My husband owns a diesel repair ship after 25 years of working as a diesel tech. He has had cuts, bruises, stitches, skin chunks removed. We both grew up in lower middle class homes, so we've both been in fights, especially in our youth. We decided to raise our boys in better circumstances and we did, but I won't lie when I say I'd be worried about them in a fight.
Hard times create strong men that create good times that create weak men that create hard times. We are living in the age of weak men creating hard times for everyone. It won't be until those hard times leak into their lives that the weak men will become strong.
It seems to me that optimum human capability and capacity requires walking a razor's edge of struggle that on one side is debilitating trauma and the other side is facilitating growth. People are born with some level of innate coping capability (the sensitive child that only needs a look from a parent to cause them to melt, vs the child that need a sharp smack on the behind to get their attention), but coping skills can be learned... excess sensitivity and vulnerability are constraining maladies that should be resolved in a lifetime. But if not presented with enough real life struggle there is not enough opportunity to grow coping skills. And then I think the vulnerable narcissist evolves from that as basic human interactions that should be considered normal and acceptable cause overheated emotions of harm and resentment.
This female in the audience is the epitome of a vulnerable narcissist. Peterson asks "Do you think you are worse off than your grandparents?" Look at her reaction when Peterson explains that she, like her peers, avoid their personal growth needs by adopting pseudo moralistic stances on large-scale social issues that look good to their friends and neighbors.
“Hard times create strong men that create good times that create weak men that create hard times. We are living in the age of weak men creating hard times for everyone.”
This line from a sci-fi/fantasy novel has leeched out into Twitter discourse, but it’s dumb and over-simplistic.
For a shorter rebuke, it proposes a cyclical explanation for world events that doesn’t stand up to anything approaching a thorough examination. The Khmer Rouge were some pretty hard men. Can you point me towards the good times they created? The Bolsheviks were some pretty hard men, as is Putin. Can you point me towards the resulting good times, there? Cold War communists loved, loved, loved talking about the decadent West. It took time before the Soviets would even start investigating the trail of bodies left behind by Andrei Chikatilo because they insisted serial killers were a symptom of Western degeneracy. Who’s societies were left standing come 1990? Who has harder men: Afghanistan or the United States? For all the folly of trying to democratize and Westernize the Graveyard of Empires, what’s the scoreboard on body count between the U.S. and Afghanistan? What good times have the Taliban created?
For an even shorter rebuke, what consistent definitions of good, bad, soft and hard are you applying to all of human history?
Yes, but.... Limousine liberal conveys the idea that the occupant of the limousine is pampered and special, etc. That makes them the target of ridicule and scorn as flaunting their upper class status. But holder of "luxury beliefs" allows the same person to say, "oh no, I'm a good person, I'm not selfish, I'm for the everyman and marginalized communities, etc., etc." Luxury beliefs is so much more pernicious and sneaky and stealthy.
Reminds me of a conversation with an upper middle class gal about guns. She wanted rid of them completely. I explained that I would never go camping amongst bears and cougars, and the most dangerous animal of all, people, without a firearm. She replied with something like: "I've went camping lots of times and have never seen a cougar." Sigh. You can't help someone understand protecting yourself when they have never seen or experienced violence.
I've tried to explain just how poor I grew up to middle and upper class people, but it's impossible, because they've never witnessed it. "Grapes of Wrath poor" is my shortcut description. Explaining that a chicken lived in our dilapidated trailer and roosted on the washer dryer stack that was never used still doesn't click with them. You have to see it to believe it. Also, when this information is coming from someone articulate, it's that much harder to believe.
Further to Rob's point, if you don't have multiple physical scars from work by the time you're 25 and your body doesn't ache every day from physical work by 40 then you aren't working class.
3 hernias wasnt enough to scare me off of heavy labor. I moved across the country for work during lockdown and my knee gave out 6 weeks in. But that led me to writing.
My criteria for them is based on the question of "have they (in their extended or own family home) ever routinely used a long drop outhouse because you didn't have a flush toilet or perhaps even running water."
If they've had the luxury of always being able to void their bladder and bowels into flushable porcelain (other then when vacation camping or going "back to the land" or acting the fool or drunk) then they've never experienced real material poverty.
This question (or alternate versions appropriate to different chosen experience based distinctions) draws a simple and clear dividing line.
I've never been in a physical fight or to my knowledge in physical danger. But I think defund the police was an idiotic idea. Also, those of us who have been sheltered do not necessarily lack that self-knowledge.
"People who play sports, or served in the military, or endured family tragedy, or served jail time, or survived life-threatening medical maladies or injuries". I'm 4 for 5. I must be the most interesting person I know. :)
I thought it was a bit weird you put sports in with this list but then I remembered that when I played football in high school, I had cuts and bruises on my hands and arms that never healed until the season was over.
I’m a mountain biker and I’ve had broken bones, a dislocated arm, a torn ACL, among others and in addition to the minor cuts and bruises. Biking makes me pretty aware of how sharp and painful reality can be.
I’m also a woman who rides bikes with a group of guys, and who used to study karate and spar with men, and that’s why I have always been 100% against transwomen competing with biological females in sports. I’m pretty strong for a woman, and I’m tougher than most - but a teenage boy could overpower me easily.
I used to do ultraendurance races, and I definitely had some hours (in the middle of night) where I pondered deeply what, exactly, was wrong in my psyche that had prompted me to electively undergo that much suffering and (often, depending on the course and event) fairly substantial danger. Still not sure if there is an explanation other than some innate human drive to do things that we’re good at, and apparently I’m good at enduring pain (although only in some circumstances, because I 100% opted for an epidural in labor...)
High School and College Sports participation can also be high anxiety, high emotional stress, which I think qualifies as a type of "therapeutic" adversity.
I grew up in a mill city near the center. Not the worst neighborhood, but fights were common, shootings and even knifings not so much. But my real violence education was working locked state psychiatric units. Though even then, they would have only makeshift weapons, and after the reforms of my first few years, I was seldom alone to deal with a bad situation.
Incidentally, you also see the real male-female split in attitudes when actual violence comes on the scene.
well argued. This is yet another reason why more American elites should be incentivized to serve in violent, developing countries to understand their bodily privilege, not just their economic privilege (which is much harder to deny).
Hmmm, I presume most people (myself definitely included on this one) spend time learning about aspects of the world that "matter" (to their decision making) *OR* that are of interest to them (base curiosity, like the "I F%-ing Love Science" audience). Given that firsthand experience of how to deal with violent crime and/or criminals is not among the "required lessons" for the upper class -- as maybe an overly broad but not too inaccurate approximation anyway -- it is thus not that surprising that there isn't all that much understanding, besides with people who happen to have an interest in the topic (for other reasons).
That being said, I suspect that the upper class's main objective, as a group, is not even virtue signaling, but -- maybe a bit similar to parents who have a pair of rambunctious kids in the back of the car while wanting to listen to a nice piece of classical music on the radio -- simply to create peace and quiet, because the noise generated by all that fighting (the violence *is* frequently depicted on the news as a source of discomfort, one way or another) makes enjoying life a bit, well, less straight forward.
In the past, when moral considerations for the masses were less developed, I think the upper class was happy enough to let police "handle" the matter. And if the noise from the fighting on the cheap seats became a bit too loud, you'd just use authoritarian means to get everyone fall in line again.
After the post-modern "revolution" of moral norms (look after the oppressed!!), upper class elites that have gone through that form of (re-) education will more likely ask, "how can we make the boys in the backseat feel less grumpy?"
And given the lack of understanding of crime, and the constant perception of the noise being caused by a kind of "police vs. criminals" narrative (together with a concern for the oppressed), I think it isn't all that far-fetched for people with no firsthand experience of crime to consider, "why not just kick the police out of the car, and then it'll be quiet, and we can enjoy the concert!"
That it has been the police all along that would allow for an otherwise uneventful ride, and that by removing the police, the situation will not only get louder but also much more dangerous -- the rambunctious kids might try to grab the steering wheel, for one -- hasn't occurred to these people. Yet.
So, yes, I suspect it will require for a sufficient number of people to gain this firsthand experience (followed by the diffusion of that narrative across the upper class, similar to NY Governor Hochul waking up to the migrant situation) before something "happens"...
The terrifying implication is that the richest and most powerful can run from reality the longest, which means that they will not face the consequences of their beliefs until the whole world has fallen apart.
This is a really great observation. I, like Rob, am drawn more to those fit that qualification. We have become a society that is entirely too soft, both physically and mentally.
In the place I come from, being agreeable and avoiding confrontations are not just social norms, but essential survival skills. One must always be aware that anyone in one’s vicinity could be armed with a knife or a gun, and one’s life could be in jeopardy for the smallest of reasons, such as a mere glance. In addition to that, certain precautions must be taken, such as refraining from walking with a phone in hand, carrying a handbag, going out after dark, or not having some cash on hand, as robbers can become aggressive if they are not given any money.
