Sinead O’Connor has died
irishtimes.com
irishtimes.com
Today it sounds a little bit silly but that SNL performance was the validation I needed to navigate my environment outside my home.
Now I learned a lot about issues in Catholic Church and I understand this stuff better but I’ll be forever grateful for this small gesture of solidarity. Even if it wasn’t directed at me.
To my shame, I thought she was uncool for years after. I think I picked it up from others at the time (I was in a Catholic primary school).
Ironically, even though it was apparently common knowledge amongst my Catholic country- and family-members, it took years for for me to believe that that kind of systematic abuse could have happened.I have dedicated a part of my resources and efforts to eradicate the Catholic church and other radical religions from my country
It’s sad we’re still fighting on the LGBTQ front but in general it’s notable largely because justice is winning and these are the dying spasms of a hate movement that is losing state favor and is having to fight for its survival. They’re fighting because if they don’t then LGBTQ people are generally getting their rights protected and normalized.
Scouts is another example of how much the zeitgeist has turned on overt religiousity and bigotry. Even in the 2000s you couldn’t be an openly gay scoutmaster because what if you fucked a kid? And of course the deep religious pagentry/teaching that’s buried in a lot of the scout materials and routines. Just 15 years later that’s a really bad look.
Anyway there are a few rare people who are ahead of the curve on these issues and usually take a punishment for it, but time often proves them right.
She was right, and the Catholic Church and organized religion in general continue to be a plague on humanity. All the good they’ve done in the past few decades is more than undone by the Mexico City policy alone and the immensely negative impact it’s had on half of our population, along with continued assaults on women’s health, LGBTQ rights, etc. It’s just still tremendously impolite to say it but she’s right, this institution is a negative force on society.
As mentioned elsewhere, not standing/reciting the pledge of allegiance is another thing that was a bit controversial in the 90s but I think has just faded away nowadays. Even at sporting events today it feels a bit over the top and the connection to the hyper-militarized US culture and the pipeline to military recruiting is obvious - not a coincidence that flyovers and uniformed personnel are another common sight at sporting events.
I hope Sinead rests in Salaam. And I’d rather remember her for her God given graces, her beauty, her voice and her support for justice for oppressed, than what was clearly an error (certainly according to Islam, even in its “Sufi” modality) on her part.
There is inherent destructive energy in pinpointing abuse. It’s destructive because these “belief systems” and more general social structures are amazingly, regularly built on top of that abuse. The abuse is a part of it - they go hand-in-hand. It reproduces the power structure of the system. The more people that know, the more the foundational rot is exposed, the more obvious it becomes that the entire thing needs to be torn down.
Sinead (RIP), for example, could have simply recited a line from Jesus regarding what awaits those who harm children (it’s in the Gospels) and held up the picture of the du jour Pope and then list the grievances against that institutions in that regard. Now that would have been a powerful, positive, and progressive, without causing division, and far more effective in causing reflection amongst the faithful of that institutions to do the necessary house cleaning.
The issue here, since it was not clear to you, is the way new understanding, new insights, are to be communicated. The goal remains a Humanity that dwells in harmony and peace after all. Correct?
Do you see a way to this goal without destruction?
There is a well known incident as related to us in the Hadith of Jesus son of Mary. One day “the morality police” of the Pharisee apparently thought they were being clever in shooting two birds with one stone (pun intended). They went to the quarter where prostitutes worked and dragged a woman caught in the act and brought her before that lovely one. This was to discredit him before the Israelites as his progressive and luminous teachings were indeed a threat to their station of power and prestige and control over the people. Jesus did not tear them a new one using words (even though certainly capable of it) nor did he pick up the stone and throw it at them (even though they certainly deserved it).
No. What he did was silently allude to the poor grasp of the people of the actual Law, and then with a simple statement he not only confronted the Pharisees with their own corruption and sinful nature, but also saved a soul from certain death. To their credit, the Pharisees in question were ‘self-reflective’ enough to get the message and leave in peace.
This is how he was inviting people to a superior understanding without alienating them (!) and at the same time clearly establishing the guilt of the standing church and its priests. In fact, this way was so effective that the Sanhedrin decided that they had to get rid of him, intent on murdering him.
Can't make progress if nobody knows there is a problem, except the victims of course.
Sure he enabled thousands of child molesters, but at least he was against communism.
