Heroes, Politicians, Dialectic Materialism, and English as an 'only' language

[Kluge]

I'll start at the end of the topic and try to work my way back to the beginning without creating a blog (pardon please if blog is used incorrectly). Basically, the more you study a single language
the more meanings you find for words and phrases, and I've noticed the more languages other people know the less tolerant they are of meanings not strictly defined.

English as an only language refers to slang, fad usage of words, and local variations that might be limited to a small group of individuals. An example of this might be snowboarders saying 'sick' when other people might sa 'cool', 'hot', or 'fun'. It also would include the use of the word 'plastic' in the 60's to mean phony, fake, unreal and imitation (like the scene from The Graduate when the guy says the future is in 'plastics': it could make a difference, yes?).

Dialectic Materialism is probably one of those things that Josephtu might teach an entire course in, but the meaning to me comes out something like how you can read Karl Marx and learn things the poor man should prevent to escape poverty, or you can read Karl Marx to learn things the rich man should implement to stay rich. Likewise I was once reading a corpman's manual on important places to stop bleeding, and I realized it was also kind of a corps man's manual on places to start the enemy bleeding.

Politicians are folks who get elected to office and their supporters, right? According to my 5th grade teacher, people who talk too much are called politicians. If somebody is the 'office politician', for instance, it isn't clear to me whether that person would be a blabbermouth or a schemer, assuming the two were mutually exclusive personalities.

Heroes, after all of the above is taken into consideration, are sometimes people who just go too far or try too hard or do too much. In sports it might be a guy who deliberately injures another player as an act of retribution. In war it might be somebody who sacrifices himself for little or no gain. In a riot it might be the person who throws the rock that gets the national guard to start shooting.

The relevancy of this kind of thing to real politics is that calling anybody a hero will not necessarily result in a net gain of votes, and of course it would affect which candidate you would call a hero or what you might expect to learn about a candidate who has a reputation of heroism.

[Dewitt60]

I'll start at the end of the topic and try to work my way back to the .

Heroes, after all of the above is taken into consideration, are sometimes people who just go too far or try too hard or do too much. In sports it might be a guy who deliberately injures another player as an act of retribution. In war it might be somebody who sacrifices himself for little or no gain. In a riot it might be the person who throws the rock that gets the national guard to start shooting.


I screwed up the quote but I respectfully have to call BS on that statement. You are kidding right? Try to hard or do to much? That's a joke isn't it? That's what heroes do. I'm going to stop right now because I'm really pissed that anyone that sacrafices him or herself for any gains is dispaireged.

Well I can't stop just yet, if a guy gets shot dragging 2 guys to safety is that high enough on your herometer or does it take 6 to make the grade? I apologize that really pissed me off.

[Kluge]

...You are kidding right? Try to hard or do to much? That's a joke isn't it? That's what heroes do...

I am not kidding. In today's vernacular (and pardon my deliberate use of mis-spelling) 'Hero' can mean 'a**hole' which of course is an insult, not a literal reference to a body part. If a guy steals my wallet and I grab him and then you come along and beat the crap out of me and give the guy the wallet and let him get away, then ask me what I think, I might say in mock mid-western, 'Thanks, hero!' but what I would mean would be '****you, a**hole!'.

[Stiofán]

Yes, some positive terms can be used as insults by those speaking slang. So what's your point? I think I missed it in the OP. Not trying to be flippant, just really don't know where you're going with this.

[ShinyTop]

The efficient use of language requires that you communicate in language common to the group. While some groups may use the word hero as an demeaning insult I think in this group that meaning is not only not in use but anathema.

[Kluge]

...Heroes, after all of the above is taken into consideration, are sometimes people who just go too far or try too hard or do too much...

Just in case I'm not on everybody's ignore list for being an anathema (which I had to look up in a dictionary) I've quoted the original post, including the word sometimes.

When I was in the boy scouts our troop leader was very practical, maybe too practical, but when we learned morse code he decided the standard of pass/fail was whether the message was transmitted and understood. The issue with any variation in meaning of words would be, what message was sought to be transmitted and what message was understood? In the case of a term that has a meaning for the wealthy and another meaning for the poor, for instance, using the term in a speech could be either disastrous or brilliant.

The point of the original post was, hopefully, to encourage debate about the meaning of the word 'hero' while discouraging hero-worshippers from taking offense at anybody who would deny hero status to their heroes. Not being a hero can be a good thing.

[Lovehound]

You can't be a hero without the risk of life or limb. A hero is somebody who risks their life or their health—the element of great harm is a necessary part—to help or save another person. There are NO sports heroes because the they aren't rescuing or saving anybody who is in peril. Only real life counts and sports is not real life. Heroism is an unselfish act to risk life or limb to save another who is in peril of losing same.

[Kluge]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero) agrees in part with LH, but it doesn't exclude sports heroes.

The 2nd paragraph has this:
The literal meaning of the word is "protector", "defender" or "guardian" and etymologically it is thought to be cognate with the name of the goddess Hera, the guardian of marriage; the postulated original forms of these words being *ἥρFως, hērwōs, and *ἭρFα, Hērwā, respectively. It is also thought to be a cognate of the Latin verb servo (original meaning: to preserve whole) and of the Avestan verb haurvaiti (to keep vigil over), although the original Proto-Indoeuropean root is unclear.

I think this is a good place to mention the Laconic Phrase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic), which I assume is a standard of excellence for Shiny's efficient use of language.
The Spartans were especially famous for their dry wit, which we now know as "laconic humour."... Socrates for one rejected the idea that Spartans' economy with words was simply a consequence of poor literary education. Plato quotes him as saying: "... they conceal their wisdom, and pretend to be blockheads, so that they may seem to be superior only because of their prowess in battle ... This is how you may know that I am speaking the truth and that the Spartans are the best educated in philosophy and speaking: if you talk to any ordinary Spartan, he seems to be stupid, but eventually, like some expert marksman, he shoots in some brief remark that proves you to be only a child."

[Advocat]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero) agrees in part with LH, but it doesn't exclude sports heroes.

I think the difference between your and Lovehound's definition is that a "sports hero" is someone a person idolizes because of their actions in an area of sports (for vast pay), while the classic concept of a hero is someone who offers or actually sacrifices life/limb on the field of combat for their country (for relatively little or no pay).

To me it seems not to be just a difference in semantics; the difference is an order of magnitude in sacrifice or potential sacrifice.

[Kluge]

This forum is for discussion, critique, and debate on the proper form of English utilization. See FAQ for more. So, skipping sarcasm:

From the Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hero):
Main Entry: he·ro
Pronunciation: \ˈhir-(ˌ)ō\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hērōs
Date: 14th century
1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage
2 a: the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b: the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3plural usually heros : submarine 2
4: an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol
The personal sacrifice angle is only number '1-d', in a field of 8 varying meanings. It would not be correct, then, to exclude the other 7 meanings.

[Kluge]

...
All that tax money into the hands of gangsters, because the left made a hero out of another turd.
...

Sure, it's beating a dead horse, but the usage here implies that somebody, at least, frequently makes heros out of turds, and the logical mind must therefore suspect at least that a given usage of the word hero may imply or include a turd.

And that's usage taken from plain talkin' straight shootin' CopZ who wouldn't sneak a double-entendre into a discussion, now, would he?