Life is a cycle. I am suffering today so i can afford to suffer tomorrow. Makes sense.
Life is only worth living if you are a masochist.
Nothing will change as long as we are piloting decaying, constantly hurting meat-bags trough a world of artificially created horrors like war, hunger, poverty and natural horrors like disease, aging and drought.
Whenever you feel overwhelmed by life, lay down on your bed, close your eyes, and listen to this.
Should they live in the shame and horror of this person that they probably attempted to curb at some point.
No. Those relatives that have not enabled or supported a monsters actions are of course completely innocent.
And if they want, they can of course mourn the loss of the ability to ever have a nice conversation with that person again.
But a burial is not like mourning in your bed, crying yourself to sleep. There you can accept that you are sad about the loss, even tough the world is a better place without that person.
A bureal however is a public performance that, as you say, is for the living. Not for the dead. It is not useful for mourning, but a ritual to pay the last respects to the deceased person. Not only for their good side, but also for their evil side. And the bigger the burial, the greater the (implied) respect. This holds true in any western/materialistic society, and was practiced in ancient times, where pyramids were built to honor kings, and a bigger pyramid implied a better king.
Therefore holding a large burial for a horrific person signals to the living that you not only miss that person as a friend, but also support their actions and choices in life.
Ideally: No.
But i live in a materialistic society where status is expressed trough expensive houses/cars/brands and products.
If you buy a expensive gift (for a living person), you show to them that you are willing to go to great lengths to make them happy.
This is the societal norm in (probably) all western countries. And therefore, making a extravagant bureal for a horrific person implies approval for them and their actions.
So if you are not a materialistic person you can give a small burial to a person without disrespecting them, but there will definitely be some people that will then assume that you did not like that person. They will simply assume it without proof, as it is a custom, unless they know that you are a anti-materialistic person.
A burial is a ceremony where the living show their respect to the deceased. The larger/more extravagant the bureal, the greater the (financial) sacrifice, the greater the respect for the person and their actions.
Everyone who thinks Hitler should have received a state burial (whether by the allies or by his supprters) is definitely a nazi.
Only those that understand a problem even have a chance to solve it. Those who refuse to understand a problem (often for comfort) are not helpful at best, but usually actively harmful.
The problem of suffering runs far deeper than “Rich vs Poor”. We are all trapped inside constantly decaying bodies that are barely capable of survival. This constant decay leads to almost constant pain even billionaires can not avoid. And then there is our anxious brain worrying about all sorts of things that might or might not happen. Yes, all of this is more bearable inside a villa than inside a tent, but it is still abhorrent. This does not mean the “Rich vs Poor” struggle is not worth while. It is, because there is tremendous preventable suffering within this struggle. This struggle, however, is just a tiny fraction of the problem that is called the human condition.
To those who seek to understand the problem of suffering, i can recommend this video. It eases you into the horror of being alive.
If you are having sensitive information stored using closed-source software/OS, you can stop reading right here. This is your biggest vulnerability and the best thing you can do is to switch to FOSS.
For those that have already switched:
It made me think about how to improve the resistance of large FOSS projects against state-sponsored attackers injecting backdoors.
The best thing i came up with would be to have each contribution checked by a contributor of a rival state. So a Russian (or Chinese) contributor verifies a contribution by an American.
The verifying contributors would have to be chosen at random in a way that is not predeterminable by an attacker, otherwise a Chinese-state contributor will contribute harmless code until the next verifier will be a US-based Chinese spy. Then they will submit a backdoor and have it checked by an American citizen paid by China.
Also the random number generator has to be verifiable by outsiders, otherwise a spy in the Linux-Foundation can manipulate the outcome of choosing a favorable verifier for a backdoor.
This can obviously only be done as long as there are lots of contributors from rivaling states. If the US decided that Linux can only allow contributors from USA/EU, then this model can not work and Linux would have to relocate into a more favorable state like Switzerland.
What one should keep in mind that even if the US would ban all foreign contributions and the foundation would not relocate, Linux would still be more secure than any closed source OS, as those foreigners can still look at the code and blow the whistle on bugs/backdoors. It would however be much more insecure than it is now, as the overhead for finding bugs/backdoors would be much larger.
We are going at 560,000 miles an hour trough the unrelenting darkness of space, and just decided to destroy our life support system.