But her version of Pink Floyd's "Mother," performed live in Berlin in 1990 with Roger Waters, Rick Danko, Levon Helm, and Garth Hudson, was Sinead at her most vulnerable and in my opinion, a full expression of her soul.
Audio with onstage video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRbKXACBaoc
High quality audio only: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSd0Yl5mDuU
She will be missed.
No, ASMR is a completely separate phenomenon, although the term has since been adapted to refer to a general aural aesthetic, rather than the physiological phenomenon it induces in some people.
Was this a thing?!
A good episode of "You're Wrong About..." covers the controversy of her:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/265qKOV5C7XBqlyXMjp7VF
https://podcasts.apple.com/at/podcast/sin%C3%A9ad-oconnor-wi...
The Garden State Arts Center, which always starts its shows by playing the anthem, gave in to the singer's demand, fearing that a last-minute cancellation would enrage the audience of 9,000, but prohibited any future appearances by the hit singer.
There was a Jehovah's Witness in our school. And of course he would not participate, leading some of the other kids to want to beat him up. They only gave up after they were threatened by the school and told by their parents that they have to respect other views. That was long ago, when the US valued civility. These days the parents would probably tell their kids to beat him up. The parents might even show them some moves.
I almost never participate in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I took the constitutionally-prescribed oath* in the Navy (I'm a third-generation veteran) and also as a lawyer, and I pigheadedly feel that society doesn't get to keep demanding more and more proof of my patriotism and fidelity, thank you very much — that way lies trouble, as we've seen happen elsewhere.
* To support and defend the Constitution of the United States
Sly & Robbie was the rhythm section, with Burning Spear on vocals and percussion. Maybe Mikey Chung on guitar?
I was totally surprised at the combination — this Crazy Baldhead amongst Dreads — but one of the best live shows I've been to. Surrounded by reggae icons, she was a boss on that stage.
Big up Sinéad! An incredible musician.
Before seeing her live, I hadn't know a lot about her besides "Nothing Compares 2 U" and of course the SNL controversy... realizing much later she had sung Bob Marley's "War" while wearing red, gold, and green.
Just now thinking about her performance of "Vampire" that night is giving me goosebumps. She was a real one.
The more post-punk reissues (e.g. New Age Steppers) is also right up my alley.
But yes, I got the impression early on that Sinead had more than passing familiarity with roots and dub. It just seemed to be always at least at the edges of every album in one way or another. On "Faith + Courage" it was quite prominent.
Isn’t the stereotype (and possibly reality) that Irish women are full of moxie and maybe or maybe not respected for it depending on who cares?
Like she experienced IRA bombings and you’re saying she’s supposed to be intimidated by reggae artists who smoke weed and practice non-violence and/or intimidated by their fans who do so?
I'm super impressed by it. It's a crossing of several huge cultural chasms. Not anyone could do that. Sinead did. That's impressive.
She was right also when criticized the pope for not doing enough about the abuses of minors in the catholic church (except basically hiding the abusers).
My choice would be Jump in the River, Fire on Babylon, or the fantastic duet Haunted.
If anyone hasn’t seen it, I’d recommend watching Nothing Compares¹, an Irish documentary about her early life up until the early 90s that only came out last year. I was delighted to see it come out and provide some counter-balance to the mainstream narrative. It was also good to see her musical legacy be recognised by being awarded the first ever Choice Music Prize for Irish Classic Album² earlier this year.
RIP
Success Has Made a Failure of Our Home (Live at Top of the Pops in 1992) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJWbPBp3QA
(Hadn't seen it again until just now.)
To stand in the full blast of a crowd that hates you with that amount of poise, and have a voice that is still capable of song or even coherent speech, just beggars my imagination.
i hope you have found peace. you were a voice crying out in the wilderness and we did to you what we always do to that.
The rage around her Pope-photo-tearing photo on SNL I think was about: we're trying to sell/watching a entertainment products here, and now you've just gone and made things intense. They just wanted the dancing bear.
She was an intense personality, an artist, not an entertainer. Maybe getting a billboard #1 single and becoming a sensation was the worst thing that could have happened for her. People just wanted to be entertained -- they wanted the fantastic voice but without the powerful emotions and convictions behind it -- and she didn't want to be a 'product'
I agree it's especially jarring in the context of a Bob Dylan tribute.
