I'm a Coffin Confessor
newsweek.com
newsweek.com
Culturally, it's my feeling that funerals are not for the dead, they are for the living, and this is a way for the dead to cut into the lives of people who now get to move on.
The "zing" element of it is just a way for someone to be hurtful to people who can never have closure on that...
On the flip side - not everyone is cynical, they may say some of the things they had a hard time saying when they were alive, affirmations that maybe made them uncomfortable, or admitting wrongs that may have been too difficult to do when alive.
I'd hope that a service like this would be thoughtful, and pensive, and think of those who are left behind as a primary focus.
Edit: and this is all possibly moot as it sounds like this person isn't even real (I get that this is speculation, but I'm just sharing it because I agree, this story is questionable): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24427464
Edit 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24428153
Pretty good evidence this is actually real, so, yeah, my comment stands though :)
I agree on this, it's unfortunate that the article focuses on that story first... towards the end, it mentions other stories that are more wholesome (e.g. the story about the wife who left messages around the house for his surviving husband to find) but I guess that unfortunately negativity "sells" better.
Edit - nowadays, considering our shortened attention span, that editorial choice is even more unfortunate (as opposed to 20-30 years ago when news consumption happened offline and in a different fashion - and probably a higher percentage of readers would end up reading the whole article).
this is why I absolutely love this, it has a Diogenic quality. I've always really disliked how churches and funerals lull people with their bog-standard speeches and an hour after the funeral everyone's bickering about the news or who gained ten pounds of weight.
A death is a great opportunity to shock people out of their everyday stupor, and when my grandfather died who was always somewhat of a trickster, he asked to put a recorder into the coffin with a sort of knocking sound that should play when he was lowered into the grave. Obviously everyone completely freaked out and half of the people were mad but I laughed my ass off.
I think this is life affirming and when you can shock some people and have something they ought to be reminded of a funeral's the time to do it, they'll probably remember it for a long time.
On the other hand outing someone this way is shitty. It is what a coward does.
> it has a Diogenic quality
Diogenes had the hutzpah to call people on their crap when he was alive. To me, his purported opinion of his burial was not meant to lash out, but to show us the reality of death.
The idea was basically that anyone could pay to get any message delivered anonymously using our service as a cut out [3].
1. Client pays UCC to send a message of their choosing
2. UCC Contractor delivers message and sends proof and any response, back to UCC
3. UCC sends client the proof and any response
This was pre-smart phone, pre-gig economy, pre-easy payments and was done with me hiring random people off of craigslist as messengers and taking messages from emails.
I think someone could actually turn this into a real service today for really cheap. Probably doesn't scale though.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20071106164225/http://upclosecom...
[2] https://www.houstonpress.com/news/random-checks-at-the-boliv...
Much cheaper than sending someone to crash a funeral, but also much less dramatic.
Well... At least life is never dull.
Some might deliberately choose to click that you're dead, in the hopes of seeing the message, but likely your spouse or whoever would be, like, "Honey, this thing says you're dead..."
And if none of them answer, because it went to their junk or they're all dead by now, then it's moot because they're exactly the people who would have seen anything.
Alternatively, the dead man switch service could generate a secret link that you copy into your will, and your executor clicks it to trigger the process (which may still email you or others to confirm that you are dead)?
I kinda feel there’s some interesting fiction to be written around this...
These days I know to avoid things like this for the reasons stated.
Used to self-medicate with copious amounts of coke, pepsi and red bull and fast food. Bit of a mixed bag that.
Actually on the subject of secrets and coke, I stole like 200 cans of it from a place that used the honor system. I needed my fix and couldn't stop myself from doing it. Always confused me why I behaved that way and why I couldn't stop. When I got diagnosed a lot of things like that just started to make sense.
What does help me quite a lot (ordered by effectiveness):
Regular daily exercise (this one is surprisingly effective)
Avoiding certain foods (sugar, red dye)
Having at least some moderately mindful side project (building kits, reconfiguring your wm, working on OSS etc.) I play ukulele, but I would call noodling mindless so be careful with that
Avoiding mindless stuff like YouTube/reddit/HN (heh)
Getting dragged off to actually go do things by eg your girlfriend (I feel bad because I’m usually upset at her when she does this, but I’ve told her many times that it does actually help me, that must be confusing.)
IMO: if you let yourself be impulsive it puts you in an impulsive mood and makes giving in easier, I’m not saying this stuff is perfect but it’s the best I’ve found.
Though having said that, exercise and good sleep hygiene are almost universal panaceas for almost any mental or physical problem one might have.
They might not cure you, but they sure help make almost anything at least slightly easier to bear.
