This whole ‘only firemen and LEO are real heros!’ PC bullshit really only started in earnest after 9-11. Up until then people were fine with believing that anyone you looked up to for inspiration could be a hero, be it your parents, or sports star, or a great artist, or even a movie star. I personally have never been inspired by an actor, but I’m not going to call someone else an idiot because they draw inspiriation from another source than I do.
And I, for one, agree with that. When I think of Beethoven creating wonderful masterpieces that he could only hear in his head…why can’t that be a source of inspiration? Why isn’t it an example of great human fortitude and courage? How many of us would have given up and drank ourselves to death by wallowing in our own self-pity?
One definition, according to Webster’s (bolding mine):
That he is a role model who should be admired and emulated; that’s why I don’t like using the term for athletes, except under very rare circumstances, like Jesse Owens. Even then, it’s only because larger, more important issues than mere sports were involved.
Well, I wasn’t. Using it for sports stars is a misuse of the term.
And again, I disagree with the definition of hero as used by the OP. Fuck’s sake, how many times do I have to say that?
:rolleyes: Yes, any term can be used ironically, and thereby have a derogatory meaning. This does nothing at all to diminish my point. Calling someone a hero ironically is a way of implying that person does not really have heroic qualities. It says nothing about what should or should not be heroic qualities. My objection remains even in this usage: by applying the term to athletes and other celebrities, you devalue the ironic use of the term as much as the sincere use.
And yes, context is important: in the context of talking about an athletic competition, calling someone a hero is inappropriate. Being a really good athlete does not make you a hero.
Yeah, and I’m saying that the term hero has an emotional resonance that is diluted by applying it to everyone who does something slightly noteworthy. It does not confuse people as to what is meant by the term. That’s never been my argument.
Ah, political correctness. It’s the Godwin of the 21st century. Can’t rebut an argument? Call it PC! That way, you don’t have to actually think about anything you’re saying!
Couple things to say about this particular idiocy. First of all, it’s not PC. The PC position would be the touchy-feely “everybody’s a hero!” crap that you’re spewing. Secondly, I’ve held this position for about as long as I can remember. 9/11 had nothing to do with it. Lastly, no one actually called you an idiot because you idolize sports stars. Its your hyper-sensitive, scatterbrained over-reaction to anyone suggesting that heros ought to be held to a higher standard than being able to go real fast that makes you an idiot.
There’s a difference, or ought to be, between being inspirational, and being a hero. Jesus, your standard for the term is so debased that not being a broken, self-pitying sot is heroic? Fuck, I’ve done that. Where’s my worshipful adulation?
I certainly can’t stop them. I can, however, criticize someone for an ill-considered choice, which, if the allegations are true, DragonAsh has clearly made in this situation. If he’d apply a little thought to who he chooses to regard as a hero, and why he regards them that way, he’d be better able to avoid the heartbreak evinced in the OP.
Wow - that’s brilliant logic. Let’s see: avoid regarding people who might not live up to my ideal of a hero. Obviously some athletes cheat, so that’s a no-no.
I mean, really - is that the best argument you can come up with?
If Landis was doping, he’s not any kind of hero in my (or anyone else’s) book. But I think I’ll go ahead and continue to find sources of inspiration when and where I can, be it my family, friends, or athletes. You can stay in your little la-la land where firefighters and the like can do no wrong.
First, despite your frequent mischaracterizations, I never said heroes can only be firemen, doctors, etc. I said, very specifically, that a hero should be someone who “does something incredibly hard, or self-sacrificing, or brave, for the benefit of someone else.” This does not, in fact, exclude professional athletes, although it does make it rather difficult for them to get in based solely on their exploits on the field. If Landis had donated all his spare, non-bicycling time to Habitat for Humanity, then yeah, he’d be somewhere near hero territory. And, best of all, the possibility that he’s pumped full of steroids would have no bearing on his heroism! It’s not like a positive result on a piss test is going to make all the houses he built suddenly fall over. I also never claimed that no other hero figure could ever possibly let you down. Note, if you will, that I said a little thought would help you better avoid these sorts of disappointments, not totally avoid them. Christ, if doping is such a big deal to you, maybe you should follow a sport that isn’t as drug-sodden as a Greatful Dead concert in Amsterdam. Although, judging from the news, that seems to be pretty hard to come by these days. Maybe Ping-Pong would work out better for you.
No offence, John, but have you actually read any of my posts in this thread? I know what the dictionary says. That’s precisely what I’m arguing against: the popular usage of the term “hero.”
Yes, I read your posts. You seem to be saying the dictionary is wrong. That makes no sense. It would be like arguing that “Miller” isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a name.
This is very poor logic. He has a particular feeling about sportsman. He chooses to refer to the sportsman as a hero. If he referred to them as an inspiration, or a person with admirable qualities, it does absolutely nothing to change the way he feels about the person. He’s just using different words to describe it. Therefore it does nothing to avoid heartbreak or “solve” his problem. Hero is just a word, its use, whether appropriate or not, does not change the way he feels.
Well, I’d say you are wrong. The term hero, when used in the context that you prefer, has all the emotional resonance you personally attach to it. If you find that it has less emotional resonance to you, then that’s your problem not mine.
“Literally” is a slightly different kettle of fish in that the common (mis)use of it does actually cause possible confusion and lessen the impact of the older use. However, arguing against the dictionary definition of these things is pointless, and you should probably redirect your energies to building a bridge and getting over it.