It is understandable that individuals who have grown up in safe environments struggle to comprehend the harsh reality some of us face. However, we are currently witnessing the real-time consequences of misguided policies implemented by those who can afford luxury beliefs. The unfortunate truth is that violent and depraved individuals only respond to one language: violence, or at the very least, the threat of violence being inflicted upon them. I wish this wasn't the case, but as G.K. once said, "Truth may be forgotten but never falsified."
Public safety is a fundamental requirement for human prosperity, and therefore, those who are legitimately responsible for keeping us safe should receive ample funding. Failure to do so may result in individuals taking matters into their own hands, leading to the emergence of organised illegal paramilitary forces, that are accountable to no one, believe me when I say, that is an outcome that must be avoided at all costs.
fantastic piece, excellent points. Important ones, too.
I am however hesitant to speculate about Carson's mindset, and can't say with certainty that he sought to look tough. The full video I saw showed that he and his girlfriend didn't even see the culprit pass by them, they looked worn out, started walking in the same direction of the guy, and when he started acting erratically they just kinda froze. I have no idea what if anything ran through their conscious minds. Under stress it's interesting to see what behaviors we fall back to; Carson's seemed to be bargaining. Perhaps on some level he thought he could talk this out, and according to one article, he had talked himself out of a mugging once before.
But that's kinda the problem with essentially normalizing and tolerating violent, erratic behavior. It becomes more common, and it's hard to discern if or when the person will escalate.
There's a famous quote from a Edwin Tate (LCpl, USMC) that he claims to have uttered to a reporter getting on/off of a helicopter after the Siege of Khe Sanh: "For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know." It's a great line, but an ancient sentiment expressed many different ways by different cultures.
The Qu'ran (4:95) says something very similar: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward."
The US free market system (at least up until the income tax and the subsequent socialist takeover by Wilson and FDR) created so much largesse, so much excess benefit to so many, that we now have multiple generations with zero experience of just how harsh Reality is. While I always feel bad for innocents harmed by predators, I can't help but think that they are victims of both parents and an entire society that views ease as an entitlement and hardship as some kind of anomaly.
My husband owns a diesel repair ship after 25 years of working as a diesel tech. He has had cuts, bruises, stitches, skin chunks removed. We both grew up in lower middle class homes, so we've both been in fights, especially in our youth. We decided to raise our boys in better circumstances and we did, but I won't lie when I say I'd be worried about them in a fight.
Shop*
A diesel repair ship sounds like something that actually exists. :)
And, if not, it probably should. 😄
Great observations.
Hard times create strong men that create good times that create weak men that create hard times. We are living in the age of weak men creating hard times for everyone. It won't be until those hard times leak into their lives that the weak men will become strong.
It seems to me that optimum human capability and capacity requires walking a razor's edge of struggle that on one side is debilitating trauma and the other side is facilitating growth. People are born with some level of innate coping capability (the sensitive child that only needs a look from a parent to cause them to melt, vs the child that need a sharp smack on the behind to get their attention), but coping skills can be learned... excess sensitivity and vulnerability are constraining maladies that should be resolved in a lifetime. But if not presented with enough real life struggle there is not enough opportunity to grow coping skills. And then I think the vulnerable narcissist evolves from that as basic human interactions that should be considered normal and acceptable cause overheated emotions of harm and resentment.
This is a great example from a Jordan Peterson interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTk-69f64KU
This female in the audience is the epitome of a vulnerable narcissist. Peterson asks "Do you think you are worse off than your grandparents?" Look at her reaction when Peterson explains that she, like her peers, avoid their personal growth needs by adopting pseudo moralistic stances on large-scale social issues that look good to their friends and neighbors.
“Hard times create strong men that create good times that create weak men that create hard times. We are living in the age of weak men creating hard times for everyone.”
This line from a sci-fi/fantasy novel has leeched out into Twitter discourse, but it’s dumb and over-simplistic.
What's dumb and over-simplistic about it?
FP covered the history of the meme, here: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/02/hard-times-dont-make-strong-soldiers-warrior-myth/
For a shorter rebuke, it proposes a cyclical explanation for world events that doesn’t stand up to anything approaching a thorough examination. The Khmer Rouge were some pretty hard men. Can you point me towards the good times they created? The Bolsheviks were some pretty hard men, as is Putin. Can you point me towards the resulting good times, there? Cold War communists loved, loved, loved talking about the decadent West. It took time before the Soviets would even start investigating the trail of bodies left behind by Andrei Chikatilo because they insisted serial killers were a symptom of Western degeneracy. Who’s societies were left standing come 1990? Who has harder men: Afghanistan or the United States? For all the folly of trying to democratize and Westernize the Graveyard of Empires, what’s the scoreboard on body count between the U.S. and Afghanistan? What good times have the Taliban created?