I only got diagnosed with ADHD at age 30, and was already doing exercise etc. Some low dose medication really helped me. Including giving me the mental spare capacity to tick off more of the other items on your list.
Another one suffering from the same condition here.
I'm more like GP. Checking email consistently is a big problem for me.
We are different. The way ADHD expresses itself varies wildly as far as I understand.
But, you're right in that were all same same but different.
Well, now I wonder if I have ADHD.
Unfortunately the condition is just pernicious enough to do real damage to your life, and just subtle enough to go unnoticed for decades.
There's almost nothing online about him other than his interviews, and all of a sudden this week numerous articles about him separately popping up? Something feels a bit off.
It's almost like it's becoming true because it's been printed? He can now go make a show or sell the service to people or whatever, and when people say "is this true?" he can point to all the articles about it as proof. It doesn't matter if it's true anymore, because now there's enough sources that it's fact.
From one of the original articles from the gold-coast:
"The extraordinary story of a Gold Coast private detective paid to gatecrash funerals and tell uncomfortable truths is to be made into an ‘emotional and confronting’ TV series."
They even managed to get the story run by our national broadcaster, which is SUPPOSED to be ad/marketing free, but these days shrug, just dress it up as an article and its on for young and old...
For more on what it looks like at the bottom of the cesspool of click driven “journalism”: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/newsweek.php
> Newsweek has the name and the professional website it has built in years past, but it’s increasingly repurposing the work of others—whether the Washington Post, the outrage fiends at Fox News, or a dozen people on Twitter—and packaging it as its own. Plenty of news sites aggregate, and in many ways the story of Newsweek is the story of the industry. But whereas other aggregators—Mashable, BuzzFeed, Upworthy; the list goes on—built their sites around this kind of internet-first strategy, Newsweek is selling off its own legacy while hoping that readers won’t notice.
I checked if there was a registered business and there was. Details here: https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=68196068066
Seems believable to me, when I first read it I thought “Typical Gold Coast!”
The name was changed only a few months ago. Before that, the company name was Freedom from Debt Collectors.
Like I said, I’m sure there’s a bit of truth in this. And I’m 100% sure he’ll take someone’s money to show up at a funeral. I just feel like somethings off in general.
Of course the deceased could also have lied for reasons best known to themselves. The 'best mate' is not in the best condition to defend themselves if it turned out the deceased was delusional.
Christopher Hitchens published an article shortly before his demise to reassure people of his views on atheism, lest any clergy or family get the urge to fabricate the good news of his deathbed conversion. For those of us that aren't writers for Vanity Fair a service like this could be useful.
You’re dead. Your opinions don’t matter any more. You don’t even get the satisfaction of spilling the beans, because, well, you’re dead.
Sure, maybe nobody will know your wife cheated on you. But that’s ok, because you’re dead. Why bring more pain to the living?
Now, if you were have someone crash the funeral to tell your spouse how much you loved them. Great, nice idea.
But the vindictive examples seem like a complete waste of time and only hurt people. Especially putting the gay biker (apparently not everyone knew)). Great friend he turned out to be.
Message boards may operate on similar principals. I get the satisfaction of communicating my point as I write this, even though I don't know who if anyone may read it.
To anyone that doesn't get the reference, the book "Speaker for the Dead" is the next book after Ender's Game and in my opinion is the best book in the series.
This is the dead person speaking on their own behalf. That is telling the truth, both positive and negative, about the dead person.
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_for_the_Dead
I thought book titles are not subject to copyright?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.writersdigest.com/.amp/copy...
That’s a bit different from copyright which is automatic and free of charge.
But bringing up both things are good points either way.
Which makes me wonder, what happens if I were to write a book and two months later someone decides to rip off the title for their own book, and my publisher decides to trademark the title of my book? Would the trademark application be rejected because someone else used the same title in the intervening time? And if the trademark application was granted, would my publisher be able to demand that the other author/publisher stopped printing their book under the same title, or would they still be allowed to do so because their titling of the book preceded our trademark?
I also think it’s unfair of the second example to come out as gay and also name his lover at the funeral. I’m guessing this was a secret because that particular bike club wasn’t very open minded, the deceased doesn’t care because now he’s gone but his lover probably does very much care but now he’s burned.
I really hope that if I’m ever in this situation i can focus on being grateful and spend my time on much more positive things as I’m dying rather than revenge beyond the grave.
I also just finished reading Eugene o’kelly’s book (chasing daylight) on his last 100 days between when he finds out he has terminal brain cancer and only three months left to live, and how he is doing everything he can to have the beat time of his life while also making it easier for his whole family and friends to deal with his death. Quite a contrast from the story in the article and much much more positive.
He wrote a book describing their joint activities, and had his son publish it after his passing, so as to embarrass the former friend.
When he died, this politician was greatly respected. After the book came out, it made him seem so crass, petty and vengeful, that his reputation was completely shattered.
It was so bad that another famous man - I think Churchill - said that this was the first case he knew of a man committing suicide posthumously.
If anyone can give names, would appreciate it. But I bet a service like this will offer many more the ability to accidentally destroy themselves after their death.
It is craven by definition, but it is what it is. Unspokeness exists because there are pressures. It is naive to think that politicians do not hold opinions that they keep to themselves to some extent. Such is politics. People too, not just politicians.
In a US context (not american, but I guess US politics is our lingua franca) Eisenhower's military-industrial complex speech is the prime example. Even firm "peace candidates" of american politics (then and today) do not generally address the economic aspects of military policy.
Now that we're in the $trn corporation era, there may be eisenhower speeches from former CEOs and such. I'd be curious to hear Jack Dorsey's opinions, once he's removed from direct interest.
So... the desire, the tendency exists. Speaking from the grave has an added romantic element. I think I'm "pro" on this coffin confessions thing. There are certainly downsides, the potential to unload negativity which can never be moderated. But, I think the act of uploading such a confession is likely to have consequences before death. I'd be curious to know how many edits these get, on average.
There is apparently a tradition in some cultures, now largely vanished, known as the “sin eater.” It goes beyond a religious deathbed confession in that the sin eater hears the worst sins, and takes on the weight of those sins, in return for a fee. It occurred in parts of the UK and India, but died out in the 1800s.
Another is more modern, prompted or resurrected by the science fiction novel Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. The author claimed that people were adapting the ceremony featured in the novel to their own deaths.
(Typing from a phone, hard to share links, sorry)
It would be an amazing experience, for both the speaker and the mourners. Looking forward to hearing more about this story.
But for some people, that is a reasonable sum to know that your “final message” will be delivered at the appropriate time.
He also lines up an alternate funeral director to have a backup site, and I imagine that's not free.
> My client was knocking on death's door and he was not going to have the strength to say or do these things himself, but he really felt empowered through knowing I would be able to do what I did.
This reminds me of Swiss kinetic artist Jean Tinguely: his coffin was followed by one of his mechanical sculptures with noisy fireworks and smoke… He was also known as a “party perturbator” [1] (article in German).
Another one of his surprises, a bit unrelated but noteworthy: a “major auto-destructive performance, a work called La Vittoria, in front of Milan Cathedral in 1970. La Vittoria was a 10-metre-high phallus made of papier-mâché, spiked with fireworks, and then set on fire.” (I stress that the installation was set up in front of the “Duomo”) [2].
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13491563.html
[2] https://www.stedelijk.nl/en/collection/95263-jean-tinguely-l...
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7g3RuoreRc (slightly NSFW -Dropkick Murphy video)
"I'm here to tell you something that the deceased had a whole lifetime to tell you, but just decided not to."
Sure, stranger. Sure. Whatever.
> I need to record the conversation and I need a contract signed, because I need to protect myself.
If someone thinks he's just making it up, he's got the documentation.
"It's all secure, and when they pass, the next of kin receives the login and that person will get to read the deceased person's confession. I got 8,000 uploads in one week and it's just gone from there. There's some really funny stuff, but I would definitely contact the police if something was posted on the site that I felt was a serious crime that needed to be reported."
If he can read it directly like that, it's not really that secure (or at least private), is it? I understand the law enforcement argument here so I'm not quite sure how I feel about this.
If you are doing it so would lots of other people.
Now that's morbid.
Why not? People gain satisfaction from eg knowing that their work will endure after them, or that there offspring will live on etc. Why should this be different?
Of course, whether or not the 'coffin confessor' follows through for any one specific persons funeral doesn't make a different to that specific person: they are dead.
But following through is still essential, because for the next client to get satisfaction out of the service while they are still living requires the 'coffin confessor' to have a reputation for following through.
Sorry I have no source to provide but I take it from a reliable (french) broadcast.
Evidently not that secure then, if he's reading through people's confessions. And worrying when the site explicitly encourages "graphic images, confessions of a crime or something [like] an extra marital affair".
Keep in mind also that it costs $9.99 to upload your confession, with "no guarantees" that the service will actually exist long enough to deliver it.
why not record the guy and play the video at the funeral?
I suppose this is a less fragile way of fully executing their client's authentic wishes, with a backup funeral home ready to go if it remains impossible.
Maybe this service will help people remember the dead after they die because it will help catalog all their exploits that they would have otherwise have gotten in trouble for had they been alive.