9 ms·
Chuck Norris (and Michael Landon) were golden age role models for young men. Strong but thoughtful, firm but compassionate, and deeply principled but also prac
by simpaticoder 7mo ago
Chuck Norris (and Michael Landon) were golden age role models for young men. Strong but thoughtful, firm but compassionate, and deeply principled but also practical. Yes, these were acting roles but they picked those roles for a reason. Rest in peace, Chuck.
- LetsGetTechnicl 7mo ago[flagged]
- jayGlow 7mo agoit's possible to disagree with someone politically and still acknowledge their positive aspects.
- LetsGetTechnicl 7mo agoWhat positive aspects are there for someone who supported racist birther conspiracy theories and supported Benjamin Netanyahu?
- ceejayoz 7mo agoTo Godwin a little, Hitler's veganism doesn't make him a "role model", even if you think veganism is a good thing.
- Kye 7mo agoFortunately Godwin's law was only an observation of a tendency and, as Godwin himself clarified, not a proscription against an apt comparison.
- raw_anon_1111 7mo agoSorry you don’t get to say “Well this person doesn’t think I have the right to exist and be respected as a person. But I’m sure glad he saved a puppy once.”
- angoragoats 7mo agoFor a simple political disagreement? Absolutely; I completely agree. But to believe that a certain class of people shouldn’t exist is not a run of the mill political belief, and treating it that way normalizes the behavior and contributes to the problem.
- AlexeyBelov 7mo agoNot sure why you're downvoted. The disagreement was not on tax policy or where to build what. I don't understand why both this and "some people shouldn't exist" are both labeled with the same word "political".
- angoragoats 7mo agoThanks, but I’m used to being downvoted and flagged for speaking truthfully about fascism on this site.
- crims0n 7mo agoRemember the good ol' days when people just didn't discuss politics or religion out of decency? There was a reason for that, both bring out the worst in people.
- LetsGetTechnicl 7mo agoSuddenly I'm reminded of the decent (grown) people who yelled in six year-old Ruby Bridges' face when she was merely attending elementary school. So if that was 1960, I'm just wondering when those good ol' days you're referring to where.
- crims0n 7mo agoIt is an expression, you needn’t interpret it literally.
- LetsGetTechnicl 7mo agoOh, okay. I guess that's a convenient excuse to not have to back up your words.
- crims0n 7mo agoThis is hn not reddit, do you really expect a response to your whataboutism?
- LetsGetTechnicl 7mo ago"Whataboutism" is just asking you to validate your claims, I guess.
- crims0n 7mo agoYou don’t need me to validate it for you, search “never discuss politics or religion in polite company” - it was a common maxim.
- zamalek 7mo agoDespite how much they would have you believe it, human rights are not a political issue. Politics are used to expand practiced rights (or abused to reduce them), just like politics are involved with providing you access to water.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago"Deeply principled" really doesn't describe Obama birther conspiracists.
- simpaticoder 7mo agoI am not a scholar in general, or of Chuck Norris specifically. I only have the impressions I have from the pop culture I've consumed. Like most people. And for us, Norris represents something wholesome. For others, those who've read something, or know more, or think they know more, that symbol, that myth, has been ruined. The illusion pierced, the ugly reality revealed. They then look with pity, disdain and contempt at those who still admire the person. Or worse, they make the bad faith argument that to admire him is in fact to embrace those ruinous facts of which most are still ignorant. Frankly, I think what you're doing is a farce. You're showing the world how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is. Ultimately you're trying to prove how dumb it is to believe in anyone or anything. If you look closely enough you'll find dirt on anyone. There is a contradiction: you claim a moral stance, but your "moral" position degrades the very idea of role models, heroism, and admiration itself. With enough scrutiny, admiration tends to zero. The reality of the person is irrelevant. What matters is what they mean, what they symbolize, and the kind of archetype they represent. This is of course not true universally; some mythological people are alive, powerful, and dangerous and we cannot afford such kayfabe. But some are harmless and imply no endorsement of their misdeeds. Especially for actors, storytellers, artists, scientists and perhaps a few others we not only CAN afford it, we SHOULD do it, because these role models (or symbols of role models) are what make up the beating heart of a coherent culture. I choose to admire Chuck Norris, Michael Jackson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Gahndi, Isaac Asimov, even if some deeds of theirs were wicked. I prefer to go through life admiring symbols of people even knowing that these are constructs. To do otherwise is to recognize the futility of admiration, and I choose not to live that way.
- krapp 7mo agoThat's a lot of words to say "I prefer to ignore the evil that men do if I find them entertaining enough, and I think it's silly that anyone does otherwise." The Chuck Norris you admire is a figment of your imagination. He was a product created by capitalism. He never actually fought Bruce Lee. He was never really a Texas Ranger. He was never in the real Delta Force. Putting him on the same cultural level as actual leaders who at least fought for something in the real world is risible. Holding such deep admiration for the things he pretended to do that you feel compelled to insult someone's character and intelligence for judging him as a human being is a far less than admirable moral stance. The reality of the person is not irrelevant, the reality of the person is all that matters at the end of the day.
- amjnsx 7mo agoHe was openly maga and a homophobe and a transphobe. I wouldn’t consider these qualities for a role model.
- sschueller 7mo agoMany like myself did not know this as a kid in the 80s-90s. Some of the movies he made like "sidekicks" left a positive impression at that age.
- nazgulsenpai 7mo agoIn the 80s-90s his positions would have aligned fine with the center left.
- EnPissant 7mo agoForget the 80s-90s - Even California passed prop 8 in 2008.
- rootusrootus 7mo agoSome of them, perhaps. I don't think the center left would ever have been into the birther conspiracy.
- nazgulsenpai 7mo agoThere were conspiracy theories in the 80s and 90s too.
- sanktanglia 7mo agoThere is a huge difference between general conspiracy theories and the birther lie which was more racist astroturfing than a legitimate conspiracy
- something765478 7mo agoNo, I'm pretty sure they would have. I remember during the primaries, Hillary tried to attack Obama by showing him in a "Muslim" garment.
- angoragoats 7mo ago[flagged]
- sirbutters 7mo ago[flagged]
- ratrace 7mo ago[dead]
- angoragoats 7mo agoI’m used to it by now, but thanks.
- angoragoats 7mo agoI love that both my post truthfully describing Chuck Norris’s abhorrent views and the reply expressing regret that my post was flagged have now both been flagged. Stay classy, HN.
- thuridas 7mo agoAnd it is not as if he was great at acting or as martial artist. Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan were in a completely different league.
- ratrace 7mo ago[dead]
- unethical_ban 7mo agoI hear you and it is sad Norris had the views he did. BUT, I was in karate as a kid in the prime of his sponsorship of tournaments, and he was indeed a role model then. He was a good guy in that field, promoting martial arts and the discipline, fitness and respect that goes along with it. I can vouch that having him promote hard work, training and respect in martial arts at age 10 did not turn me into a Christian nationalist.