Apparently, the meaning of the word “hero” has changed. It is now used to denote someone who does exactly what is expected from a normal person with even a minimal level of integrity – not lie about the apparent and obvious scientific facts and not want to participate in murder or cause harm to anyone. To me this tendency seems to be tro…
Apparently, the meaning of the word “hero” has changed. It is now used to denote someone who does exactly what is expected from a normal person with even a minimal level of integrity – not lie about the apparent and obvious scientific facts and not want to participate in murder or cause harm to anyone. To me this tendency seems to be troubling. It implies that greedy criminals, liars, and murderers are “normal” and “average” whereas those who simply publicly state an apparent scientific fact or even half-truth (while maintaining their usual very high incomes – unattainable for probably at least 90 % of the population and while profiting from their martyrdom) are heroes.
I reject that and reserve the word heroism for something that is truly heroic. The first person that comes to mind is Roza Shanina, the beautiful 19-year-old woman and the World War II sniper. Entirely by choice, she would sit in trenches for hours without moving just to put a bullet into a Nazi’s head. She voluntarily and entirely sacrificed her young and beautiful life. I would call her a Hero and others who did truly heroic things.
I am not confusing anything. They are branded as heroes and martyrs (I should have put "martyrdom" in quotation marks but deliberately omitted it in my earlier message). Martyrs do not "prosper," they sacrifice and die. And they are not heroes as they are not doing anything heroic.
I understand that today the word hero apparently means "nice guy" or "I like him." I'd rather reserve it for its intended meaning. And that's what my comment was primarily about.
Apparently, the meaning of the word “hero” has changed. It is now used to denote someone who does exactly what is expected from a normal person with even a minimal level of integrity – not lie about the apparent and obvious scientific facts and not want to participate in murder or cause harm to anyone. To me this tendency seems to be troubling. It implies that greedy criminals, liars, and murderers are “normal” and “average” whereas those who simply publicly state an apparent scientific fact or even half-truth (while maintaining their usual very high incomes – unattainable for probably at least 90 % of the population and while profiting from their martyrdom) are heroes.
I reject that and reserve the word heroism for something that is truly heroic. The first person that comes to mind is Roza Shanina, the beautiful 19-year-old woman and the World War II sniper. Entirely by choice, she would sit in trenches for hours without moving just to put a bullet into a Nazi’s head. She voluntarily and entirely sacrificed her young and beautiful life. I would call her a Hero and others who did truly heroic things.
IDK, Tess has gave up a lot to be so vocal. She has fought hard for the people.
I agree. Sometimes people lose everything for going against the narrative. But the people called heroes in this topic greatly prosper.
I am not confusing anything. They are branded as heroes and martyrs (I should have put "martyrdom" in quotation marks but deliberately omitted it in my earlier message). Martyrs do not "prosper," they sacrifice and die. And they are not heroes as they are not doing anything heroic.
I understand that today the word hero apparently means "nice guy" or "I like him." I'd rather reserve it for its intended meaning. And that's what my comment was primarily about.