. I think this is just a case of Ebert jumping the gun a little too soon. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2011-06-22 06:30 am UTC (link)
	Hard to get a good blood alcohol reading when most of that blood is all over. (Reply to this)(Parent)

eleutheria
2011-06-22 09:44 am UTC (link)

I don't get how he's being an asshole to the people mourning Dunn. I'm sorry, the entire fucking internet doesn't exist to be a cushion to those who are grieving. I'd think it was one thing if he'd said this specifically to a loved one of Dunn's, but it's his Twitter and his right to air his views on it.

(Yes, I'm probably guilty of hypocrisy to some degree on this, but the idea that the entire internet needs to muzzle itself lest it upset someone by telling the truth sits incredibly poorly with me.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mirhanda 2011-06-22 07:38 pm UTC (link)
	This. I agree with everything you said. (Reply to this)(Parent)

sandglass
2011-06-23 06:15 am UTC (link)

I'm sorry, the entire fucking internet doesn't exist to be a cushion to those who are grieving.

Yes, it's not the point of the Internet, but that doesn't give him free reign to say whatever whenever. He too is responsible for his actions, and part of that is being called out when it's appropriate. Which, given his blog post, he recognizes.

Don't get me wrong, if he'd waited until the facts were verified (as he later said he should have) or been a bit kinder (I wouldn't complain about "Friends don't let friends..."), I wouldn't care. But if the point is that the Internet doesn't exist for coddling, then...why shouldn't I call him out on insensitivity?

I realize I'm being overly kind to Dunn--what he did was horrific and unpardonable. But at the same time, the respect for the dead is only partially for their memory, it's also part for the people mourning him. I don't think it's unfair to call for a public figure to err on the side of kindness, especially immediately after someone's death.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

eleutheria
2011-06-23 10:14 am UTC (link)

but that doesn't give him free reign to say whatever whenever

Unless it's in violation of the TOS or the law, yes it does. That's exactly what I'm arguing it does.

Just like you (and the people who didn't like what he said) have a right to criticize him for it.

My thing is there's a difference between saying that, and saying "muzzle yourself if you're going to say something that hurts me" to someone in their own space where you are not intrinsically a part of that space (I'm splitting a hair here, but if you know someone on your flist is going to be hurt by what you're saying, filter that shit, because you've got something of an obligation to them). Ebert is arguing that he didn't intend his statement to offend, he intended it to be true. He thought telling people not to drink and drive was important enough to say no matter what. He has that right. And if he doesn't, that's not an internet I want any part of.

No, it's not to say that I haven't thought "that person should never have said that" and hell, that I haven't said that. It's just... one public figure making another public figure uncomfortable doesn't meet any sniff test I could devise for when you get to police someone else's space.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

ekaterinv
2011-06-24 12:27 am UTC (link)

Telling the truth about why a drunk, speeding driver killed himself and someone else is not something that I consider "insensitive". I would be PISSED OFF if anyone tried to pat me on the head and "poor dear, let's not talk about the alcohol problem" after the alcoholic in my family died. Ebert didn't e-mail the family saying their son drank too much and got what he deserved. In fact, he never said anything like that anywhere, and never invaded their space. He said, basically, driving drunk and speeding are things that will get you killed, and here is proof. Which I would be shouting from the rooftops if the drunk driving alcoholic in my family had just died.

And when Ebert made his remarks, he knew that the dude drank 3 beers and 3 shots and then sped. He drank alcohol, lots of it, before driving, and then sped. Ebert wasn't reasoning in advance of facts at all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -