Is the label "survivor" overused and thus devalued?

COL (Join to see) I agree with you and SSgt (Join to see). The title of "survivor" is used to often and sometimes people try to find whatever connection they can find to an event to have that labeled applied. For example, looking at today as the 14th anniversary of the terrorist attacks, if very loosely applied, aren't we all "survivors" of the attacks? Just some food for thought.

We need to change our lexicon. Hero and survivor and thrown about too freely

COL (Join to see) I would agree on both. I have said for years that the TV show survivor needs to show someone being bitten by a shark, mauled by a lion, gored by a hippo, trampled by elephants, or some other major event that has to be dealt with before the title applies. Playing games in the woods is not surviving, it is camping (a recreational activity that almost anyone can participate).

I think that in the internet age, people want to be there when it happens. Be where? the epicenter of an event that will start a national or global discussion about said event. Using gun violence as an example, if a person is close enough to here the gun shots, then they were close enough to be famous. Case in point, when the last theater shootings occurred, there were interviews conducted with people who were in the building, but nowhere near the actual event. Words like courageous, survivor, and victim were thrown around. My thought was that they were as much courageous survivor victims as I am. When someone has first hand experienced a traumatic event, they are a survivor. A person who is bitten by a shark is a shark attack survivor or shark attack victim. I personally think that the word victim is far worse. It has an implication that the person labeled was helpless to do anything in the situation. I would like to think (even if it leads to death) that there is always something that can be done to improve a situation. We need to stop the use of these spectacular words to describe average events.

That being said, those guys who attacked the terrorist on the train in France are survivors. One was shot in the neck, and the other was slashed badly across the neck and hand. That is survival. Even the man who was shot's wife would qualify, not because her husband was shot, but because she was right there in the same train car with the terrorist when it

I definitely see where you're coming from. You're right, to me if someone is labeled as a survivor, without knowing anything else, I assume they escaped from some near death situation. So in that respect, yes it seems it's being overused.

COL (Join to see), Sir, this is very interesting question and point that you have presented. If not ‘survivor’, than what? What do you call someone that has been involved in a serious event, but escaped from being seriously harmed or killed, regardless if it was a murder attempt? If you escape a house fire, is that considered surviving or just escaping? What about a plane crash or wild animal attack?

It was an attempt to avoid the word "victim" or "patient" in many cases.

So what we ended up with a case of word substitution "gone awry."

I feel that it is getting dangerously close to that. The definition of the word is being muddled because people want attention for having something like that happen to them - no matter how many degrees they have to go out in order to find said situation. In my humble opinion, it should only be applied to those directly involved in the situation.

You mean like “the war on...”

In terms of general traumatic experiences, I believe the term survivor is often applied to those surviving the MENTAL battle (PTS/PTSD) rather than the physical threat. Post-traumatic stress from any traumatic event can wreak havoc on your life, relationships, well being... It seems you are labeled a survivor when you have survived and overcome that stress and are able to return to life as normal.

However, it being applied to liberally in these cases I think is more the media trying to make a bigger, more heart-wrenching story.

Because something terrifying happens NEAR you, does not make you a “Survivor”. Really, most are just “witnesses”, direct or indirect.
This may seem callous, but not everyone that attended Parkland School qualifies. (Or any other tragic event, for that matter, this is just more front-and-center right now).
Those who were shot, or shot AT do qualify.
Otherwise, we can all wear a “Survivor” badge of honor and deserve special considerations.
Why must our society constantly suck actual MEANING out of words and terms?
Eventually, everything will mean nothing... we will swim in a sea of white noise conversations.
Already, it’s so close.
Say what you MEAN, and have INTENT when you do.
Or simply... well, shut up.