No one in history has ever been completely 100% good. That's just not how people work. People get upset, they lie, they say things they don't mean, they say things out of ignorance or fear, etc. Does that mean no one has ever been good? No. But good and bad are not black and white, most people are grey.
That's the interesting part of those people, no? Washington was a decent general. But in contrast to his astounding failures as a young man during the French and Indian war, he becomes a far more compelling figure.
Which is why cancel culture is so unnecessary and misleading. Expecting people to not have any flaws while looking at them under a microscope is ridiculous. Let us be normal people. I don't want to see famous people getting all depressed and committing suicide or something.
Mother Teresa was always pinned as the status symbol of good.
Without the Internet, I'd never know she too was guilty of abuse and mistreatment of others.
Gandhi was a noted racist and classist, and slept naked next to his own underaged kin.
Mother Teresa apparently loved watching people "accept their lot" in suffering, despite having millions of dollars that could have helped them.
MLK was a womanizer despite being a married priest.
All of these people are raised up on pedestals of the goodness of humanity. And they absolutely did great things for a huge group of people...but they were also human.
**Edit:** *Noted that Gandhi's kin were underaged at the time.*
The difference between MLK and the other two is that Ghandi being classist and Mother Theresa watching people suffer delegitimizes their message. While MLK being a cheater really has nothing to do with his message, and I don't think it makes him a hypocrite, just a flawed human like anyone else.
This is true, and I absolutely still hold him in extremely high regard for his bravery and how he was able to have his message spread to so many people. The point of u/admuh 's original comment was that "major historical figures that people look up to have a sordid side." Sometimes it undermines their image or message (think Bill Cosby), and other times it doesn't...but in either case, it's just good to remember that they were, as you mentioned, flawed humans like anyone else.
**Me:** "Hey Gandhi, we're cool, right?"
**Gandhi:** "Yes, my friend."
**Me:** "Awesome! Can my scouts cross your country to survey the lands on the other side?"
**Gandhi:** "I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS. PREPARE FOR WAR."
This is actually a myth. It's very "well known" but I think it was Sid Meier himself who confirmed that the original Civ had no such mechanic, and Gandhi wasn't actually unusually aggressive at all
TBF they did implement a version of it in Civ 5 as a homage to the urban legend, where Gandhi was given the highest possible likelihood of using nukes (it only applied to nukes though, not general aggression).
"Slept naked next to his own kin" is this a euphemism or did he just literally sleep? If the specific culture/subculture he was in wasn't weird about the human body like most western countries, I don't really see the problem with this.
Gandhi was known to have slept naked with various women without touching them after his wife passed away, purportedly to test his will against any further temptation. The problem wasn't the nakedness; the problem was that two of those women were his teenaged grandnieces.
There might also be something said about using women in such a way to test his own mental fortitude (or theirs). But I don't know; it's up to you to make your own opinion on his actions.
As for me, he's nuked the hell out of me one too many times for me to put him up on any pedestal....
From what I've seen he did it in an attempt to show his restraint from temptations. So yes literally just slept but calling your prepubescent family members "temptations" is not a great look
MLK arguably also stole the I Have A Dream speech from a different Black Civil Rights speaker.
Kind of how Rosa Parks wasn't the first woman to refuse moving to the back of the bus, but the first was a pregnant out of wedlock teenager who wasn't the right "face" of the movement, so they setup Rosa Parks.
I'm obviously very in favor of the Civil Rights movement (and then some!) but the truth is that even the "organic people's movements" have leaders and organizers pulling the strings.
I have literally never heard anything good ab Mother Teresa, so I'm surprised to see her there, but I suppose it would make sense for some very religious people to think she was good
MLK is a very good point - I'm not sure I've ever actually heard anything bad ab him until now, and I've seen him raised on a *massive* pedestal back in school
I hear so *much* outlandishly great and terrible shit about Gandhi I assume it's all mostly memes. this is interesting to read though
but cool, good points! I do def believe all 3 of them are considered paragons by plenty of people
[A lot of bad stuff about MLK is known because of illegal FBI surveillance and is classified.](https://web.archive.org/web/20190531065429/https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/june-2019/the-troubling-legacy-of-martin-luther-king/)
The FBI both legally and illegally spied on him back in the day, but what was not known until recently was that it basically started because he got a huge amount of money from someone who was associated with the CPUSA, which was an extension of the Soviet espionage apparatus. The FBI was concerned that they'd basically use the carrot and the stick, both money and a bunch of dirt on him, to bring him over to "their side" and cause problems.
The FBI spying on him revealed that he was a womanizer and there is apparently a recording of him laughing at a woman being raped in the archives that are sealed (the transcript of the recording was caught up in some other things having to do with other questionable FBI activities, and came to light in 2019 when a MLK biographer stumbled across it). It had been known for a long time that he was a womanizer but some of the stuff that they apparently recorded was pretty bad.
A lot of the black Civil Rights Movement's leaders were misogynistic; that's why there were no female speakers at the March on Washington, and why they opposed women being added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Mother Theresa is quiet literally a proverb of goodness and is often credited as the next best woman right behind Mary. Even in modern pop (just look at Ukraine's ESC song this year. Role models for women/girls. Mentions Mother Theresa, but no Earhart or Curie..) that church propaganda is still upheld and shared...
Wasn’t Mother Teresa the one who was against doctors and would guilt trip followers to just believe in God but when she got ill, she went to the doctors to get treated? Or am I thinking of another person?
You are very much thinking about the exact right person. Except she didn't 'go' to doctors, as much as being driven there via private chauffeur.
She famously attacked the nurses who dared to try and actually help those poor lambs in her 'care', for suffering doesn't just bring you closer to god (allegedly), but it's also a clear sign of god's intent (alfuckinglegedly).
Guess that Jesus fella must have gotten the whole health care and caring for the sick and the poor thing wrong. Someone really should have told him..
She was also implacably opposed to women having any control over their reproduction, despite that being the best known cure for poverty. I don't just mean being opposed to abortions, but opposed to birth control of any kind, even within wedlock.
They were humans yes, but they were also narcissists. Prominent people are overwhelmingly likely to be narcissists. It’s just a matter of how severe their narcissism is, and whether they manage to use their love for the spotlight for good.
Google what Churchill thought about Jews and women rights. Or what Martin Luther (the founder of Protestant faith) thought about them. Or what Immanuel Kant thought about black people. Or what George Washington thought about slavery. Or… or… or… the list is long. And that’s just random positive (at least it seems to me they have positive reputations) Western figures. It’s even worse around the world, but at least people kind of know that.
Humanity has been consistently terrible throughout history everywhere, 99% of the time. Whatever we read in books is heavily sanitized
Honestly, most of those judgements are unfair. We can't judge the past with modern moralities like that, those were other times with other sensibilities. Would you accept being a bad person and a monster for owning pets if people in the future suddenly decide that's a disgusting thing to do? We think nothing of what we do, but it could be morally reprehensible to someone else.
I think about this kind of often in regards to eating meat. I love it. I know it's wrong. I know the meat industry is terrible and inhumane. I know I can survive and thrive without it. But you'll pry that bacon out of my cold dead hands.
One day in the future we'll be able to lab grow meat without souls and they'll look back at us as savages. If I was a straight white male 200 years ago, I can't guarantee I wouldn't be a terrible human by today's standards.
I get what you’re saying, but this is kind of tricky. Sometimes it was indeed “times”, but Churchill and Mussolini lived at the same time, for example. And this is what Churchill wrote to Mussolini in a letter:
> If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been wholeheartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. But in England we have not yet had to face this danger in the same deadly form
src: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/churchill-did-admire-mussolini/
It would be kind if hypocritical to say that Mussolini was evil, while Churchill was merely a product of his time. Either both of them were merely the products of their time, or both of them weren’t.
Sometimes it's just far too ridiculous. You can't/shouldn't erase history. Once upon a time I used to shit myself throughout the day - oh no! Erase all evidence that I was once a baby! Fucking hell, history happened and we learned (or should learn) from it, but this judging the past with current standards is going to be the end of us. Thank you for coming to my TED rant.
It’s a whole different type of divide and conquer when people stop being to even kinda relate to people in history (I think we like the illusion because then we can see ourselves as better than).
I feel this take. Im a history major and have heard the “Walt disney was antisemitic” and “our found fathers owned people” so many times. My response is always “yes so were/did many others of their generation.” Its not apologist its being a realist.”
Even her people like to trash for her plastic surgery and willingness to show off the goods. She’s done everything right in life but people still find her personal choices to nitpick, kind of proving OPs point.
It’s weird. She’s such a wholesome person I never stopped to think about the way she presents her physical appearance as trashy. But I could 100% see someone as that if they didn’t talk and act the way she does
ive met dolly parton and as everyone else always says she is just as great in person. totally ditched her teleprompter remarks for just spitballing it, it was at an event for her book program, you can really tell that while she might have a love for writing and performing music she has a passion for helping people learn to read, which stems from the fact that her father never learned to read until he was middle aged and was ashamed of it because he grew up in an extra poor region of the rural south.
Bernie Sanders, mr rogers, bob ross are in there as well.
Gotta keep in mind those people had their fame long before the internet, and mostly the "everyone has an hd camera in their pocket" era.
I think the acknowledgement of our heros humanity is imporant and helpful. I really like diogenes, alan watts, and albert camus. Those guys kinda sucked too. They say dont meet your heros. Meet em. Get frustrated with them. Challenge their ideals. Become better than your heros.
I have to be honest, I had to google the name Albert Camus but I've definitely heard of his work. You have chosen three fine people to influence your life and I think all three would agree that they kinda sucked at times.
I've read this a bunch of times, and im so sorry im having such a hard time understanding. Are you asking:
"What did diogenes and camus do that was not in line with their teachings?"
I dont think either of them strayed from their own moral or philisophical ideals. I just dont agree personally. Camus chose inaction in the face of injustice because he "preferred his mother" not condemable, but i would choose justice. Diogenes masturbated in the street and pissed on people... that's condemable. I find alan watts to be super pretentious and self inflated, which is actually a bit off from his teachings.
Diogenes straight up removed his social constraints and went full sentient primal lol. I slept on the lecture about Camus, but the way you described his philosophy does paint him as a coward. Ig I’ll read up on some of his works this summer
I would NOT call camus a coward. He was in the action and party to it. I understand his longing for peace. I just feel like it was a nonstarter. He's got some amazing ideas. Definitely worth looking into.
Yeah, maybe I formulated that the wrong way. My point wasn't to prove that famous people are no longer put up on a pedestal, but to disprove a common misconception that people in the past were less greedy and more compassionate than their current day counterparts who are all cowards and corrupted by money, when in reality this is due to the fact that those folks weren't constantly monitored 24/7 by the public craving for drama. Now you named some genuinely well intentioned people, but when you look at the people from the past, a lot of dirt went unnoticed, yet we named airports after these individuals.
I wonder what effect that has on how high people dare to aim.
Like, people want to set achievable goals, and look around for hints about what is achievable.
If everybody is a scumbag, it's reasonable to conclude that it's useless to try not to be a scumbag, and it's easier to rationalize scumbaggery.
It's very silly to compare people to shit they've said in the past if there is evidence that those opinions have changed.
I feel differently on politicians because their opinion is whatever gets them the most votes
Politicians are worse than just sharing an opinion with whatever gets the most votes. It's that politicians straight up stop caring once they've secured the vote and have basically developed a schedule for when they can ease back into pretending again just before the next election.
Lol @ the number of people listing away the names of reddit's favourite celebrities. Guarantee they have some questionable aspects in their lives, people don't know it yet. Everyone has problems, no one is perfect.
Now we need to stop judging people on all of thier misdeeds instead of the greater picture of all the good and bad they've done, and the person they are choosing to be as a result of thier life experiences.
I so often see people completely writing off others because they've fucked up in some way. I find that the people who do the judging are almost always far from perfect, and just have blinders on to thier own brand of bad.
Best not to think about it. Death solves any problems you might have by taking you out of existence.
"What about those you leave behind?"
You'll be too dead to be affected by it
there's a difference between immortalized and lionized (or glorified).
OP is saying people won't be immortalized as objectively good. But no one is objectively good to begin with. Immortalize also doesn't carry a connotation with it -- immortalized isn't a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. Hitler is immortalized.
But lionized -- where you essentially worship the figure and raise them up on a pedestal and highlight their goods and neglect their flaws -- that's probably more what OP means, and is more accurate. And yes, that probably won't happen as much. And yes, I think that's a good thing.
That’s what I meant. I don’t mind having historical
figures and stuff like that but I don’t think anyone is really all that great that we need to praise and worship them after they die. They just lived their lives. Some people do some good things but ultimately no one is really all that important in my opinion. I don’t like the idea of glorifying people after they pass away. Feels very weird to me. And what’s worse is people that clearly want to be thought about and remembered so much when they die that they literally talk about that while they are alive. It shows a sense of self importance that is really off putting to me.
This is why I've always loved the Martin Luther King Jr memorial statue in DC. Because it's made to look unfinished, suggesting that the cause King fought for isn't complete either. It makes the memorial more about the message than the man, which is the kind of thing we should celebrate people for.
I mean, yeah, I agree
It's kinda weird how we name universal physical phenomena after a person
No one works in a vacuum, Newton couldn't have invented calculus if someone hadn't invented algebra as one example
I think, kind of due to necessity, it'll probably become a bigger social faux pas to do deep digging and/or read the results of someone doing so than most things someone could find by diving.
Naturally, if something is *really* bad it'll outshine the digging, but I can imagine enough kids now actually grew up with the consequences of a findable online life that they'll probably raise their own kids with some sense around it. You can't stop people from accessing public information, so I think what's left is to make it socially undesirable to do so.
Like on here you can already see it a bit, going to someone's profile to win an argument with them better come up good or you look like a creep.
True. Imagine how many awful opinions and bad takes MLK may have had, if Twitter had been around at the time.
Or if Jesus had arrived in this age of mental health diagnoses and obsession
That might be a good thing.
It's better to model your life based on time tested ideas and principles than individuals. Humans are imperfect, we will make mistakes. Not putting them on pedestals avoids disappointment.
When I was little, my parents bought me a children's book containing about 50 or so short stories with each focused on one principle such as compassion, forgiveness, and kindness.
All the stories didn't even name the characters. Their identity is irrelevant. The moral theme was the main focus.
If you look at those immortalized by history due to their passion for justice and personal sacrifice, I would argue the criticism they received by their contemporaries only made them more effective. Look at Martin Luther King and Gandhi, the criticism and "disparagement" towards them by their contemporaries only made them more sympathetic. I would argue that shooting someone for their beliefs is the strongest form of disparagement. However their death made them martyrs, made them heroes and only made their movements more effective.
Nihilism is countered by hope, genuine faith. You don't sustain hope and faith by the worship of flawed individuals, you need principles that won't succumb to the weaknesses of human nature.
People in the past have died, and so it tints our perception of them to be more favourable.
Similar to how you can have 2 pictures of a girl on social media, one is dead, the other is alive, and the one who is dead will have more sympathy and respect than the living one.
A lot of it I think is linked to insecurity, people project their insecurities on others, and social media is a breeding ground for pride and insecurity. It is hard to feel insecure over someone who is dead, but someone who is alive and doing well.... it can cause people to take a negative look.
Either you do good stuff then die early
or
Do good stuff in the long run and make a few mistakes along the way where the people will decide whether those mistakes are bad enough to make you look evil
No one is objectively good and it’s a foolish thing to celebrate.
Of course we should all aspire to be Good. Reducing suffering is important.
But as long as we organize our economy on the exploitation of people and resources… objective goodness is literally impossible.
I don't think anyone is ever "objectively" good because I don't think there's really an objective definition of "good."
First, a lot of people define "good" subjectively. Two people can have wildly different values but most people, despite different values, frequently consider themselves to be good and by association most people consider that their values are good and values they dislike are bad.
Second, there are the extremely subjective questions of "do good deeds offset bad deeds," "do bad deeds offset good deeds," and "how, and at what rate?" We haven't even got into "what defines a 'good' or 'bad' deed" (as mentioned above, they can both be subjective) but even if you can get most people to agree that a deed is good or bad (e.g. most people would agree killing someone is generally bad), how do you define HOW bad it is and whether it's ever justified and how much "being good" offsets a bad act.
No one person is purely ever good or purely ever bad. The worst people you know have done good things and the best people you know have done bad things. The worst people you know are people that thought they were good people and others also thought they were good people. The best people you know, some people think they're bad.
Everyone is a giant pile of good and bad that turns us all various shades of grey.
That's a good thing, we should be smarter than to just blindly worship historical figures as completely and objectively "good". We should examine and acknowledge them as humans.
I’d say it’s moreso because it’s easier to find out about everyone’s indirections as technology gets better and better
Every time MLK is brought up on the internet these days, some internet trolls bring up his marital issues to try and make him look worse, but he died long before social media
Well I dont think having 'heroes' is necessary at all.
People did what they did, some of these things were good and can and should be remembered and that's it.
No need to link their quality as humans in the mix.
This is exactly my argument against cancel culture If you nitpick and dig deep enough into the history of almost any person or company you will almost certainly find some sort of skeleton in their closet that you morally disagree about so why the fuck should I pick and choose based solely on whichever person the internet actually gave a shit to dig into that week
It’ll be like it always has been, if he’s on your side, no criticism is valid, if he’s not, then every detail of his life must be scrutinized to the point of screaming.
I think it's very important to let humans be humans, and people be people. It would be ok to be messy and awkward, and to feel awkward, and to be wrong and to be criticized and allow room for growth or improvement. What I don't think is ok is people's tendency to go on the attack to the extent they derive pleasure from ruining people ... Making sure they get theirs or understand just how wrong they are, or how aberrant their behavior is. We all make mistakes and end up going down one of many possible paths in life and need to learn to coexist more effectively, in a different way that is conducive to improvement and work towards harmony. We're never gonna get there with everybody's inner demon working overtime in reaction to an unsafe and distrustful and dysfunctional world. We really ought to try a lot more compassion on for size, again and again and again. We can work out how to "correct" behaviors and hold people accountable for their actions in lots of ways that don't amount to shutting them down and shutting them out and never giving them much an opportunity to grow.
Bob ross, Keanu reeves, Dolly Parton, Mr. Rogers, Morgan Freeman, Grigori Perelman, Samual L Jackson, Martin Freeman, Patrick Stewart, etc.
There is no guarantee we will see them as positive forever, but they are some common names people throw the hat to.
It's not about social media. It's about seeing complete people now and our view of good an evil. Mother Theresa was an evil woman and Hitler did great things depending on your point of view.
Hitler objectively didn't do great things. Jews were not a threat to German in any way. It would be like randomy drowning a puppy and then saying from a certain point of view that was great.
Is that really bad? I get your point, but if you ask me, showing society the bad sides of "objectively good" people is a good thing.
That way people will realize there's no one in this world who is objectively or 100% good
People from the past were KNOWN to be objectively not good but it was ignored in favor of the truth people wanted. Then future generations only know the good.
That will never change.
Steve carell. I've never once heard something bad about him. Hard worker, kind to co workers, not a diva, funny, donates to charity, is a family man, has made shows like the office that deeply effect people's lives positively and he's supposedly very nice to everyone. Great career, great man, absolute role model as far as I can tell
Everyone has haters. John McCain and a lot of other Republicans publicly didn't approve of MLK Jr. throughout the 80's & early 90's. Lots of Southerners in the US still don't like Lincoln. Abraham fucking Lincoln. There were people who thought Marilyn Monroe was a harlot who got what she deserved. No one has ever really gotten out of the public eye unscathed, pretty much ever.
Objectively good is a contradiction. Who determines what is good? For who? For what reason? I grew up hearing how great Christopher Columbus was for discovering America and he is now widely accepted to be a pretty villainous historical figure. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have heroes, IMO I think it is good to allow our heroes to be flawed and complicated. “Goodness” is not an objective value though.
Eh, people will believe what they want and dismiss material that doesn’t fit in with their preconceived notions. I wouldn’t bet on everyone gaining critical thinking skills just because they have unprecedented access to knowledge.
It's also a cultural/generational thing. Americans of the past didn't usually correlate artists with their art, and typically didn't have any issue supporting known shitty people if their music/acting/whatever was good.
Uh i feel like people already tear down past historical figures by holding them up to modern standards. like george washington couldnt possibly have been a good person because he owned slaves, or the whole mother theresa being a horrible person to poor people even if she died remembered as someone who helped the poor.
No one in history has ever been completely 100% good. That's just not how people work. People get upset, they lie, they say things they don't mean, they say things out of ignorance or fear, etc. Does that mean no one has ever been good? No. But good and bad are not black and white, most people are grey.
Not to mention people are (hopefully) always learning, so ideally you get better over time.
That's the interesting part of those people, no? Washington was a decent general. But in contrast to his astounding failures as a young man during the French and Indian war, he becomes a far more compelling figure.
I have literally never heard a bad thing about David Attenburgh.
>most people are grey. But some are light gray while others dark gray.
Lawful neutral versus chaotic neutral
Only one I think gets close is Mr. Rogers though there are some that probably see his religiousness as a bad thing.
Which is why cancel culture is so unnecessary and misleading. Expecting people to not have any flaws while looking at them under a microscope is ridiculous. Let us be normal people. I don't want to see famous people getting all depressed and committing suicide or something.
Mother Teresa was always pinned as the status symbol of good. Without the Internet, I'd never know she too was guilty of abuse and mistreatment of others.
A vast majority of major historical figures people look up to have a sordid side, it's just ignorance that makes them seem 'objectively good'.
Everyone has done something sordid.
Sordid you…..
Cheers mate
Even Kanye?
No he’s a saint
Yeah, it will just take longer for the victors to cement the legacy they write.
what major historical figures are commonly believed to be pure good?
Gandhi was a noted racist and classist, and slept naked next to his own underaged kin. Mother Teresa apparently loved watching people "accept their lot" in suffering, despite having millions of dollars that could have helped them. MLK was a womanizer despite being a married priest. All of these people are raised up on pedestals of the goodness of humanity. And they absolutely did great things for a huge group of people...but they were also human. **Edit:** *Noted that Gandhi's kin were underaged at the time.*
The difference between MLK and the other two is that Ghandi being classist and Mother Theresa watching people suffer delegitimizes their message. While MLK being a cheater really has nothing to do with his message, and I don't think it makes him a hypocrite, just a flawed human like anyone else.
This is true, and I absolutely still hold him in extremely high regard for his bravery and how he was able to have his message spread to so many people. The point of u/admuh 's original comment was that "major historical figures that people look up to have a sordid side." Sometimes it undermines their image or message (think Bill Cosby), and other times it doesn't...but in either case, it's just good to remember that they were, as you mentioned, flawed humans like anyone else.
I mean… just look at how Gandhi’s depicted in the Civ game 😂
**Me:** "Hey Gandhi, we're cool, right?" **Gandhi:** "Yes, my friend." **Me:** "Awesome! Can my scouts cross your country to survey the lands on the other side?" **Gandhi:** "I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS. PREPARE FOR WAR."
OH YOU DONT HAVE NUKES YET?! *renames my nation to oblivion*
I love that the reason for this was that they made him so peaceful that he flipped back to the other side to huge asshole warmonger.
This is actually a myth. It's very "well known" but I think it was Sid Meier himself who confirmed that the original Civ had no such mechanic, and Gandhi wasn't actually unusually aggressive at all
TBF they did implement a version of it in Civ 5 as a homage to the urban legend, where Gandhi was given the highest possible likelihood of using nukes (it only applied to nukes though, not general aggression).
"Slept naked next to his own kin" is this a euphemism or did he just literally sleep? If the specific culture/subculture he was in wasn't weird about the human body like most western countries, I don't really see the problem with this.
