Is Mocking the Deaths of Anti-Vaxxers "Necessary"? Or Cruel and Useless?

Michael Hiltzik is a Pulitzer Prize-winning business columnist for the Los Angeles Times. He has recently attracted a lot of (almost entirely negative) attention for a column and tweets arguing that mocking the deaths of anti-vaxxers is "necessary." Hiltzik joins to defend and explain his position to Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan J. Robinson, who believes that Hiltzik's stance is cruel and unhelpful. Michael argues that his argument is more nuanced than it is being characterized as. Nathan suggests that as the one who intentionally tweeted an offensive provocation, Michael is responsible for that characterization. Michael argues that dark humor is an important weapon, citing the Current Affairs article "The Necessity of Political Vulgarity." Nathan argues that while incivility can be tactically useful, directing it against people who have died of COVID does nothing to create more productive discourse on vaccines. 

But what about people in positions of power who use that power to spread damaging misinformation? Are they fair game? Should we "never speak ill of the dead"? With whom must we empathize? Are some people beyond empathy? Are we to show respect for the lives of those who do not respect the lives of others? These questions are hotly debated. 

Discussion of Michael's controversial column begins around 6:00. The "How to Talk to a Science Denier" interview is here.