She said as much herself in her recent memoir: “I feel that having a No. 1 record derailed my career, and my tearing the photo put me back on the right track.”
i don't know if the religious or the apolitical/centrists are worse.
So to get yourself onto live television in a popular spot, and do what she did was ballsy, and obviously clearly intended to make impact... but you can also see how people who tuned in expecting one thing and got something else could get angry. Which was of course her intent.
I know the enlightened viewpoint is that tearing up the pope's photo was brave and progressive, that Sinead was ahead of her time in recognizing the faults of the Catholic church -- but yes, exactly, she absolutely failed to "read the room."
SNL in the early 90s was one of the best eras, but it was also one of its silliest. Hans and Franz, Wayne's World, Farley, Sandler, Spade. There was absolutely no way, at that time, any kind of serious mid-show protest would gain positive attention. She screwed up, no way around it.
Believe it or not, not everybody is selling themselves all the time.
That is completely debunked by the facts and a very bonkers statement. It provided survivors with a sympathetic voice that helped many of them come forward, especially in Ireland. Please get your facts in order before making such an egregious statement.
Years later I grew up and apologised to Sinead O Connor on Twitter for thinking this way. But a lot of people never did grow up, not just Catholics but also people from other conservative religions. People still feel religious ideas are somehow innate, and therefore the criticising religious ideas is wrong. But no idea is innate, people can and do leave and join every religion and every set of spiritual beliefs all the time, so no idea is beyond criticism. A crowd of people booing Sinead O Connor 30 years ago is very similar to people attacking Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and sadly people still make excuses for both.
Erm. I don't think it's that similar.
Differences: In one case, a dozen people are murdered; in the other case, not.
In the same way we don't equate people being shouted down in a government house debate with people being mown down in political violence, even though there is a superficial similarity in underlying reason.
They were similar in type but different in outcome.
The irony of this moment was the song she was about to perform was "I Believe in You". This would have been the most religious song sung that evening by far.
It was brilliant on her part to separate the failed human organization from her beliefs.
This is what happens when you simply shout someone down. You miss the opportunity to better understand them.
Here is the rehearsal:
The thing about Sinéad is that she was, right until the end, a strong believer in one god and if anything more of a critic of the church due to their betrayal of religious/spiritual/moral principles as hierarchical institutions, rather than their promotion of theistic beliefs.
She always considered herself a theologian, she said at the time of the pope: "Why do we need a pope? Christ doesn't need a representative".
She also later said of converting/"reverting" to Islam: "The reason why I like Islam is, I can keep Christianity and Judaism, which are two religions which I loved and studied.."
While her speaking out against the church would have resonated with many atheists and agnostics at the time, and even more with today's less religiously dominated Western society - it certainly resonates with me for this reason - I think her own perspective was a little different.
"Flashback: Sinead O’Connor Gets Booed Offstage at Bob Dylan Anniversary Concert"
<https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/sinead-o-conno...>
When her debut record came out, "Mandinka" was a staple on college radio, but that album barely got into the radio overall. I never really liked "Nothing Compares 2 U" but really loved quite a lot of that sophomore record otherwise.
Besides her debut, her album "Faith and Courage" is still a major highlight.
She was a tortured soul that could transcend herself through amazing talent, but she suffered throughout her life; this was compounded by being a public figure with very little fear and no compunction of speaking her mind. She is finally at peace, however sad it may be to hear.
I was going to make a joke about how it's a shame they stopped inventing Abrahamic religions, but then I remembered the Mormons! I would like to suggest that Mormonism is the true natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian's journey. At least until someone creates a new Abrahamic religion to succeed it.
Both the Bahai and Rastafari are newer Abrahamic faiths than Mormonism; also, to the extent that Mormonism post-dates but does not build on Islam, it would not succeed it in a framework where building on the previous “conclusion” makes you the new one, so either the Rastafari by novelty or the Druze (or maybe Bahai, because I think they build, non-exclusively, on the Druze) by building on Islam have a better claim in the proposed framework than the Mormons to be the current “conclusion” if one assumes that Islam, by building on prior Abrahamic faiths, was at one point the “conclusion”.
But as for a new one, given the central premise of the Book of Mormon it is obvious that Jesus must also have appeared and preached to the aborigines in Australia shortly after his death to give them the chance of salvation as well. Perhaps a psychedelic novella about Jesus and the Dreamtime.
There is only one abrahamic religion - judaism. Judaism confers eternal salvation and israel to the descendants of abraham. People forget that judaism is an ethnicity first and religion second. Hence why you can be an atheist jew. The convenant between god and abraham and his descendant is what makes a religion abrahamic.
'On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates...' Genesis 15.
Christianity is a non-abrahamic religion as the covenant is between christ and all of humanity. Hence why anyone can become a christian. Similarly with islam as anyone can become a muslim.
As I said, only judaism worships the god of abraham. As I showed, the god of abraham said ONLY the descendants of abraham are his 'chosen people' and hence only the descendants of abraham are able to attain salvation.
Christians worship the god of christ, not the god of abraham because the god of christ allows non-descendants of abraham ( 99.999% of all christians around the world ) to be saved. The same logic applies to islam.
In other words, if christians worship the god of abraham, then it would mean christians believe they are going to hell while jews go to heaven. Does that sound like christianity to you? I grew up christian and that doesn't sound like the christianity I grew up with. Christians believe jews forsaked god and jews are destined for hell. That's why god sent christ to form a new convenant with all humanity. Hence the new testament vs the old testament.
The abrahamic religion nonsense is a political creation like judeo-christian. It's self-contradictory nonsense invented purely to advance a political agenda.
No, it's not. It's meant to describe three major modern religions with common roots in the ancient near east. These religions have much in common both historically and theologically. The relationship is similar to that of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.
Yes it is. It's a modern invention created for political reasons.
> It's meant to describe three major modern religions with common roots in the ancient near east.
Then why not call it Adamic religions. All three religions begin with adam. That's a better description than abrahamic as abrahamic religion only describes judaism. As I clearly explained. Judaism fundamentally starts with abraham because god formed the first convenant with abraham establishing a jewish people. Abraham doesn't matter at all to christianity as christ negates the covenant between god and abraham.
> These religions have much in common both historically and theologically.
Are you kidding me? Christians and Jews have been attacking each other for thousands of years. Not only are they not common historically and theologically, they directly contradict each other. Judaism believes that jesus is a false prophet rotting in 'hell'. Christianity believes Jesus is God. Judaism believes worshipping christ is a form of idolatry ( one of the worst crimes ). Christians believes in the deification of christ. Judaism allows for usury to gentiles. Christianity is against all usury. Judaism believes in 'an eye for an eye'. Christianity believes in 'turn the other cheek'. Judaism believes god ordains their king ( no separation of church and state ). Christianity believes in 'render unto caesar what is caesar's and render onto god what is god's'.
'Historically, some Jewish writers and scholars have considered Jesus as the most damaging "false prophet"'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus
Judaism has historically believed Jesus as the worst thing to have ever happened in history. Christianity believes Jesus to be the best thing to have ever happened. What commonality? Just because christian bibles include the old testament with the new testament? Many christian bibles only contain the new testament.
If these religions had anything fundamentally in common, we'd only have one religion. Judaism and christianity theologically contradict each other.
While I provide detailed answers describing biblical and historical facts, all my detractors do is reply with petty nonsense like 'theologicians disagree'. Who cares?
> The relationship is similar to that of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.
No it is not. Those religions are actually related to each other but nobody calls them 'buddhaic religions' as it would not be an apt description of those three religions. As I said, there is only one abrahamic religion - judaism.
Edit: whatever article I read said 5 months ago, but that appears to have been written some time ago. Plenty of articles stating that Shane died in Jan/2022:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=shane+oconnor+wikipedia&ia=...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/entertainment/sinead-oconnor-...
heart breaking to hear :(
Wikipedia
And sometimes it's hard to discern one from the other.
She's announced she was going to do it before and to be fair she's always had more than her fair share of mental troubles, sadly. As someone who is also cursed with those I know how hard that can be and I didn't even lose a child.
Withholding the cause is what leads to speculation and I don't think it's a bad guess in this case.
Personally I think it's better if they just announced it because believe it or not something like this can also lead to good things. Because it can make people think, realise these things happen and notice the signs in people around them.
If she was suicidal, and she had the track record, she was well able to have follow through on this also.
Whatever you believe, just for her sake, I genuinely hope she's now reunited with her son to get some peace.