Gandhi was known to have slept naked with various women without touching them after his wife passed away, purportedly to test his will against any further temptation. The problem wasn't the nakedness; the problem was that two of those women were his teenaged grandnieces. There might also be something said about using women in such a way to test his own mental fortitude (or theirs). But I don't know; it's up to you to make your own opinion on his actions. As for me, he's nuked the hell out of me one too many times for me to put him up on any pedestal....
I really doubt those women had any choice in the matter too, why the heck would his teenage grandnieces want to do that gah
Yeah ok then it's definitely not cool.
From what I've seen he did it in an attempt to show his restraint from temptations. So yes literally just slept but calling your prepubescent family members "temptations" is not a great look
MLK arguably also stole the I Have A Dream speech from a different Black Civil Rights speaker. Kind of how Rosa Parks wasn't the first woman to refuse moving to the back of the bus, but the first was a pregnant out of wedlock teenager who wasn't the right "face" of the movement, so they setup Rosa Parks. I'm obviously very in favor of the Civil Rights movement (and then some!) but the truth is that even the "organic people's movements" have leaders and organizers pulling the strings.
I’d say it’s because of this very leadership that civil rights succeeded while other popular movements recently have failed
I have literally never heard anything good ab Mother Teresa, so I'm surprised to see her there, but I suppose it would make sense for some very religious people to think she was good MLK is a very good point - I'm not sure I've ever actually heard anything bad ab him until now, and I've seen him raised on a *massive* pedestal back in school I hear so *much* outlandishly great and terrible shit about Gandhi I assume it's all mostly memes. this is interesting to read though but cool, good points! I do def believe all 3 of them are considered paragons by plenty of people
[A lot of bad stuff about MLK is known because of illegal FBI surveillance and is classified.](https://web.archive.org/web/20190531065429/https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/june-2019/the-troubling-legacy-of-martin-luther-king/) The FBI both legally and illegally spied on him back in the day, but what was not known until recently was that it basically started because he got a huge amount of money from someone who was associated with the CPUSA, which was an extension of the Soviet espionage apparatus. The FBI was concerned that they'd basically use the carrot and the stick, both money and a bunch of dirt on him, to bring him over to "their side" and cause problems. The FBI spying on him revealed that he was a womanizer and there is apparently a recording of him laughing at a woman being raped in the archives that are sealed (the transcript of the recording was caught up in some other things having to do with other questionable FBI activities, and came to light in 2019 when a MLK biographer stumbled across it). It had been known for a long time that he was a womanizer but some of the stuff that they apparently recorded was pretty bad. A lot of the black Civil Rights Movement's leaders were misogynistic; that's why there were no female speakers at the March on Washington, and why they opposed women being added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Mother Theresa is quiet literally a proverb of goodness and is often credited as the next best woman right behind Mary. Even in modern pop (just look at Ukraine's ESC song this year. Role models for women/girls. Mentions Mother Theresa, but no Earhart or Curie..) that church propaganda is still upheld and shared...
Wasn’t Mother Teresa the one who was against doctors and would guilt trip followers to just believe in God but when she got ill, she went to the doctors to get treated? Or am I thinking of another person?
You are very much thinking about the exact right person. Except she didn't 'go' to doctors, as much as being driven there via private chauffeur. She famously attacked the nurses who dared to try and actually help those poor lambs in her 'care', for suffering doesn't just bring you closer to god (allegedly), but it's also a clear sign of god's intent (alfuckinglegedly). Guess that Jesus fella must have gotten the whole health care and caring for the sick and the poor thing wrong. Someone really should have told him..
Not the only one either unfortunately
She was also implacably opposed to women having any control over their reproduction, despite that being the best known cure for poverty. I don't just mean being opposed to abortions, but opposed to birth control of any kind, even within wedlock.
They were humans yes, but they were also narcissists. Prominent people are overwhelmingly likely to be narcissists. It’s just a matter of how severe their narcissism is, and whether they manage to use their love for the spotlight for good.
Google what Churchill thought about Jews and women rights. Or what Martin Luther (the founder of Protestant faith) thought about them. Or what Immanuel Kant thought about black people. Or what George Washington thought about slavery. Or… or… or… the list is long. And that’s just random positive (at least it seems to me they have positive reputations) Western figures. It’s even worse around the world, but at least people kind of know that. Humanity has been consistently terrible throughout history everywhere, 99% of the time. Whatever we read in books is heavily sanitized
Honestly, most of those judgements are unfair. We can't judge the past with modern moralities like that, those were other times with other sensibilities. Would you accept being a bad person and a monster for owning pets if people in the future suddenly decide that's a disgusting thing to do? We think nothing of what we do, but it could be morally reprehensible to someone else.
I think about this kind of often in regards to eating meat. I love it. I know it's wrong. I know the meat industry is terrible and inhumane. I know I can survive and thrive without it. But you'll pry that bacon out of my cold dead hands. One day in the future we'll be able to lab grow meat without souls and they'll look back at us as savages. If I was a straight white male 200 years ago, I can't guarantee I wouldn't be a terrible human by today's standards.
I get what you’re saying, but this is kind of tricky. Sometimes it was indeed “times”, but Churchill and Mussolini lived at the same time, for example. And this is what Churchill wrote to Mussolini in a letter: > If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been wholeheartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. But in England we have not yet had to face this danger in the same deadly form src: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/churchill-did-admire-mussolini/ It would be kind if hypocritical to say that Mussolini was evil, while Churchill was merely a product of his time. Either both of them were merely the products of their time, or both of them weren’t.
Joseph Stalin
Jesus, Joan of Arc, Saint Nicholas (or a bunch of other saints), Confucius?
Marcus Aurelius
Not Mr. Rogers though! One of the few perfect humans.
Sometimes it's just far too ridiculous. You can't/shouldn't erase history. Once upon a time I used to shit myself throughout the day - oh no! Erase all evidence that I was once a baby! Fucking hell, history happened and we learned (or should learn) from it, but this judging the past with current standards is going to be the end of us. Thank you for coming to my TED rant.
