Dying On Hills

[Mike]

Posted by rgray222 (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

In war, whether literal or ideological (or both), some people have to die on some hills for the situation to finally find resolution. That's just inevitable. Are you willing to die on a hill? Which hills would you be willing to die on? Which ones wouldn't you be willing to die on? And by choosing not to die on some hills are you being cowardly or wise? And by choosing to die on others are you being reckless or courageous? In times like these I think we should all be deeply probing our motives.

I get what you're saying but hopefully, no one will have to die on the hill of political ideology. I would like to think that if enough of us stood together we could implement lasting change. The implication is that if you stand alone and others do not follow death is imminent. I think the reality is that if you stand alone and others don't or won't follow you could be severely damaged but you will live to fight another day and even if you don't fight you can prosper once again.

I think the below meme is fairly representative of where the world is today.

I would agree with most of that. "Dying on a hill" is sort of like being "cancelled". There is usually still room for redemption in both situations. In both situations there is usually potential to rise and prosper once again. But not always. It's often a huge risk.

I used the vaccine issue in my original post as an example of something that forces one into a lesser of the evils type of choice. But there are many examples of this. When someone evokes "dying on the hill" language, they're usually referring to a no-win type situation where either A) dying on the hill, as risky and unpleasant as it may be, is a worthwhile sacrifice to make due to the threat presented by whatever it is they're protesting, or B) dying on the hill would actually be worse that the threat being presented (or not worthwhile ultimately).

Lately I've heard that phrase quite a bit. And it's not always clear to me when choosing not to die on a hill is a convenient excuse for cowardice or when it's actually wise. And it's not always clear to me when dying on the hill is courageous or impulsive/foolish (or performative in the case of those with a hero complex).

Currently, and more frequently, just stating basic facts or making basic observations amounts to dying on a hill for some people in some environments. Saying that men can't get pregnant might represent dying on a hill. Same with saying that biological sex is an incontrovertible reality. Same with saying that black people aren't getting hunted in the streets. Same with saying that the election might have been unfair. Same with saying that the covid vaccine isn't even really a vaccine and is useless in preventing or spreading the virus. Same with saying that Critical Race Theory is aggressively anti-white. And so on.

Saying any of those things in a corporate or university environment, for example, could very well represent dying on a hill. The alternative is silence or a kind of phony complicity. We're now being constantly asked to either lie or die on a hill. My feeling is that, in general, most people are unwilling to die on hills due to fear or cowardice. It feels like an excuse to avoid action.

Evoking Nazi Germany is often done too casually these days, admittedly, but I think it's appropriate here: I think it was the early accumulation of otherwise conscientious Germans refusing to die on hills that led to Hitler's momentum and ultimate takeover of the country. I see many parallels today in America.

Doing nothing is not an option. As I said earlier, some people will have to die on some hills before all is said and done. I was just wondering which hills everyone was willing and unwilling to die on..and why

[lake]

Posted by Mike (here)
I was just wondering which hills everyone was willing and unwilling to die on..and why

I find this realm strange!

This meme states a great deal regarding the last year



I actually took your 'hill' question as near literal .... thus "What will I die for?"
I believe in "Allow no harm" .... which is different to "Do no harm".
One is active and the other passive.
The current dilemma which I find my being in, is that I cannot stop 'harm'. Lets take a friend of mine, who is a 'good' man. His 'life' is about his family. Both he and his wife are double jabbed. They intend to have their three young children jabbed as soon as possible.
I cannot stop that harm .... and 'harm' it is .... but I cannot stop it.
He has stated to me "I will do as most others do, We will get them vaccinated as soon as possible"
Nothing I say makes any difference.
The same as my nephew (27) .... Was on the 'fence' but was told by his firm that he might get a trip to Miami next year .... so went and got jabbed. All I showed him became meaningless. I made zero difference and could not stop harm.

So I have to 'look' at me!
I will NOT be injected. I will not even be tested .... nor will I go to any 'quarantine' facility.
I will die on this hill .... or the physical form will anyway (I have very strong considerations built from personal experience).
My actual problem is a choice .... to "To stop those who would harm me and thus stop them from harming others and then leave" .... or to "Leave via my initiation of violence by them" <<<< by this I mean .... Cause 'them' (those who come for me) to kill this form because they fear for their life.

I currently consider the latter correct and I have never 'liked' this place anyway .... lol

[Gemma13]

Thought of this thread today when a family member told me how she couldn't understand one of her work colleagues leaving his good job, along with his wife who is a nurse, because they both refuse to get the jabs.  Along with 15 other colleagues out of a 300 workforce.

She asked him how he will survive and he said they weren't sure but if need be they will live out of their car, buy online groceries if prevented from shopping, etc.

I said these people are obviously "willing to die on the hill" for revolution.  And if it wasn't for people like this in the past we would probably be living in a very different world where the freedoms, that we have won so far, wouldn't exist.

And yet, the majority of these people are nameless and not remembered for their heroic stands against tyranny over the ages.  I can only hope they find safety and security in their solidarity as a community of dissenters. All have my hat tip.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Does living in this world and going about business as usual, ignoring the corruption and obvious manipulation, considered dying on a hill?

Or is that upward mobility?