|Let me start with a partial apology to Jon. I was unaware of your past activism, and I mistakenly extrapolated your current inactivity in the area of activism. Hats off to you for you past work, and I hope to see some of it in the future.
I say partial apology because I still think your attacks on Luke are unjustified. Whether you like him or not, he's out there trying to spread Objectivism, and offer value to those who want it. Until your willing to step up and do the job better, your criticisms just come off as whining. And as I said when I created this site, I want it to be a place to encourage activists. Their job is hard enough as it is. I want them to be able to come here for fuel. You can argue with them, tell them that their ideas are wrong, and even dislike them, but I don't see any justification for attacking their efforts at Objectivist activism. And are you so afraid that Luke will become an Objectivist leader that you have to try to prevent it? To the extent he is or becomes one, it'll be based on how much value he offers.
As an aside, I like Luke. I don't always agree with him, and I can see some validity in some criticisms, but those are not significant. He's someone who works very hard at promoting Objectivism, as well as integrating it in his own life. He's someone who takes it absolutely seriously, so much so that even some Objectivists mock him for it. He's a radical in a way that many of the people on this site (and thread!!!) are not. He's willing to question every premise, instead of accepting blindly what others tell him or what others feel must be true. And because of that, he can always be persuaded by reason in a way that I haven't found true of even most Objectivists. And of course, he's a friend.
Now, I said “But if it's offensive to the people who care about someone when you say bad things after they're dead, isn't it also offensive to people that didn't like him when you say nice things?” The point is that people are saying we shouldn't mention bad things after a person dies because it might upset the people who loved them. But the opposite is also the case. If someone hated him, he won't want to hear positive things about the person. You can't make both sides happy. This belief that we need to be nice is just picking one side and deciding to upset the other. But the problem is that picking either side is upholding a primacy of emotions, where you're only allowed to acknowledge facts that make certain people happy. Picking either side is a sacrifice of rationality.
You said "No. Distorted things, yes. Nice, no.". It might upset someone that hates a person if they heard distortions, just as it would upset someone who loved him. But if you can accept that loved ones don't want to hear negative things, why couldn't people that hate them not want to hear positive? But again, if we're stuck upholding a primacy of emotions, then it's just picking arbitrarily who we should make happy, isn't it? And what if the loved ones are actually wrong?
And finally, as for you joke, I didn't think you were serious. But I thought the joke only made sense if the real "crime" was insulting the person after they die, instead of hurting the loved ones. That's the contradiction. If you consistently viewed the real harm as hurting the loved ones, the joke wouldn't make any sense at all.