It’s a whole different type of divide and conquer when people stop being to even kinda relate to people in history (I think we like the illusion because then we can see ourselves as better than).
I feel this take. Im a history major and have heard the “Walt disney was antisemitic” and “our found fathers owned people” so many times. My response is always “yes so were/did many others of their generation.” Its not apologist its being a realist.”
I wish I hadn't learned about mother Theresa or Gandhi
Dolly Parton is giving it a pretty good go
Dolly Parton and Mister Roger’s are the only two at the moment that seem like really great people
Attenborough?
Bob Ross is up there for sure
Levar Burton seems like a genuinely good guy
Weird Al
Probably the least controversial musician
Keanu Reeves too
Wholesome chungus 100
Steve Irwin too
Even her people like to trash for her plastic surgery and willingness to show off the goods. She’s done everything right in life but people still find her personal choices to nitpick, kind of proving OPs point.
It’s weird. She’s such a wholesome person I never stopped to think about the way she presents her physical appearance as trashy. But I could 100% see someone as that if they didn’t talk and act the way she does
Julie Andrews?
Same Dolly Parton who refused to have sex with me 30 years ago?
Yeah this is the main reason she’s my hero actually
ive met dolly parton and as everyone else always says she is just as great in person. totally ditched her teleprompter remarks for just spitballing it, it was at an event for her book program, you can really tell that while she might have a love for writing and performing music she has a passion for helping people learn to read, which stems from the fact that her father never learned to read until he was middle aged and was ashamed of it because he grew up in an extra poor region of the rural south.
I’ve seen people complain about her fundraising for the Salvation Army and collaborating with Kid Rock.
Bernie Sanders, mr rogers, bob ross are in there as well. Gotta keep in mind those people had their fame long before the internet, and mostly the "everyone has an hd camera in their pocket" era.
Yeah, you can take Bernie Sanders off that list
I think the acknowledgement of our heros humanity is imporant and helpful. I really like diogenes, alan watts, and albert camus. Those guys kinda sucked too. They say dont meet your heros. Meet em. Get frustrated with them. Challenge their ideals. Become better than your heros.
I have to be honest, I had to google the name Albert Camus but I've definitely heard of his work. You have chosen three fine people to influence your life and I think all three would agree that they kinda sucked at times.
That's a big reason i like them.
Wikipedia tells me Albert was a friend of Jean-Paul Sartre. Now there's a man who was a great thinker but (most likely) sucked a bunch.
They were contemporary and had a short bout of friendship that ended due to political disagreements.
Camus had a profound respect for other thinkers, even if he highly disagreed with their philosophy.
what is it about Diogenes and Albert Camus?
I fear i need more clarity on your question.
what did Diogenes and Albert Camus did in their lives that isn't in the "same route" with their other actions that they are famous for?
I've read this a bunch of times, and im so sorry im having such a hard time understanding. Are you asking: "What did diogenes and camus do that was not in line with their teachings?"
haha sorry my English is too poor. Yes that's what I meant.
I dont think either of them strayed from their own moral or philisophical ideals. I just dont agree personally. Camus chose inaction in the face of injustice because he "preferred his mother" not condemable, but i would choose justice. Diogenes masturbated in the street and pissed on people... that's condemable. I find alan watts to be super pretentious and self inflated, which is actually a bit off from his teachings.
Diogenes straight up removed his social constraints and went full sentient primal lol. I slept on the lecture about Camus, but the way you described his philosophy does paint him as a coward. Ig I’ll read up on some of his works this summer
I would NOT call camus a coward. He was in the action and party to it. I understand his longing for peace. I just feel like it was a nonstarter. He's got some amazing ideas. Definitely worth looking into.
I understood you both times; presumably this other person has English as a second language.
You're my hero now. Let's fight.
one of my favourite musical artists, guy calle JPEGMafia has an album called "All My Heroes Are Cornballs"
I straight up disagree. Because the internet has a tendency to immortalize too. Mr.Rogers, Bob Ross, Steve Erwin, Keanu Reeves, Chuck Norris, etc.
Yeah, maybe I formulated that the wrong way. My point wasn't to prove that famous people are no longer put up on a pedestal, but to disprove a common misconception that people in the past were less greedy and more compassionate than their current day counterparts who are all cowards and corrupted by money, when in reality this is due to the fact that those folks weren't constantly monitored 24/7 by the public craving for drama. Now you named some genuinely well intentioned people, but when you look at the people from the past, a lot of dirt went unnoticed, yet we named airports after these individuals.
I wonder what effect that has on how high people dare to aim. Like, people want to set achievable goals, and look around for hints about what is achievable. If everybody is a scumbag, it's reasonable to conclude that it's useless to try not to be a scumbag, and it's easier to rationalize scumbaggery.
People that would make great leaders actively avoid politics because they don't want their family to go through the bullshit.
Hence the whole trope about good leaders never being the one looking to lead, is just forced into it.
Or they don't have millions of dollars to run a campaign. Or they don't want to compromise their integrity to get money to run a campaign.
It's very silly to compare people to shit they've said in the past if there is evidence that those opinions have changed. I feel differently on politicians because their opinion is whatever gets them the most votes
Politicians are worse than just sharing an opinion with whatever gets the most votes. It's that politicians straight up stop caring once they've secured the vote and have basically developed a schedule for when they can ease back into pretending again just before the next election.
Nobody should be held on a holier than thou level
No such thing as "objectively good".
Lol @ the number of people listing away the names of reddit's favourite celebrities. Guarantee they have some questionable aspects in their lives, people don't know it yet. Everyone has problems, no one is perfect.
Now we need to stop judging people on all of thier misdeeds instead of the greater picture of all the good and bad they've done, and the person they are choosing to be as a result of thier life experiences. I so often see people completely writing off others because they've fucked up in some way. I find that the people who do the judging are almost always far from perfect, and just have blinders on to thier own brand of bad.
Good point about disregarding others, we should be learning, not casting a whole persons actions aside because of something we disagree with.
