The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless.
I’m open to the idea that it may not really matter, and everyone deserves the dignity to not be buried anonymously. But there were a lot of resources invested in this case because he looked very relatable in photos. He was very different from what people thought of him, and what motivated them, and therefore the truth is unsettling wrt that effort.
This doesn’t mean the effort was wrong, or that he was a monster not worthy of compassion. He was clearly fighting some demons, sometimes winning, sometimes losing, sometimes unleashing them on others. It defies easy moral judgements, and I believe the article does an excellent job saying as much.
But meanwhile, thousands die anonymously and unnoticed every year, and their photos and circumstances of death are far less compelling, but many if not most of them would have life stories that do not include multiple episodes of physically and psychologically abusing everyone close to them.
Compassionate efforts often cannot be shifted according to utilitarian calculations (which is one argument for getting together and making them someone’s actual job, in a process usually called “government”). But stories like this do maybe serve to make some people think about the best allocation of such efforts.
(The other unsettling truth is that HN can read this story and come away asking what people could possibly object to in his life story, and why one should believe the spouses (plural) that describe his dark side)
Separately, IMO, previous girlfriends or friends, etc. won’t go out of their way to spit on someone’s grave. I think the exception is when someone finally feels safe to speak out that they were abused or if the person was a true POS.
Not sure why the default logic in this case is to automatically assume the exes are bad mouthing the deceased just because they can. Sure, it happens, but in this case there were two separate first-hand accounts and from the girl’s parents.
Assembling dialogue around the divisive narrative of a misleading title is just something that plays into it and I think something we all need to avoid.
Allocating resources based on how charming someone's photo is is also wrong, and worthy of discussion, though presumably people at least aren't doing that consciously.
Edit: I'm fairly disturbed that this appears to be controversial.
I know one is usually meant to just nod when people say things like "all human life matters" and "no death is anything but horrible" and all that, but it's really not true.
In fact, if I model people's actions I find that nearly everyone will nod along with those things but few people act in a manner that is consistent with that action.
Toward the end it seems like he might have starved to death or maybe of dehydration.
What's unsettling about thinking that hit pieces on a dead man with quotes from supposed "ex girlfriends" is obnoxious?
The internet finds a story like this and spends a month on it.
"Good chimp killed? Good chimp killed on hike? Hiking good, hikers good. Must be good victim chimp. How can good chimp have bad thing happen?"
Then somebody finds out who the chimp is, and somebody gets a thousand bucks to write
"Good chimp not so good. Fought with other chimps. Shouted, got quiet, not share food. Not good chimp die on trail. Bad chimp wander off to die because bad. Sad but ok."
That's the natural cycle of news, it's been going on since the press was invented and it's mostly ok.
What's frustrating is the internet adding the layer of
"Bad chimp? Bad Chimp?! What kind bad chimp? Bad chimp have excuse to be bad? No? Put on list of Villain Chimps! Vvvvvvvvillllainous chimp."
Dysfunctional dude didn't do so well with his personal relationships on his way to an early grave. Ok-doke.
Unfortunately the author really didn’t have many more people to interview as the guy was a bit of a loner.
For my part, I find it sufficient for me to conclude this guy hit his girlfriend.
Its really not, it's a "hey let me trash this dead guy for clicks" story.
>For my part, I find it sufficient for me to conclude this guy hit his girlfriend.
Someone claiming to be your ex sent me a message saying you kill puppies and beat women. That's sufficient for me to believe you abuse women and animals.
That's it. It's a non-story.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/403535274/in...
To his credit, though, there is the possibility that he was simply unable to walk because he poisoned himself accidentally [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless#Lathyrism_due...
But not, apparently, therapy.
It's not just "some ex's" word. It's her word and the words of the other people who knew him.
You don’t find this behavior unsettling? How about this anecdote being characterized as “this only the light stuff”?
I was a little to flippant in my comment, maybe I should be more unsettled?
(EDIT: People with SPD are averse to violence and prone to all kinds of abuse. The he-said/she-said stuff is particularly useless here.)
(Minor edit: Also, committing spousal abuse is distinctly not a trait of schizoid personality disorder.)