Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:06 AM
Mon Dec 21
18 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/20/09
No, what will be taken into account are the medical facts of her case. Whether there are drugs in her system or not is not that difficult to determine. And whether they're found or not, her past rumored history (and rumors are not always facts, you know) will not enter into whatever final determination is made.
In other words, there's no autopsy in history that's said "you know, we could have actually tested for stuff, but given her history, we thought we'd just call it drugs and be done with it."
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12:26 AM
I'm just saying she was a user who didn't appear to be making any effort to stop using.
And everybody here already knows what a jerk I am, THAT at least is not news.
12/20/09
And this is when a celebrity death is the most emotional: when that star is caught up in your delusional narcissistic fantasies.
This isn't on the "I used to have pictures of her all over my wall, and doodle Mr. Brittany Murphey on my notebooks" level, but I got a little sad.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
Surprising she made it to 32.
12/20/09
They kept kicking him out once he was "clean" because he didn't have insurance.
12/20/09
[Edited to add] Also, you're right, the medical system with respect to any kind of mental health issue (which is what addiction is, ultimately) is completely fucked up.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
The insidious thing about addiction is that the addict gradually takes over, manipulates, controls the family and friends. At the point of intervention, the family is saying, this is it, we will not walk down this road with you one step further--we don't want you to walk over that cliff edge, but we know deep down we can't stop you.
Tough love only works in the context of intervention. You really have to be prepared to cut off the person, which seems so harsh; but nothing else registers with addicts--and even then, there are no guarantees of course, but you learn that you do not have to let their self-inflicted suffering cause you to suffer and deprive you of your life and your plans; and that giving in to their pain only enables them.
I hope you find peace--as you say, you can't stop them and the medical system surely failed. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings with my o.p., it was a little blunt.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
[defamer.gawker.com]
[gawker.com]
It's interesting how these types of posts always yield a very similar dynamic in the comments--some individuals express great sadness; others express disbelief that anyone could care that much about the passing of a relative stranger and note that this kind of outpouring is somehow obscenely out of proportion; the two fractions clash (virtually); after some invectives are tossed around, a middle ground is established.
12/20/09
12/20/09
No middle-ground here. Anyone who can snark about the death of anyone not at Hitler-Levels has serious issues and might want to step off to an island full of people who behave the same way.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
So if we're getting all Kantian up in here, it could be said that the most superinflated death keens are in fact treating the death not as an end in itself, which would be ethical, but as a means. A means to bolster their own vanity as a feeling and thinking person. Something which I find absolutely horrible. Death should be respected, and grief parceled out to the extent that it's necessary. Too much grief is vanity.
12/20/09
Moreover, I see no one here tearing their hair and gnashing their teeth on any kind of symbolic level. The general sentiment is "hey that's sad" followed by maybe a few personal anecdotes about how someone knew her or felt about her work. Where is the inappropriateness in that?
12/20/09
And if that's appropriate to your culture, do it. That was my point. Do what's appropriate. But appropriate for the person you're mourning. Don't just go out there for yourself.
12/20/09
You are obviously in the wrong place.
Ululating to commence shortly.
12/20/09
Have to say, the last two sentences of your original post sounded self-righteous and hypercritical. "Too much grief is vanity" is a pretty clear proclamation of your own disdain for any excessive display of emotion.
Shouldn't we steer away from describing morning in terms of appropriateness and focus on maybe hoping for genuineness?
12/20/09
12/20/09
That's what I'm talking about. That's exactly what I'm saying. You're just using a different word in your same context.
But speaking of semantics, let's get to the heart of it: genuineness isn't necessarily appropriate. Genuine to the person doesn't mean a lot if the person is the problem. Sometimes being told from the outside is the only way we can recognize that maybe we aren't necessarily doing things right, with right emotions. That's what appropriate is for. It's for public displays. Sometimes society is what lets us know that we're a little off.
For ex. Talking about your breakup is genuine. Talking about how shitty your boyfriend was because his mother used to neglect him and how you deserve so much better..... well that could be genuine, but maybe it shouldn't be, because it's coming from a bad place, so it's perhaps not appropriate.
12/20/09
12/20/09
Secondly, I really do get your meaning, and might concede that there exists some platonic ideal for social appropriateness that we maybe should all try to adhere to. But aside from dictating to others how they should feel, which doesn't go over very well when the Christians try to do it (see Catholic guilt), I can't imagine who is fit to police the appropriateness of others.
For myself, when I grieve, my emotions are genuine, and I strive to have the presence of mind to act appropriately according to ocassion. By your standards I may fail at it, but a lot of that has to do with my subjective emotional state when I receive bad news.
And without getting into an esoteric discussion of psychology as it relates to trauma, I'll just say that people severely affected by the death of a person they don't know, to the level which you might describe as uncalled for, could actually be "affected." Those people could be self-involved, narcissists guilty of emotional kleptoparasitism. Or they could just be people who are already sad and who are vulnerable to any additional perceived sadness, incapable of maintaining the veneer of propriety.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09