Serini is a moron

[Wintermoot]

I’ve cream attracts kids

uh.... whut?

[Dion]

uh.... whut?

Sorry. Ice cream.

You don’t want ice cream OR kids on your gyroscope. Look at all the problems the gyroscope captain had in Mad Max 2.

Complete mess. Much better to keep kids off the thing.

Note: I haven’t seen Mad Max 2 in 20 years, so I might be confusing it with that awful movie with Tina Turner, which did not have a gyro, but did have kids.

[Cazero]

Note: I haven’t seen Mad Max 2 in 20 years, so I might be confusing it with that awful movie with Tina Turner, which did not have a gyro, but did have kids.

The one with kids was the third one. And I think it had Tina Turner.

...On the subject of Mad Max, I don't understand how the second movie was declared a sequel to the first. The only thing they have in common is the lead actor.
It would be like making a movie about a modern farmboy defending his village against a supernatural threat, and because he's played by Henry Cavill you call the movie Superman 2 : Manlier and Steelier.

[drazen]

But stating that Xykon's enemies must be stopped because they might destroy the world by accident, but Xykon might as well just have the Gate and use the Snarl as a weapon with which he can destroy the world on purpose if he gets that bored someday? That's all caps STUPID. DUMB and MORONIC.

I'm not sure that Serini is acting like a moron, exactly. Serini is a trauma survivor: she was melted within an inch of her life at random by a chaotic evil murder-hobo, then grafted into a half-troll and shunned from her own society. I would say that those experiences may lead her into irrationality at times, because she's spent some portion of her life as a mutilated outcast (probably 30+ years) with no real way of dealing with that, other than playing mommy to her monsters. Annoying? Sure, she's annoying as hell and has too high an opinion of herself -- but it makes sense how she got that way.

ETA: She's obsessed with the Gates and the Gates alone because they're pretty much the root reason she has became what she did. No Gates, no lich, no half-troll Serini.

[Dion]

The one with kids was the third one. And I think it had Tina Turner....

I think the feral kid was in the second one. I remember the feral kid riding around in the gyro, and I remember the gyro was smashed up.

Whether the feral kid and the gyro smashing were related to each other in any way is beyond my memory.

There was no ice cream, which is probably why the big weightlifter dude was so angry.

[dmc91356]

...On the subject of Mad Max, I don't understand how the second movie was declared a sequel to the first. The only thing they have in common is the lead actor. It would be like making a movie about a modern farmboy defending his village against a supernatural threat, and because he's played by Henry Cavill you call the movie Superman 2 : Manlier and Steelier.

Um, it's certainly been a while since I saw either of the first two in that series, but I am almost 100% sure that the lead character was the same guy in both. It's just that the first one was supposedly taking place while society was breaking down and the second one was post-apocalyptic. Same Max though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Heroes aren’t a real thing. They’re a hackneyed literary device.

Having met a few in real life, nope.

You don’t want ice cream OR kids on your gyroscope. Look at all the problems the gyroscope captain had in Mad Max 2.

Gyrocopter.

There was no ice cream, which is probably why the big weightlifter dude was so angry.

Plausible.

[Rrmcklin]

Heroes aren’t a real thing. They’re a hackneyed literary device.

You only get to be a hero by being the protagonist in a book about you. That’s what’s hero is. This book isn’t about her.

I find myself questioning how one enjoys a story like this (and so many others) with a view point like this. That's a genuine question, by the way.

[RatElemental]

I find myself questioning how one enjoys a story like this (and so many others) with a view point like this. That's a genuine question, by the way.

Well, not seeing "hero" as some kind of thing a person can be doesn't preclude you from enjoying media, I'm not sure how it could. Personally for me, "hero", "villain", protagonist" and "antagonist" are thoroughly disjoined from one another; The protagonist of a story is just the one whose perspective the story is focusing on, they can be a horrible monster or the most morally upstanding person ever. Same with the antagonists, who are defined as those who oppose the protagonist and not by their moral character.

[Dion]

I find myself questioning how one enjoys a story like this (and so many others) with a view point like this. That's a genuine question, by the way.

