Are people more cowardly now?

Clermont1098

Clermont1098 wrote: »

None of that makes any sense in connection to what I said. Never mind.

Then read it again until you understand it, or ask questions about what I meant. Not sure how making up things about what I meant helps anyone though.

bnt

Bravery is what happens when you're scared but still do what's necessary.

But the key word there, in my opinion, is necessary. Getting in fights with drunk people is not necessary. Jumping out of planes or off bridges is not necessary. We are not at war. How many opportunities are there, these days, for people to demonstrate true bravery? I don't think it's fair or accurate to call people cowardly when they've never needed to be genuinely brave.

sh1tstirrer

I notice a lot more people running away from me nowadays

Talib Fiasco

I wouldn't say more cowardly but definitely more self conscious. Even trying to get people to speak up in front of a small group is like pulling teeth.

RobertKK

I wouldn't say cowardly, one simply doesn't know what kind of person/people they are getting involved with and self preservation is important to most people.
You don't know if they have a weapon, prepared to use extreme violence and doing the seemingly right thing, can be the most stupid thing to do.
Ring the Gardai if you see a problem, they are the professionals.
An ordinary citizen getting involved in an unknown potentially dangerous situation is just being stupid, not cowardly.

I knew a person who I would see every Sunday after mass, where I would buy a paper and a few other things, a very nice and friendly person. His business was robbed, he ran after the thief, he got shot and died.
So, I just don't think it is worth getting involved, get the gardai involved, because you don't how a situation will end.

UCDVet

Maybe I'm just a coward but I never understood the argument for why I should (physically) fight someone. Especially a bully.

I'm in my 30s. 70kg dripping wet. More importantly my hobbies do not include street fighting, mma, boxing or anything else that would be of value in a fight. I spend most of my time sitting in a cubicle writing computer software.

Why would anyone expect me to go up and fight some bully?

Fighting is a skill, like any other. If I started fighting and made it part of who I am, if I spent hours each week training, in a few years, I'd be a pretty decent fighter. But, do you know who probably DOES spend hours each week training? BULLIES.

Bullies get into fights. They have practice. They are good at it. I personally knew a bully growing up. His Father was a physically abusive alcoholic. He spent years getting his ass beat, he knows how to take a punch, he's USED to getting hurt.

As a kid, he got into fights at school and was always in trouble. But he was tough as nails and a good athlete too. As he got older, his crimes got worse. He went to jail. He's stabbed and been stabbed. He has a lifetime of experience with violence. He's also two heads taller than me and has, at least, 15kg on me.

But our society seems to think that, IF I WERE A MAN, I'd square up against him in a fair fight. As if a fight between us could be fair.

Nobody would expect him to 'man up' and go head-to-head against me in an algorithmic programming contest.

It's not even a question of being brave. I'm not *afraid* of getting my ass kicked. I'm pragmatic and realistic. Of course the bully would win the fight. In almost all cases the bully would win the fight. That's why they are bullies.

_Kaiser_

DeadHand wrote: »

Yes, they are more cowardly, mostly because they are more selfish.

Young men, especially.

It's to do with consumerism, the cult of "me". Any sense of loyalty, honour, community or personal dignity has been superseded by the classless worship of possessions and ostentatious posing on and off social media.

Combine this with the feminisation of almost every section of society and you'll see why we don't produce as many good men anymore. Men in general and positive male role models in particular have disappeared from schools and are disappearing from homes. As a result, we see a feral class of violent young men and another class of self-obsessed, smug physical and moral cowards with fewer striking the happy medium of something in between.

We are now producing generations of cowards in the West.

Excellent post and spot on IMO

Also explains why the West is so woefully ill-equipped to deal with what "we" smugly consider to be less-developed/civilised parts of the world.

It's like the West decided that once the Cold War was "won" (though recent events in Russia would suggest otherwise), that was it.. job done! Now we could all get on with buying and selling crap we don't need to each other and posting about it and our day-to-day trivial nonsense on social media while trying to show how more socially conformist/PC we are than others.

Unfortunately for us, the rest of the planet hasn't yet reached this "utopia" - it's always laughable when some no-name politician issues a statement condemning some atrocity or other.. like those responsible give a fook!

It's only going to get worse too I reckon

newmug

People are definitely more cowardly. The concept of giving your time, nevermind your life, for something has now been relegated to the crazy bin. Sad to see really.

anncoates

dashcamdanny wrote: »

It would have to be something fairly major like that, for me to unleash my Kung Fu on bad people.

Karate man bruise on the inside!

Paco Rodriguez

I think my brain is stronger than my punches. I've a small frame and light so I would never win any fight...Apart from one at primary school.
So I'd never get physically involved in a situation that involved strangers.

But what in the case of someone attacking a friend, especially a female friend? Would ye not get involved?
I would. Even if getting a hiding, it takes the attention off my friend for a while.

dashcamdanny

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

I think my brain is stronger than my punches. I've a small frame and light so I would never win any fight...Apart from one at primary school.
So I'd never get physically involved in a situation that involved strangers.

But what in the case of someone attacking a friend, especially a female friend? Would ye not get involved?
I would. Even if getting a hiding, it takes the attention off my friend for a while.

You would. And when you are getting the inevitable beating, you don't feel it. Until the next day that is.

In the few times I was involved in this sort of last resort thing, I was overcome with fear, adrenaline, excitement and aggression all at the same time. You will drum up strength you never realised you had, mentally and physically . Although you will be well aware of each kick or punch you receive, you will not feel any pain from it. Its like a strange type of switch in your head that deals with overdrive.

If one can't/won't even try to stand up for family or friends, after diplomacy has failed in a threatening situation.
Then they are indeed a true spineless coward.

Hardly a redeeming quality of any man or woman.

B.A._Baracus

newmug wrote: »

People are definitely more cowardly. The concept of giving your time, nevermind your life, for something has now been relegated to the crazy bin. Sad to see really.

Agreed.
On the subject what annoys me so much are the 'shapers' - especially in younger blokes.
Some of them look like it took 2 hours to get ready to leave the house. But "dont mess with me or i'll kick your head in" - ehhh yeah :pac:

COYVB

People are definitely more cowardly. That's why lots of them carry guns, knives and other weapons

skooterblue2

Aenaes wrote: »

Excuse me, I don't run. I glide away gracefully on my Segway, thank you very much.

woud want to check that those Segways are dangerous .... much more likely to mess up your face... see youtube video and they KILLED their creator..... OMG OMG... is this how Terminator started off?

ancapailldorcha

newmug wrote: »

People are definitely more cowardly. The concept of giving your time, nevermind your life, for something has now been relegated to the crazy bin. Sad to see really.

What were these somethings? Land for a despotic tyrant? The maintenance of a status quo which benefits a wealthy elite who couldn't care less for anyone else?

UCDVet

newmug wrote: »

People are definitely more cowardly. The concept of giving your time, nevermind your life, for something has now been relegated to the crazy bin. Sad to see really.

I don't think it's cowardice.
I think it's common sense.

Our modern society has a lot of advantages over every other generation. First, we have it better, in so many ways. When life is good, people are a lot less willing to risk their lives to improve it. When you've got a home and a family and plenty of food on the table; nevermind the internet, cable TV, freetime, health care, well, it's a lot easier to calmly discuss your political opinions than it is to take up arms and fight to the death.

Second, we have the advantage of nearly endless amounts of information at our fingertips. It's a lot harder to be idealistic and march to your death when you aren't being spoon-fed propaganda (not impossible, just harder).

Third, and possibly most importantly, we often have better means available to us. Why bother fighting to the death and laying down your life when you can achieve the same thing without dying? We don't have to look very hard to see that even armed conflicts with lots of death rarely results in a quick change of policies. You still end up with half measures and compromise, if you manage to make any change at all. A lot of times you just die.

What current issues in Ireland do you feel are best addressed with citizens laying down their lives? That, presumably, if we weren't cowards, we'd be dying for. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with Irish Water - but am I willing to die to express my discontentment? Hell no.

dashcamdanny

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't think it's cowardice.
I think it's common sense.

Our modern society has a lot of advantages over every other generation. First, we have it better, in so many ways. When life is good, people are a lot less willing to risk their lives to improve it. When you've got a home and a family and plenty of food on the table; nevermind the internet, cable TV, freetime, health care, well, it's a lot easier to calmly discuss your political opinions than it is to take up arms and fight to the death.

Second, we have the advantage of nearly endless amounts of information at our fingertips. It's a lot harder to be idealistic and march to your death when you aren't being spoon-fed propaganda (not impossible, just harder).

Third, and possibly most importantly, we often have better means available to us. Why bother fighting to the death and laying down your life when you can achieve the same thing without dying? We don't have to look very hard to see that even armed conflicts with lots of death rarely results in a quick change of policies. You still end up with half measures and compromise, if you manage to make any change at all. A lot of times you just die.

What current issues in Ireland do you feel are best addressed with citizens laying down their lives? That, presumably, if we weren't cowards, we'd be dying for. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with Irish Water - but am I willing to die to express my discontentment? Hell no.

What if the extremists of the world took up arms directly against us ?

Such a thing is very possible right now.

Others wanting to kill everyone in the country regardless of how much bandwidth or food you have you have in your house.

Would one cower into a corner using this new age intellect you think we have evolved since the last world war, or would you defend yourself and your country and your way of life.
To sneer and laugh at such a possibility would be common, but the very same thing happened to some of our grandparents and great grandparents. And generations before them also.

To think over a generation or two we have developed some new part in our brains that makes us not do that anymore is a bit absurd.

newmug

UCDVet wrote: »

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with Irish Water - but am I willing to die to express my discontentment? Hell no.

You've just answered your own question there. You disagree with Irish Water, but what are the chances you'll go on thirst strike to prove your point?


Nil.


Bravery never makes common sense. That's the point. Sometimes it takes balls of granite, and a lifetime of suffering, or indeed death, to achieve what's right. And those who come after you are the ones who'll benefit, not you.


We are now benefitting from what Michael Collins, Devalera, every soldier who fought the Nazi's, every aid worker, every volunteer against the spread of disease, every teacher who taught in spite of their own hardships, every scientist who struggled on despite not having the funding or support to carry out their work, every campaigner for rights (yes, even those who turned up to rally against abortion, Irish Water, cuts to home help etc.), every anonymous mother who does her best to raise her children in impossible circumstances, we are benefitting from what all these people have done. And most people just don't appreciate it.


IMO its just down to selfishness, "Why should I try to change anything, I'm alright jack"! But in reality, selfishness is the worst kind of cowardice of them all.

twinytwo

DeadHand wrote: »

Yes, they are more cowardly, mostly because they are more selfish.

Young men, especially.

It's to do with consumerism, the cult of "me". Any sense of loyalty, honour, community or personal dignity has been superseded by the classless worship of possessions and ostentatious posing on and off social media.

Combine this with the feminisation of almost every section of society and you'll see why we don't produce as many good men anymore. Men in general and positive male role models in particular have disappeared from schools and are disappearing from homes. As a result, we see a feral class of violent young men and another class of self-obsessed, smug physical and moral cowards with fewer striking the happy medium of something in between.

We are now producing generations of cowards in the West.

Sir, I take my hat off, post of the year!

UCDVet

dashcamdanny wrote: »

What if the extremists of the world took up arms directly against us ?

Such a thing is very possible right now.

Others wanting to kill everyone in the country regardless of how much bandwidth or food you have you have in your house.

Would one cower into a corner using this new age intellect you think we have evolved since the last world war, or would you defend yourself and your country and your way of life.
To sneer and laugh at such a possibility would be common, but the very same thing happened to some of our grandparents and great grandparents. And generations before them also.

To think over a generation or two we have developed some new part in our brains that makes us not do that anymore is a bit absurd.

I don't think that's a fair argument to make. "We're cowards because I speculate we aren't willing to lay down our lives for a cause that doesn't exist yet"

UCDVet

newmug wrote: »

You've just answered your own question there. You disagree with Irish Water, but what are the chances you'll go on thirst strike to prove your point?


Nil.


Bravery never makes common sense. That's the point. Sometimes it takes balls of granite, and a lifetime of suffering, or indeed death, to achieve what's right. And those who come after you are the ones who'll benefit, not you.


We are now benefitting from what Michael Collins, Devalera, every soldier who fought the Nazi's, every aid worker, every volunteer against the spread of disease, every teacher who taught in spite of their own hardships, every scientist who struggled on despite not having the funding or support to carry out their work, every campaigner for rights (yes, even those who turned up to rally against abortion, Irish Water, cuts to home help etc.), every anonymous mother who does her best to raise her children in impossible circumstances, we are benefitting from what all these people have done. And most people just don't appreciate it.


IMO its just down to selfishness, "Why should I try to change anything, I'm alright jack"! But in reality, selfishness is the worst kind of cowardice of them all.

The chances are zero because it's a ridiculous and irrational course of action to take. Advocating death over something so trivial is well.....incredibly extreme. Perhaps I should strap some bombs to myself and take out as much of the Irish Water HQ building as I can. That would SHOW EVERYONE I AM NOT A COWARD, right?

It's ridiculous though. Irish Water exists for a reason and if people don't want it to exist there are non violent courses of action that don't involve death. Why are you so quick to advocate a lifetime of suffering or death, when a few years of political activism can achieve the same? Why not advocate civil disobedience?

And what happens when someone else thinks (like many of my coworkers think) that Irish Water is a necessary thing? Well, here I am, all ready and excited to die for my cause....and unless THEY ARE COWARDS, well, they'd better be ready TO DIE to show the world that Irish Water is necessary.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/water-charges-poll-findings-disastrous-for-government-1.2026895

33% of poll respondents said they were going to pay.
48% said they weren't going to pay.

WELL I GUESS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Because that's really the only way non-cowards can do things!

I mean, if we sat down and talked about it, well...then we'd be selfish and unwilling to die for our cause. And if our side is losing this bloody conflict and the other side surrenders - well, they weren't willing to die.

dashcamdanny

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't think that's a fair argument to make. "We're cowards because I speculate we aren't willing to lay down our lives for a cause that doesn't exist yet"

Maybe so, but there are massive factors that separate our way of life from generation before us.
I was under the impression that you were comparing our thought process and rationale against theirs.
The fact that we have not experienced the hardships of those living just 70 years ago does not mean you can deal with them any better. In fact, we have a lot more to lose if for ever reason the worst did happen.

We cant seem to get by with a electrical power cut in this day and age, let alone bombs being dropped on us from above..

`

COYVB

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Maybe so, but there are massive factors that separate our way of life from generation before us.
I was under the impression that you were comparing our thought process and rationale against theirs.
The fact that we have not experienced the hardships of those living just 70 years ago does not mean you can deal with them any better. In fact, we have a lot more to lose if for ever reason the worst did happen.

We cant seem to get by with a electrical power cut in this day and age, let alone bombs being dropped on us from above..

`

Wars are good for society. They thin out the population, and reduce the numbers of the least educated/employable/law-abiding, traditionally, and give a decent opportunity for rebuilding, both figuratively and literally. The west hasn't had one for a while now, so none of that has had a chance to happen. TBH they seem to be our own ways of self regulation

efb

Had a run in with a dickhead parking his massive 4x4 people carried on the footpath on my road , advises him he couldn't park there, the moron couldn't understand why, so I explained people in wheelchairs couldn't pass. When he suggested they go out onto the road I asked him if he was being serious!!! Seriously this fast selfish little man boiled my piss!

Atomicchilli

Yea I think most people are quite cowardly these days. If you ask the a man at random if he has ever approached a woman sober he 'll say no. It's pathetic.