If anyone is interested more in feminist voices from the conflict in Ireland I can highly recommend the 1981 film Maeve. The idea of women being a "third side" in the whole conflict who had never been given voice was incredibly eye opening to me as a man moving into my 30s and changed my perspective not only on Irish history but entire history of Europe and the Middle East.
Being a pretty young woman shouldn't be such a ridiculous hardship. And I kind of wonder how much that radicalized her and how that factors into her conversion to Islam.
She was largely portrayed as a vapid attention-seeker and it was as if the head-shaving was just like... one of her "wild and crazy" acts.
Now, this was the mid-80s. Media was so much more centralized. I was a kid, and all you really had was the news bites that were served to you.
Theoretically some enterprising kid/person could have really researched her, but out of the zillions of things I could have been doing at the time I wasn't aware of any reason to think more deeply about her.
As an adult I did so and man, that was a strong woman. The "You're Wrong About" episode about her is a wonderful place to start.
It was reported. It's just those facts didn't get in the way of portraying her as a vapid attention-seeker.
And, yet, some guy on some talk show said about her something like "It's kind of arrogant. If she didn't look like Audrey Hepburn, she wouldn't have done it (shaved her head). It's a form of bragging: Look how beautiful I am!"
I wanted to reach through my TV and smack him.
As a kid each event was a bit startling for a moment and then I got used to the idea quickly. I learned at a young age that old people freaked out a lot about things that didn’t matter. Coincidentally it was also the era of Boy George, Motley Crue, and endless things for parents to have fits about.
By the time SOC took off I could hardly bother to be bothered about her hair.
What I respect her for is having the balls to make a political statement about Catholic child abuse when the topic was far, far outside the Overton window. That was a career sacrifice, and years later she turned out to be right.
Then discovered I'd known her all along through the Pogue's "Fairytale of New York", a/k/a The Only Honest Christmas Carol Evar, which I'd first heard well over a decade earlier.
still gives me goosebumps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAe0HCHJTDA
Interestingly, Belfast Child was based on She Moved Through the Fair which Sinead sang here 11 years prior [to the aforementioned Night of the Proms]:
I can think of dozens of true statements that if spoken on a show like Saturday Night Live would led to a performer being banned.
I'm not a big fan of the whole, "you couldn't do that today", but you sure couldn't do that today. I think you weren't supposed to do it then either which made it subversive comedy.
And the huge amounts of research that shined the light on the Catholic church's culture of preying and assaulting children and then covering it up.
It took quite a heroic effort to bring the Catholic church's crimes to light and she was speaking about something the media wasn't comfortable or willing to report on.
What she did was real bravery to stand in the face of so much opposition and mockery from us at the time.
It seems for some people they are still from that time.
Untold Black American artists, authors, and creatives who fled to Europe: Nina Simone, James Baldwin, Josephine Baker, Paul Robeson, Augusta Savage, Romare Bearden, Jessie Fauset, and Richard Wright just off the top of my head.
I personally think that things are too "hot" right now, but nobody should pretend this is a modern problem.
And arguably, her antics greatly overshadowed the message she was trying to get across. How many people even realized what she was criticizing? So it ended up pissing off a lot of people without actually being effective in drawing attention to the issue she wanted to raise awareness toward.
Elvis was protesting corporate control and homogeneity. Sinead was protesting institutions that enabled evil. Who cares if some suits were made uncomfortable.
Costello, his label and the show’s producers, had agreed prior to the show that they would perform their catchy single ‘Less Than Zero’, a track which was written about disgraced British politician Oswald Mosley who, at the time, was the former leader of the British Union of Fascists. However, as the lights of the famous studio glared down upon him, Costello wouldn’t miss his opportunity. While it certainly was considered the band’s biggest opportunity commercial to date, Costello put a stop to the performance mid-intro, yelling: “Stop! Stop!” in the direction of his band. “I’m sorry, ladies and gentlemen,” he said before adding: “But there’s no reason to do this song here”.
Instead, Costello and his band rolled into a performance of the song ‘Radio Radio’ which, controversially, includes lyrics that criticised the commercialisation of the airwaves in both television and radio as well as pointed the finger at corporate-controlled broadcasting. Costello had certainly made his statement clear and in the middle of one of the most hostile environments....
<https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/elvis-costello-banned-snl-video...>
The 27 Club is an informal list consisting mostly of popular musicians, artists, actors, and other celebrities who died at age 27.
Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison all died at the age of 27 between 1969 and 1971. At the time, the coincidence gave rise to some comment, but it was not until Kurt Cobain's 1994 suicide, at age 27, that the idea of a "27 Club" began to catch on in public perception.
Just the same though; JP2 would’ve certainly not held the poor woman’s fit of pique against her.
She ripped up a photo of a pope, who...hadn't abused any children. It was a cheap and safe provocation, and she got the response she wanted.
The existence of valid and necessary criticisms of Church conduct doesn't oblige me or anyone to match each of them to some dinky justification for (in this case) performative juvenile attention-seeking.
I could be less condescending and dismissive, but that would require me to pretend that a pretty basic taunt was some kind of deep commmentary. IOW, taking the piss.
Ah, I guess "just" knowingly covering for repeat child molesters is no big deal. Thanks for clarifying your position.
The Catholic Church has 100x less abuse than public schools (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-...) , and yet schools don't have this negative reputation.
I know a single abused child is a child too much, but the bad reputation the Church gets is excessive. They probably have a better track record than any other institution.
When children are exposed to Catholic churches for the same amount of time that they are exposed to the public school system and in equal numbers, and when some central authority of the public school system starts actively hiding any evidence of known sexual abuse from authorities and the public, and once the public school system starts silencing victims with threats or hush money, and after the public school system spends decade after decade quietly relocating known child-abusing teachers to new schools, one after another after another, so that the pedo will have a constant supply of new child victims every few years then I might agree that public schools deserve the same horrible reputation that the Catholic Church has more than earned for itself.
Until then, maybe you can stop pretending that the situation at public schools and the situation with Catholic churches are even remotely the same thing and that "any other institution is probably worse". There is no evidence to support that theory of yours, no matter how much you might wish it were true.
Downplaying the evils of the Catholic Church doesn't help their victims, and doesn't help the church either. You have to be able to look clearly at something broken if you want to be able to fix it. Pretending that the problem isn't that bad is the behavior of an enabler.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/14wx8cu/1992...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor#Tweets_...
> Later that month, O'Connor stated that her remarks were made in an attempt to force Twitter to close down her account.[99] In September 2019, she apologised for the remarks, saying "They were not true at the time and they are not true now. I was triggered as a result of Islamophobia dumped on me. I apologize for hurt caused. That was one of many crazy tweets lord knows."
She never shyed from a difficult path.
Obviously she has no end of incredible songs but her version of Raglan Road sticks out as one of my favourites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6zqb3gf5aA
[1] Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inna_Lillahi_wa_inna_ilayhi_ra...
I realize that the GP could be interpreted as a provocation in that direction but it doesn't have to be taken that way or responded to in this way.
If we are going to have a discussion about a performer unafraid of controversy and who struggled with mental and spiritual concerns publicly, a robust conversation should be allowed.
"Robust" can mean a lot of things. HN's intended purpose is curious conversation. If we allow the predictably-outraged type of thread here, it will quickly take over discussion of most stories. If that happens, it will quickly destroy the forum. This is not a small risk—it's the biggest one. It would be foolish not to take it seriously, and we work hard to prevent it.
Ironically, that sometimes leads to the perception that the forum is fine, so why not allow a few robust fires to burn here and there? The answer is that the forum is not fine. It's at constant risk of burning to a crisp [1], and our primary responsibility is to stave that off [2], to the extent that we can.
That said, if there's truly high-quality conversation going on in any of these flagged subthreads, I'd like to see it. My experience in general is that flamewar doesn't go along with high-quality conversation at all. It's extremely exciting, of course—but from an intellectual-curiosity point of view, inert and boring, as anything predictable is [3].
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
IMHO the best approach is to just try to spot those threads early, and maybe find other forums to discuss them [1].
[1] Finding suitable forums is left as an exercise to the reader. Maybe it requires in-person discussion with people who will assume each other's best intentions.
I suppose my argument is that there is more room for personal criticisms, negatives comments and unsubstantiated opinion in a thread discussing a public figure's life than a more technical/abstract topic.
That is all; I won't push the subject.
She’s far more the saint than that bastard John Paul II.
EDIT: Ironic this is flagged. I’m proud of this actually. I feel a slight kinship with Sinead now. In honor of her death would that we all, in our own way, tear to shreds the image of John Paul II!