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories where the protagonists are heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

[JNAProductions]

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories about heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

That sounds like a bad way to use words. You're taking a word and using it to mean something that the vast majority of others do not.

I can say "Sandwich" and mean a toaster-baked pastry with filling and frosting, such as a PopTart, and by some definitions it's technically accurate... But it's not a very good way to actually communicate.

[Dion]

That sounds like a bad way to use words. You're taking a word and using it to mean something that the vast majority of others do not

Does everyone agree that calling someone a hero is a reductionist action that strips real people of their humanity?

I admit I don’t usually feel bad for the athletes in the big sports entertainment fields who sell their personality for a big paycheck and let some soulless corporate PR firm turn their public lives into a mockery (recent olympics coverage has made me rethink that, though).

But I do feel terrible for soldiers and police officers and other public service workers who are saddled with a demeaning label like “hero”.

But none of that means I don’t like stories that have heroes.

[Rrmcklin]

Well, not seeing "hero" as some kind of thing a person can be doesn't preclude you from enjoying media, I'm not sure how it could. Personally for me, "hero", "villain", protagonist" and "antagonist" are thoroughly disjoined from one another; The protagonist of a story is just the one whose perspective the story is focusing on, they can be a horrible monster or the most morally upstanding person ever. Same with the antagonists, who are defined as those who oppose the protagonist and not by their moral character.

Dion specifically referred the concept of heroes as a hackneyed literary device. Even ignoring the cynicism, I feel it's a fair question to ask how one enjoys stories if they feel that way about one of the core backbones of it.

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories where the protagonists are heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

I won't even deny that's possible, because it certainly is, but I also have to say that saying it's only that is also seems very silly and pointless. That people sometimes abuse and misuse concepts does not mean the concepts stop having actual or valid meanings.

[JNAProductions]

Does everyone agree that calling someone a hero is a reductionist action that strips real people of their humanity?

I admit I don’t usually feel bad for the athletes in the big sports entertainment fields who sell their personality for a big paycheck and let some soulless corporate PR firm turn their public lives into a mockery (recent olympics coverage has made me rethink that, though).

But I do feel terrible for soldiers and police officers and other public service workers who are saddled with a demeaning label like “hero”.

But none of that means I don’t like stories that have heroes.

If you say "You're a hero and literally nothing else!" then sure.

But should I be offended if someone calls me a redhead? Sure, I have red hair, but there's more to me than that! Or if a friend of mine says "Thanks, you're a good friend," should I be offended because they've reduced me to a friend and nothing more?

Besides which, you're working with a definition of hero that most people DO NOT SHARE. If you want to be understood properly, you'd have to explain how you're using it every time you use it with new people, and other people will use it how they understand it, which is not the same as your definition.

[brian 333]

I object to the idea that to label someone reduces them to that and nothing else. I'm not a hero, but I know a few.

Heros aren't made on the sports fields of the world: those are idols. But real heroes exist. They are people who positively impact the lives of others yet are seldom noticed. They do the right thing when it costs them personally and ask for no personal reward for their efforts.

You probably know one or two.

Fantasy 'heros' are more akin to sports idols in that they reap rewards for their efforts and receive accolades and recognition.

Serini is a hero. She does what she thinks is the right thing at great personal cost, and her sole reward is the continuating existence of everyone.

[Precure]

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories where the protagonists are heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

Sounds like what a villain would say.

[DavidSh]

Sounds like what a villain would say.

"Villain" originated as a classist slur. We shouldn't be using it of real people.

[Ionathus]

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories where the protagonists are heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

Your initial response was to somebody who was saying that Serini, a character in a story, thinks she's the hero. By dismissing the term and calling it a "hackneyed literary device" in that context, you were (unintentionally, it seems) criticizing the concept of heroes not only in their real-world use, but also in fiction.

NPCs in the campaign I currently run never use the word "hero" to describe the PCs, unless it's used by the villains or critical bystanders to mock them. Might that change when they save the world? Perhaps. Although I agree it can easily paint someone with too broad of a brush, I also don't think it's a bad or even cliché thing.

