Strong men with same meaning that Mafia bosses: they have the power, hold it, and use and it.
And some time, it is not clear who is the boss, for instance because there is a junta or a group of leaders . when you say that X is the strong man of such country or organization, you mean beyond what can be seen.
So why do we refer to them as strongmen? Strong obviously is a positive term in our culture, strong willed, physical strength, etc. Why would that be associated with cowardly, generally unintelligent (or they wouldn’t need such tactics) people? There must be some cultural aspects that lead to it. Versus say strongman referring to great compromisers or negotiators, people who led countries by consensus and reason (for the most part of course).
I just thought their behaviour was indicative of their size and they were trying to make up for it. Much like how the dotard acts, because he’s probably making up for his size. Back in Hitler and Mussolini days they didn’t have huge trucks to make up for their size, like they do today. I bet the dotard and Putin both have F250s or bigger trucks, if there’s such a thing, somewhere. At least, in my circles, we believe the bigger the truck the smaller the man, who acts like a power hungry, dominating jerk. We don’t call them strong men.
I recognize all of them and if we aren’t talking about the size of their trucks, we just call them dictators, not strong men. Why call them strong when they are that insecure that they become dictators?
Sounds you’re making a moral argument, e.g., we should not use positive terms to refer to evil people. Very wholesome attitude that might work in Disneyland, but that doesn’t change the fact that dictators are often brave and intelligent. Dictators get things done.
Yes a moral argument. So you’re saying that’s okay by you? That dictators “get things done” by mass murder, incarceration, etc.? Or rather, that we should not try to make moral arguments about changing perceptions about dictators?