Your comment was just fine in the first paragraph and broke the site guidelines with the second paragraph—not because we care what you think about popes, but because such swipes predictably lead to internet dreckfests and we're simply trying to have a forum that doesn't suck. At least to the extent possible.
Here’s a sincere question. If I called Charles Manson a bastard would that be flamebait? Are we at the point that calling out the objectively verified despicable acts of a person is flamebait?
It wasn’t a swipe at the man. Sinead suffered a lot for ripping his image apart. She has died now. It is appropriate to point out she did not deserve the reaction and that the protector of her abusers did deserve to have his image shredded.
It’s always ok to call out those who abuse or protect abusers. I care not that my post got flagged. I’m glad of it. I feel a tiny bit like Sinead. Even after all that is known about John Paul 2 people still can’t face reality about the man.
We obviously don’t agree. I’ll stop posting about this and just read all responses.
> It’s always ok to call out those who abuse or protect abusers. I care not that my post got flagged. I’m glad of it. I feel a tiny bit like Sinead
We're trying to avoid online callout/shaming culture on this site. It reliably leads to poor-quality discussion. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a... Generally, the state of high indignation (and its correlate, high moral justification) isn't congruent with the intended spirit of conversation here.
I understand HN's viewpoint on this. I disagree with it in the extreme.
Well, guess what? Some things are actually bad-and it's obvious—and we are experienced enough to know it. Child abuse would fall into that category. After confirmation, no "curiosity" is needed in that instance.
(I understand the angle about conversation deteriorating quickly, and am still here, right? But damn I hate it when we can't state obvious truth because it is not "polite." )
This type of trolley-problem questioning doesn't work for getting a clearer picture of HN moderation. HN is not a letter-of-the-law kind of place. There's no comprehensive doctrine covering all cases, and it would be foolish of us to try to make one.
The rest of your post is a caricature but I assume you meant it that way.
Right or wrong, what she did was definitely courageous and arguably destroyed her career.
Um, I think the 1,500+ year history of the Catholic church would beg to differ here ...
And even before that, Socrates was so canceled for his views he was killed by the state.
As a child, I thought the Pope and the church helped poor people and practiced showing people how to be good to each other by following the ten commandments. When Sinead O Connor ripped up the picture of the Pope on SNL I remember asking why.
Someone said the reason was because she was crazy. They were lying to me.
Sinead O'Connor was drawing attention to child sexual abuse when nobody else was.
> She’s far more the saint than that bastard John Paul II.
I don't know about JP2's involvement in child sexual abuse (not doubting you, just saying I don't know *) but Ratzinger / Benedict absolutely deliberately prevented investigation into, and facilitated (by moving rapist priests into new parishes), child sexual abuse.
Years later I apologized to O'Connor on Twitter and she took it with grace.
* Update: some research showed the Vatican, under JP2, opposed extensions of the statutes of limitations in sex abuse cases.
Ratzinger / Benedict absolutely deliberately prevented investigation into, and facilitated (by moving rapist priests into new parishes), child sexual abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Sexual_abuse...
Ie, this isn't attacking anyone on the basis of their religion.
I'd probably say the comment could be improved by adding a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Pope_John_Paul_II instead of 'that bastard' but criticism of people that facilitate child abuse is quite reasonable and very separate from attacking members of a particular religion.
Commenters who get too sure of their moral positions tend to do a lot of this. I'm not saying the moral positions are wrong (I probably agree a lot of the time, certainly Sinead did a courageous thing, etc. etc.). But the quality of discussion this leads to is predictably poor, evokes worse from others, and tends to go straight to the bottom of the internet barrel. We're trying to not get sucked completely into that muck here—a difficult task to even partly achieve, so we need everyone's help.
The man - and the institution - facilitated and covered up the abuse and rape of countless children. Calling him a bastard seems pretty small potatoes for you to start clutching your pearls over.
People tend to respond to activating topics with intense pre-existing feelings. That's understandable—I'm not criticizing it and it would be futile to try to change it. But it does not make for curious conversation, which is what HN is for: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Curious conversation is about learning new things, changing one's orientation, and so on. That's one reason why the best HN threads tend to have a whimsical aspect—when a topic isn't high-stakes and one doesn't have a pre-existing position about it, curiosity is the natural state. Not so much otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...
O'Connor was right.