Sometimes, a classical definition of a word is slowly twisted, and some people take offense....

[Tommy_Carcetti]

...., needlessly, when another person simply points out the original meaning of the word and the subsequent misuse.

"Now this here story I'm about to unfold took place back in the early '90s - just about the time of our conflict with Sad'm and the I-raqis. I only mention it because sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, 'cause, what's a hero?"--The Stranger (Sam Elliot), The Big Lebowski

So Chris Hayes catches flack because he points out that not all servicemen who were killed in action actually constitute heroes. Note, he did not say they were not brave. He did not say they were not honorable. He did not say they should be disrespected for what they did. He simply said they were not all heroes.

And he's absolutely correct.

"Hero" denotes something extraordinary, something that goes beyond the normal call of duty. (Ironically, "call of duty" is a term frequently directed towards those in the military, suggesting that what they are asked to do.) If one's unfortunate demise is simply a gunshot on the frontlines in a fierce firefight, without any greater context of sacrifice for his brothers in arms, it is a sad event and a loss of someone who put on the uniform to serve his country. But that alone is not heroic. Had his death included some great deed of valor, where he put himself in exceptional danger to save his fellow man--as numerous people have, such as the 627 posthumous recipients of the Medal of Honor--he is indeed worthy of the label hero.

But just because someone may not be a hero doesn't mean they aren't brave, or to be honored or memorialized. It simply is being honest with the facts. But when someone dares points out the true meaning of a word that has been misused or mislabeled, and that jives with somebody else's greater narrative, woe be unto that person who dares speak the truth!

I know some on this website like Bill Maher. However, just myself speaking, I cannot stand the guy. I find him smarmy, smug, self-righteous, narrow-minded and overall counter-productive to the liberal message. However, one thing I will not fault him for was his much maligned comment that the 9-11 hijackers were incorrectly labeled "cowards". He was on the money then. While those 19 men may have been brainwashed fanatics, sociopaths, people with no respect whatsoever for human life, the word "coward" wasn't applicable for them. They had a set system of belief--an unbelievably twisted, warped one at that--that they felt so strongly enough that they would not only murder for it, but end their lives in the process. While the negative descriptors to be placed on them seems endless, "coward" just does not seem to be one of them. They weren't acting out of fear in doing what they did. Pointing out the error in the use of that word is by no means apologizing for their actions, but to some people without the context of logic, they decided to raise offense to it.

Or take the word "tragedy." It's common place to see it used these days to applied to situations such as a toddler being killed in a car accident, something synonymous with a deeply saddening event. However, it's classical definition is much different. Classically, a tragedy was a tale or a story where a protagonist meets his or her doom due to a fault, most typically his or her own fault. Using that definition, "senseless tragedy" is an oxymoron. Tragedies, classically, were ultimately avoidable, but there was always an explanation for the downfall.

But back to the Hayes incident, I can only point out the great irony that the outrage leveled by those on the right was manufactured by the same people who eschew so-called "politically correctness." Yet, if someone points out a fact that runs against their narrative or viewpoint of this country, they act in the same line as those they may criticize as being overly "politically correct."

[HereSince1628]

1. Since we are thinking about definitions...

That apology is also a recognition by Hayes & MSNBC that our jingo-laden contemporary society alters word meaning and use. Just enlisting in the military enables claims to heroism in some people's perspective. It's not about correct defintions, it's about common use.

While thinking about definitions. What about thinking about the definition of "Liberal" or "respectful". In American politics the definition of Liberal has always included qualities of tolerance and empathy. And, frankly, there is nothing wrong with a commentator saying honestly that he is sorry if he offended a viewer by using a word in its original meaning. Because, purposefully offending people isn't a characteristic of a "Liberal" or even 'respectful' person.

Now 2 decades into the epic drought of a American tolerance, almost everyone is looking for a fight almost all the time. Creating a bruhaha over a jingoistic word use is just typical of the state of our nation. Everyone is supposed to be on on side and disrespectful of the other side, which ever sides that may reference.

Being Progressive means working for change that makes the nation better. Historically the path of Progressivism has sometimes required violent rebellion. Yet, the pathway to a better nation actually doesn't of necessity require that everyone on that path choose to be meaner, less empathetic, and/or less respectful.

As disappointing as it may be to some, I think Hayes apology had equal glimmerings of being a decent thing to do.

Sure it was a thing out of step with the current politics of angst. He's relearned a childhood lesson about timing. Sometimes honesty can be too much truth.

Parsing the meaning of 'goodness' of the dead at a time of memorial for the dead, even if correct in every degree, isn't tolerant or empathetic.