[Dion]

Your initial response was to somebody who was saying that Serini, a character in a story, thinks she's the hero.

Actually that was me. I said that. It was my original point. I wasn’t responding to it.

I probably should have said she believes she’s the protagonist of the story, and she’s clearly not the protagonist.

[hroþila]

"Villain" originated as a classist slur. We shouldn't be using it of real people.

"People" originated as a militarist word so we shouldn't use it either (?)

[Precure]

"Villain" originated as a classist slur. We shouldn't be using it of real people.

Sounds like what a villain would say.

[DavidSh]

Sounds like what a villain would say.

Smile when you say that, pardner.

[Jason]

Does everyone agree that calling someone a hero is a reductionist action that strips real people of their humanity?

Absolutely not.

But I do feel terrible for soldiers and police officers and other public service workers who are saddled with a demeaning label like “hero”.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what is supposed to be demeaning about calling someone a hero. And what is dehumanizing or reductionist about it?

[Dion]

Absolutely not

Just me, then?

Anyhow, I’m totally fine using “hero” for a certain type of protagonist in a story.

Odysseus is a hero, because he’s a protagonist who exemplifies the ideals of his culture.

Captain America is a hero, because he is a protagonist who exemplifies the ideals of his culture.

Serini is not a hero, because she is not a protagonist.

[Jason]

Serini is not a hero, because she is not a protagonist.

"Protagonist" is not a requirement for being a hero. There are plenty of examples of heroes who are not a protagonist of the story they are featured in.

[Ionathus]

I'm having a hard time figuring out what is supposed to be demeaning about calling someone a hero. And what is dehumanizing or reductionist about it?

A lot of people chafe at the label of "hero" just because their job is hard. Particularly if their job has recently been made hard by external factors.

For example, many restaurant workers and grocery store employees didn't want to be vaguely called "heroes" by people on TV last spring...they just wanted to safely do their job and make money so they could keep paying for rent/food/entertainment. The fact that a global pandemic made it dangerous to do this specific job doesn't automatically make them heroic -- it just papers over their hardships and the risks they're taking by necessity, and casts them as noble martyrs willing to die so we can keep buying 99c Mac & Cheese.

But calling a grocery store worker or a public educator a "hero" is a lot easier (and cheaper) than actually taking steps to make their job not as dangerous. So a lot of my teacher friends have been bothered by that term and want people to stop using it. Personally, I do feel comfortable classifying something like Firefighting or Search & Rescue heroic, because it involves great personal risk that can't really be mitigated, all to provide a public good and protect others.

(I'm intentionally trying to avoid any mention of policies and specific groups here: I don't want to turn this thread into a covid protocols debate. Just trying to explain why "hero" feels like a weird, saccharine, or dishonest term to some, as Dion mentioned earlier.)

[Jason]

A lot of people chafe at the label of "hero" just because their job is hard. Particularly if their job has recently been made hard by external factors.

I can see people arguing that they don't qualify as heroes and what they really want is some help or other consideration, but surely that doesn't mean that calling someone a "hero" is demeaning in any way. If it's sincere it means that you admire and approve of some qualities of the person, doesn't it?

[Dion]

"Protagonist" is not a requirement for being a hero. There are plenty of examples of heroes who are not a protagonist of the story they are featured in.

So we know that hero means everything from “Greek demigod” to “Greek sandwich”, and about 10 other definitions in between.

Amd we know that the internet is unforgiving of conversations about words that have even two definitions, much less 10 or 20.

I’ll just drop it and say Serini is not the protagonist and she’s acting like she is.

EDIT: and by protagonist, naturally I mean that she was not the first person to address the chorus :-)

[RatElemental]

EDIT: and by protagonist, naturally I mean that she was not the first person to address the chorus :-)

I believe that would make the IFCC the protagonists.

[KorvinStarmast]

Resolved: Serini is not a sandwich.
(But Serini might be a very flavorful sauce if you say it with an Italian accent)