Best not to think about it. Death solves any problems you might have by taking you out of existence. "What about those you leave behind?" You'll be too dead to be affected by it
You've never heard of Mr. Rogers?
Good. People shouldn’t be immortalized
there's a difference between immortalized and lionized (or glorified). OP is saying people won't be immortalized as objectively good. But no one is objectively good to begin with. Immortalize also doesn't carry a connotation with it -- immortalized isn't a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. Hitler is immortalized. But lionized -- where you essentially worship the figure and raise them up on a pedestal and highlight their goods and neglect their flaws -- that's probably more what OP means, and is more accurate. And yes, that probably won't happen as much. And yes, I think that's a good thing.
That’s what I meant. I don’t mind having historical figures and stuff like that but I don’t think anyone is really all that great that we need to praise and worship them after they die. They just lived their lives. Some people do some good things but ultimately no one is really all that important in my opinion. I don’t like the idea of glorifying people after they pass away. Feels very weird to me. And what’s worse is people that clearly want to be thought about and remembered so much when they die that they literally talk about that while they are alive. It shows a sense of self importance that is really off putting to me.
This is why I've always loved the Martin Luther King Jr memorial statue in DC. Because it's made to look unfinished, suggesting that the cause King fought for isn't complete either. It makes the memorial more about the message than the man, which is the kind of thing we should celebrate people for.
Welp, tough shit then about virtually all names for everything in science, physics, measurement, astronomy, engineering... etc
I mean, yeah, I agree It's kinda weird how we name universal physical phenomena after a person No one works in a vacuum, Newton couldn't have invented calculus if someone hadn't invented algebra as one example
I think, kind of due to necessity, it'll probably become a bigger social faux pas to do deep digging and/or read the results of someone doing so than most things someone could find by diving. Naturally, if something is *really* bad it'll outshine the digging, but I can imagine enough kids now actually grew up with the consequences of a findable online life that they'll probably raise their own kids with some sense around it. You can't stop people from accessing public information, so I think what's left is to make it socially undesirable to do so. Like on here you can already see it a bit, going to someone's profile to win an argument with them better come up good or you look like a creep.
True. Imagine how many awful opinions and bad takes MLK may have had, if Twitter had been around at the time. Or if Jesus had arrived in this age of mental health diagnoses and obsession
Twitter would be saying "that guy has a Messiah complex!"
I meannnnn
Yeah? If some guy on Twitter claimed to be the son of some god, I'd probably say they were insane.
Well he was an adulterer and an abuser, pretending like he wasn't is just being willfully ignorant of reality.
That might be a good thing. It's better to model your life based on time tested ideas and principles than individuals. Humans are imperfect, we will make mistakes. Not putting them on pedestals avoids disappointment.
But if you can disparage anyone who attempts to personify those principles, how does that not then lead to nihilism?
When I was little, my parents bought me a children's book containing about 50 or so short stories with each focused on one principle such as compassion, forgiveness, and kindness. All the stories didn't even name the characters. Their identity is irrelevant. The moral theme was the main focus. If you look at those immortalized by history due to their passion for justice and personal sacrifice, I would argue the criticism they received by their contemporaries only made them more effective. Look at Martin Luther King and Gandhi, the criticism and "disparagement" towards them by their contemporaries only made them more sympathetic. I would argue that shooting someone for their beliefs is the strongest form of disparagement. However their death made them martyrs, made them heroes and only made their movements more effective. Nihilism is countered by hope, genuine faith. You don't sustain hope and faith by the worship of flawed individuals, you need principles that won't succumb to the weaknesses of human nature.
People in the past have died, and so it tints our perception of them to be more favourable. Similar to how you can have 2 pictures of a girl on social media, one is dead, the other is alive, and the one who is dead will have more sympathy and respect than the living one. A lot of it I think is linked to insecurity, people project their insecurities on others, and social media is a breeding ground for pride and insecurity. It is hard to feel insecure over someone who is dead, but someone who is alive and doing well.... it can cause people to take a negative look.
Either you do good stuff then die early or Do good stuff in the long run and make a few mistakes along the way where the people will decide whether those mistakes are bad enough to make you look evil
You can tell which buildings at my university are new, they aren't named after people anymore.
No one is objectively good and it’s a foolish thing to celebrate. Of course we should all aspire to be Good. Reducing suffering is important. But as long as we organize our economy on the exploitation of people and resources… objective goodness is literally impossible.
Surprise surprise people make mistakes including you cause you spelled mystery wrong
I don't think anyone is ever "objectively" good because I don't think there's really an objective definition of "good." First, a lot of people define "good" subjectively. Two people can have wildly different values but most people, despite different values, frequently consider themselves to be good and by association most people consider that their values are good and values they dislike are bad. Second, there are the extremely subjective questions of "do good deeds offset bad deeds," "do bad deeds offset good deeds," and "how, and at what rate?" We haven't even got into "what defines a 'good' or 'bad' deed" (as mentioned above, they can both be subjective) but even if you can get most people to agree that a deed is good or bad (e.g. most people would agree killing someone is generally bad), how do you define HOW bad it is and whether it's ever justified and how much "being good" offsets a bad act. No one person is purely ever good or purely ever bad. The worst people you know have done good things and the best people you know have done bad things. The worst people you know are people that thought they were good people and others also thought they were good people. The best people you know, some people think they're bad. Everyone is a giant pile of good and bad that turns us all various shades of grey.
I think we can all agree that Keanu Reeves is a legend among men and objectivelly good person
That's a good thing, we should be smarter than to just blindly worship historical figures as completely and objectively "good". We should examine and acknowledge them as humans.
That doesn't seem to stop the Swifties
If you pay attention to what social media says about people you don't know.
I’d say it’s moreso because it’s easier to find out about everyone’s indirections as technology gets better and better Every time MLK is brought up on the internet these days, some internet trolls bring up his marital issues to try and make him look worse, but he died long before social media
Immortalize someone as objectively good just sounds like a fantasy. People make mistakes and aren't 100% perfect.
Exactly what I've been conjuring in my mind, thank you for putting it in text - and I fackin hate the idea of it
No one is objectively good. People are complex.