For an even shorter rebuke, what consistent definitions of good, bad, soft and hard are you applying to all of human history?
Many years ago the primary term for those that held luxury beliefs was “limousine liberal”. Captures some of the same concepts.
Yes, but.... Limousine liberal conveys the idea that the occupant of the limousine is pampered and special, etc. That makes them the target of ridicule and scorn as flaunting their upper class status. But holder of "luxury beliefs" allows the same person to say, "oh no, I'm a good person, I'm not selfish, I'm for the everyman and marginalized communities, etc., etc." Luxury beliefs is so much more pernicious and sneaky and stealthy.
Crucial difference: A limousine doesn't earn you virtue points.
In French: Gauche caviar.
I think you mean "community-based" LOL. Freudian slip
Fixed, thanks. (though I think my error was more precise).
Reminds me of a conversation with an upper middle class gal about guns. She wanted rid of them completely. I explained that I would never go camping amongst bears and cougars, and the most dangerous animal of all, people, without a firearm. She replied with something like: "I've went camping lots of times and have never seen a cougar." Sigh. You can't help someone understand protecting yourself when they have never seen or experienced violence.
I've tried to explain just how poor I grew up to middle and upper class people, but it's impossible, because they've never witnessed it. "Grapes of Wrath poor" is my shortcut description. Explaining that a chicken lived in our dilapidated trailer and roosted on the washer dryer stack that was never used still doesn't click with them. You have to see it to believe it. Also, when this information is coming from someone articulate, it's that much harder to believe.
Further to Rob's point, if you don't have multiple physical scars from work by the time you're 25 and your body doesn't ache every day from physical work by 40 then you aren't working class.
3 hernias wasnt enough to scare me off of heavy labor. I moved across the country for work during lockdown and my knee gave out 6 weeks in. But that led me to writing.
My criteria for them is based on the question of "have they (in their extended or own family home) ever routinely used a long drop outhouse because you didn't have a flush toilet or perhaps even running water."
If they've had the luxury of always being able to void their bladder and bowels into flushable porcelain (other then when vacation camping or going "back to the land" or acting the fool or drunk) then they've never experienced real material poverty.
This question (or alternate versions appropriate to different chosen experience based distinctions) draws a simple and clear dividing line.
I've never been in a physical fight or to my knowledge in physical danger. But I think defund the police was an idiotic idea. Also, those of us who have been sheltered do not necessarily lack that self-knowledge.
"People who play sports, or served in the military, or endured family tragedy, or served jail time, or survived life-threatening medical maladies or injuries". I'm 4 for 5. I must be the most interesting person I know. :)
I thought it was a bit weird you put sports in with this list but then I remembered that when I played football in high school, I had cuts and bruises on my hands and arms that never healed until the season was over.
I’m a mountain biker and I’ve had broken bones, a dislocated arm, a torn ACL, among others and in addition to the minor cuts and bruises. Biking makes me pretty aware of how sharp and painful reality can be.
I’m also a woman who rides bikes with a group of guys, and who used to study karate and spar with men, and that’s why I have always been 100% against transwomen competing with biological females in sports. I’m pretty strong for a woman, and I’m tougher than most - but a teenage boy could overpower me easily.
I used to do ultraendurance races, and I definitely had some hours (in the middle of night) where I pondered deeply what, exactly, was wrong in my psyche that had prompted me to electively undergo that much suffering and (often, depending on the course and event) fairly substantial danger. Still not sure if there is an explanation other than some innate human drive to do things that we’re good at, and apparently I’m good at enduring pain (although only in some circumstances, because I 100% opted for an epidural in labor...)
High School and College Sports participation can also be high anxiety, high emotional stress, which I think qualifies as a type of "therapeutic" adversity.
I grew up in a mill city near the center. Not the worst neighborhood, but fights were common, shootings and even knifings not so much. But my real violence education was working locked state psychiatric units. Though even then, they would have only makeshift weapons, and after the reforms of my first few years, I was seldom alone to deal with a bad situation.
Incidentally, you also see the real male-female split in attitudes when actual violence comes on the scene.
well argued. This is yet another reason why more American elites should be incentivized to serve in violent, developing countries to understand their bodily privilege, not just their economic privilege (which is much harder to deny).
Hmmm, I presume most people (myself definitely included on this one) spend time learning about aspects of the world that "matter" (to their decision making) *OR* that are of interest to them (base curiosity, like the "I F%-ing Love Science" audience). Given that firsthand experience of how to deal with violent crime and/or criminals is not among the "required lessons" for the upper class -- as maybe an overly broad but not too inaccurate approximation anyway -- it is thus not that surprising that there isn't all that much understanding, besides with people who happen to have an interest in the topic (for other reasons).