UCDVet

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Maybe so, but there are massive factors that separate our way of life from generation before us.
I was under the impression that you were comparing our thought process and rationale against theirs.
The fact that we have not experienced the hardships of those living just 70 years ago does not mean you can deal with them any better. In fact, we have a lot more to lose if for ever reason the worst did happen.

We cant seem to get by with a electrical power cut in this day and age, let alone bombs being dropped on us from above..

`

My point was that we don't have a reason to lay down our lives for some cause. So, of course, we don't do it. That's rational, not cowardice. I'm all for a violent upheaval of the government, or defending against an invading army....but these are things that we should TRY TO AVOID.

Our government isn't perfect, not by a long shot, but I don't see how an armed uprising is going to improve it. We're not at a point where that seems reasonable to me.

Also, my history isn't so good, but didn't we have bombs dropped on us during WW2. And as a country, we didn't do anything about it. I'm not sure that suggests we're more cowardly now.

newmug

UCDVet wrote: »

The chances are zero because it's a ridiculous and irrational course of action to take. Advocating death over something so trivial is well.....incredibly extreme. Perhaps I should strap some bombs to myself and take out as much of the Irish Water HQ building as I can. That would SHOW EVERYONE I AM NOT A COWARD, right?

It's ridiculous though. Irish Water exists for a reason and if people don't want it to exist there are non violent courses of action that don't involve death. Why are you so quick to advocate a lifetime of suffering or death, when a few years of political activism can achieve the same? Why not advocate civil disobedience?

And what happens when someone else thinks (like many of my coworkers think) that Irish Water is a necessary thing? Well, here I am, all ready and excited to die for my cause....and unless THEY ARE COWARDS, well, they'd better be ready TO DIE to show the world that Irish Water is necessary.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/water-charges-poll-findings-disastrous-for-government-1.2026895

33% of poll respondents said they were going to pay.
48% said they weren't going to pay.

WELL I GUESS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Because that's really the only way non-cowards can do things!

I mean, if we sat down and talked about it, well...then we'd be selfish and unwilling to die for our cause. And if our side is losing this bloody conflict and the other side surrenders - well, they weren't willing to die.

Relax there buddy! Way to miss the point of a post! Yes bravery is irrational, but I listed a whole pile of non-violent ways of being brave, and stated at the end that IMO, selfishness was the worst kind of cowardliness. Therefore, to be selfLESS, is the key to bravery. Nothing to do with blowing yourself up.

UCDVet

newmug wrote: »

Relax there buddy! Way to miss the point of a post! Yes bravery is irrational, but I listed a whole pile of non-violent ways of being brave, and stated at the end that IMO, selfishness was the worst kind of cowardliness. Therefore, to be selfLESS, is the key to bravery. Nothing to do with blowing yourself up.

Sorry - I guess I misunderstood. I was saying that it didn't make sense to go and lay down your life for some trivial cause and then you started talking about thirst strikes over Irish Water and pointed out that 'Bravery never makes common sense'.

You also said "selfishness is the worst kind of cowardice of them all". I honestly don't understand that.

selfishness
the quality or state of being selfish; lack of consideration for other people.

cowardice
lack of bravery.

Someone can be a coward without being selfish. Someone can be selfish without being a coward. Someone can be both of these things and someone can be neither of them. I don't see how selfishness is ANY kind of cowardice, much less the worst.

My apologies for getting confused. I guess we agree then, if we both feel that death should be the last option explored and that all of the other non-violent alternatives are 'brave'.

rubadub

Clermont1098 wrote: »

do we run away from fights and trouble?

coward
ˈkaʊəd/Submit
noun

1.
literary
excessively afraid of danger or pain.

Seems the OP has changed the definition to be "sensibly afraid of danger or pain".

"Brave" seems to have changed over the years too, in the media it seems to be used mostly to describe sick children.

Clermont1098

Cowardly
Adjective
Lacking courage

OED

My dictionary is bigger than yours. Anyway it hasn't stopped ppl for four pages making posts.