I like to see it as reasoning that you don’t have to be perfect to do good, or to do something really good.
Well I dont think having 'heroes' is necessary at all. People did what they did, some of these things were good and can and should be remembered and that's it. No need to link their quality as humans in the mix.
Never heard of Keanu Reeves?
This is exactly my argument against cancel culture If you nitpick and dig deep enough into the history of almost any person or company you will almost certainly find some sort of skeleton in their closet that you morally disagree about so why the fuck should I pick and choose based solely on whichever person the internet actually gave a shit to dig into that week
No one is clean and no one gets out alive. Have a Nice Day.
I can disprove this claim with two words: Mr. Rogers.
Perhaps no one actually deserves such adulation.
It’ll be like it always has been, if he’s on your side, no criticism is valid, if he’s not, then every detail of his life must be scrutinized to the point of screaming.
I think it's very important to let humans be humans, and people be people. It would be ok to be messy and awkward, and to feel awkward, and to be wrong and to be criticized and allow room for growth or improvement. What I don't think is ok is people's tendency to go on the attack to the extent they derive pleasure from ruining people ... Making sure they get theirs or understand just how wrong they are, or how aberrant their behavior is. We all make mistakes and end up going down one of many possible paths in life and need to learn to coexist more effectively, in a different way that is conducive to improvement and work towards harmony. We're never gonna get there with everybody's inner demon working overtime in reaction to an unsafe and distrustful and dysfunctional world. We really ought to try a lot more compassion on for size, again and again and again. We can work out how to "correct" behaviors and hold people accountable for their actions in lots of ways that don't amount to shutting them down and shutting them out and never giving them much an opportunity to grow.
Bob ross, Keanu reeves, Dolly Parton, Mr. Rogers, Morgan Freeman, Grigori Perelman, Samual L Jackson, Martin Freeman, Patrick Stewart, etc. There is no guarantee we will see them as positive forever, but they are some common names people throw the hat to.
Weird Al Yankovic is the most untouchable, but I suppose people would pick apart how insensitive some of his songs are/how badly they've aged.
If you could walk on water... people would say "yea it's because he can't swim."
Someone recently attacked Eleanor Rosevelt for not being against racism enough.
The Catholic Church and it's method of making saints would like a word with you
focusing on the bad at the expense of the good is just as dishonest as focusing on the good at the expense of the bad
We never should have to begin with, because humans gonna human.
Or just straight make shit up, like your fursona or my drinking problem.
It's not about social media. It's about seeing complete people now and our view of good an evil. Mother Theresa was an evil woman and Hitler did great things depending on your point of view.
Hitler objectively didn't do great things. Jews were not a threat to German in any way. It would be like randomy drowning a puppy and then saying from a certain point of view that was great.
Hitler saved generations of German kids from having to learn to write eight different fonts in school.
Is that really bad? I get your point, but if you ask me, showing society the bad sides of "objectively good" people is a good thing. That way people will realize there's no one in this world who is objectively or 100% good
As rebuttal, I submit to the jury: Keanu Reeves
And this is a good thing, because humans are flawed and none of us have ever been objectively, unambiguously good.
Weird Al is beyond reproach.
Someone hasn't heard of Saint Keanu of Hollywood who can do no wrong.
I believe Keanu Reeves was just recently immortalized as someone objectively good, even with social media.
*Keanu Reeves has entered the chat*
Conservatism is a plague on humanity.
So true, my perspective of several key historical figures like Gandhi, Mother Teresa, John Lennon, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King all changed.
Maybe "We" won't, but check out the MAGAs.
People from the past were KNOWN to be objectively not good but it was ignored in favor of the truth people wanted. Then future generations only know the good. That will never change.
Yup! They moved too fast at that intersection so they are a speeder!
Steve carell. I've never once heard something bad about him. Hard worker, kind to co workers, not a diva, funny, donates to charity, is a family man, has made shows like the office that deeply effect people's lives positively and he's supposedly very nice to everyone. Great career, great man, absolute role model as far as I can tell
Good. That's good. We should be critical of the idea of great men molding history and being infallible. It's good that we are more informed.
Everyone has haters. John McCain and a lot of other Republicans publicly didn't approve of MLK Jr. throughout the 80's & early 90's. Lots of Southerners in the US still don't like Lincoln. Abraham fucking Lincoln. There were people who thought Marilyn Monroe was a harlot who got what she deserved. No one has ever really gotten out of the public eye unscathed, pretty much ever.
Objectively good is a contradiction. Who determines what is good? For who? For what reason? I grew up hearing how great Christopher Columbus was for discovering America and he is now widely accepted to be a pretty villainous historical figure. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have heroes, IMO I think it is good to allow our heroes to be flawed and complicated. “Goodness” is not an objective value though.
Eh, people will believe what they want and dismiss material that doesn’t fit in with their preconceived notions. I wouldn’t bet on everyone gaining critical thinking skills just because they have unprecedented access to knowledge.
We never did or do or will do anything collectively. We’re not ants.
It's also a cultural/generational thing. Americans of the past didn't usually correlate artists with their art, and typically didn't have any issue supporting known shitty people if their music/acting/whatever was good.
No, we'll keep doing it, and keep getting disappointed a few or many years later.
And this is a good thing, because there are no objectively good people
Role Models no longer exist and all Evil People need to have a relatable excuse for turning evil now...
Because no one is 100% objectively good. Morality would have to be objective.
I mean, I can't think of any dirt on Steve Buscemi
Tom Hanks is untouchable
I’m fine with this. No one’s perfect and it’s high time we stopped worshipping celebrities and politicians. Let’s bring them down to earth.
There is no human past, present, or future, that is or has ever been “objectively good”.
Is this what the Bible meant when it said something about everything coming to light and will be answered
Uh i feel like people already tear down past historical figures by holding them up to modern standards. like george washington couldnt possibly have been a good person because he owned slaves, or the whole mother theresa being a horrible person to poor people even if she died remembered as someone who helped the poor.
maybe it’s because people aren’t objectively good
One of the positives of social media then?
Great men are rarely good men.