That being said, I suspect that the upper class's main objective, as a group, is not even virtue signaling, but -- maybe a bit similar to parents who have a pair of rambunctious kids in the back of the car while wanting to listen to a nice piece of classical music on the radio -- simply to create peace and quiet, because the noise generated by all that fighting (the violence *is* frequently depicted on the news as a source of discomfort, one way or another) makes enjoying life a bit, well, less straight forward.
In the past, when moral considerations for the masses were less developed, I think the upper class was happy enough to let police "handle" the matter. And if the noise from the fighting on the cheap seats became a bit too loud, you'd just use authoritarian means to get everyone fall in line again.
After the post-modern "revolution" of moral norms (look after the oppressed!!), upper class elites that have gone through that form of (re-) education will more likely ask, "how can we make the boys in the backseat feel less grumpy?"
And given the lack of understanding of crime, and the constant perception of the noise being caused by a kind of "police vs. criminals" narrative (together with a concern for the oppressed), I think it isn't all that far-fetched for people with no firsthand experience of crime to consider, "why not just kick the police out of the car, and then it'll be quiet, and we can enjoy the concert!"
That it has been the police all along that would allow for an otherwise uneventful ride, and that by removing the police, the situation will not only get louder but also much more dangerous -- the rambunctious kids might try to grab the steering wheel, for one -- hasn't occurred to these people. Yet.
So, yes, I suspect it will require for a sufficient number of people to gain this firsthand experience (followed by the diffusion of that narrative across the upper class, similar to NY Governor Hochul waking up to the migrant situation) before something "happens"...
The terrifying implication is that the richest and most powerful can run from reality the longest, which means that they will not face the consequences of their beliefs until the whole world has fallen apart.
From the article:
"They have had contact with reality."
This is a really great observation. I, like Rob, am drawn more to those fit that qualification. We have become a society that is entirely too soft, both physically and mentally.
In the place I come from, being agreeable and avoiding confrontations are not just social norms, but essential survival skills. One must always be aware that anyone in one’s vicinity could be armed with a knife or a gun, and one’s life could be in jeopardy for the smallest of reasons, such as a mere glance. In addition to that, certain precautions must be taken, such as refraining from walking with a phone in hand, carrying a handbag, going out after dark, or not having some cash on hand, as robbers can become aggressive if they are not given any money.
It is understandable that individuals who have grown up in safe environments struggle to comprehend the harsh reality some of us face. However, we are currently witnessing the real-time consequences of misguided policies implemented by those who can afford luxury beliefs. The unfortunate truth is that violent and depraved individuals only respond to one language: violence, or at the very least, the threat of violence being inflicted upon them. I wish this wasn't the case, but as G.K. once said, "Truth may be forgotten but never falsified."
Public safety is a fundamental requirement for human prosperity, and therefore, those who are legitimately responsible for keeping us safe should receive ample funding. Failure to do so may result in individuals taking matters into their own hands, leading to the emergence of organised illegal paramilitary forces, that are accountable to no one, believe me when I say, that is an outcome that must be avoided at all costs.
fantastic piece, excellent points. Important ones, too.
I am however hesitant to speculate about Carson's mindset, and can't say with certainty that he sought to look tough. The full video I saw showed that he and his girlfriend didn't even see the culprit pass by them, they looked worn out, started walking in the same direction of the guy, and when he started acting erratically they just kinda froze. I have no idea what if anything ran through their conscious minds. Under stress it's interesting to see what behaviors we fall back to; Carson's seemed to be bargaining. Perhaps on some level he thought he could talk this out, and according to one article, he had talked himself out of a mugging once before.
But that's kinda the problem with essentially normalizing and tolerating violent, erratic behavior. It becomes more common, and it's hard to discern if or when the person will escalate.
*Le sigh*
There's a famous quote from a Edwin Tate (LCpl, USMC) that he claims to have uttered to a reporter getting on/off of a helicopter after the Siege of Khe Sanh: "For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know." It's a great line, but an ancient sentiment expressed many different ways by different cultures.
The Qu'ran (4:95) says something very similar: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward."
The US free market system (at least up until the income tax and the subsequent socialist takeover by Wilson and FDR) created so much largesse, so much excess benefit to so many, that we now have multiple generations with zero experience of just how harsh Reality is. While I always feel bad for innocents harmed by predators, I can't help but think that they are victims of both parents and an entire society that views ease as an entitlement and hardship as some kind of anomaly.
Luxury beliefs may also be a way for old money families to cull their no-good relatives.