Abiding in disadvantaged circumstances

[Brother D]

I would also disagree that heroism is over rated, acts of true heroism are rarer than you think.

Diffusing a situation is one thing, (i have done similar acts, sorry to trivialise), but
disarming a bomb or saving a life for example, is another.

I wouldn't say I've done anything other than my job and be a good Samaritan, because what's a hee-ro?.

[SagebrushSage]

I thought heroism was a perfectly ordinary personality trait, something that everybody has to some degree. Are we discussing something different here?

[BikerDude]

I thought heroism was a perfectly ordinary personality trait, something that everybody has to some degree. Are we discussing something different here?

Your contention that breaking up a few bar fights constitutes heroism would laughable were it not for the constant stream of infuriating blather that has been your hallmark.
No, heroism is not a perfectly ordinary trait.
It is an exceptional trait.
It is the exceptionally selfless and courageous nature of the act that marks it as rising to the level of heroism. And for someone to have gall to criticise the actions of a person who puts themselves in harms way and perhaps even pays the ultimate price in the service of others constitutes a level of arrogance that grinds my gears big time.
The hint of even making such calculations as you suggest is something that I can't understand. If my neighbor's house is on fire and I know that there is a child in there I don't believe that I would have the capability to simply stand by on the basis of my chances of success. At least I would like to think that I would lack the ability to stand by. But it is the nature of such acts that no one can really say what they would do. I do know that if I didn't do everything I could I would need some serious counciling for quite some time. I certainly would not be sleeping for quite q while and I would have a hard time looking anyone in the eye.
Death might literally be preferable to living in self disgust at that level. The most courageous of any of us have regrets along these lines. To one extent or another we all have at least swallowed some shit from people and lost sleep over not having kicked ass. To not have that streak is something I don't get. To me this is the utility of dudeism. Being able to walk away from tivial and sometimes not so trivial bullshit without eating your own guts out.

But criticising the choice that a person makes to risk their own life is despicable.
I personally would be overcome with genuine grief over their sacrifice and I simply honor and respect their courage. And I certainly would not call their actions over fucking rated!

[SagebrushSage]

I'm not saying that their actions are overrated. I am saying that the personality trait of heroism, that is, one's own tendency towards risky, altruistic actions, is overrated with regards to one's own decision-making process. The scope of this discussion with regards to what people should or should not do only refers to the participants in this discussion. I am not saying that the actions of actual, historical heroes were not valuable. I am saying that people tend to overvalue or overemphasize the natural heroism in themselves, when caution works better in most circumstances.

You may recall that I was criticizing myself for my actions, regarding breaking up bar fights. So, your contention that I am aggrandizing myself here is without merit. The actions were "heroics" in the sense that I did them due to my own small amount of the personality trait "heroism." But the situations were not sufficiently serious to merit heroics. So, those "heroic" actions were the stupid, unnecessary sort of heroism that just gets people killed or injured without compensating benefit.

[SagebrushSage]

I'm tired of everyone, myself included, kicking me around. I will defend myself in this thread for as long as anyone cares to speak against me. Anyone who has anything negative to say about me can go fuck themselves. I get more than enough of that from myself as it is, and I'm tired of hearing it.

[SagebrushSage]

Heh. Being the son of a nuclear safety process engineer (one who writes procedures for dealing with nuclear waste cleanup), I suppose it should not be surprising that I grew up to be a plutonium-powered arse.

[thevideoartist]

I'm tired of everyone, myself included, kicking me around. I will defend myself in this thread for as long as anyone cares to speak against me. Anyone who has anything negative to say about me can go fuck themselves. I get more than enough of that from myself as it is, and I'm tired of hearing it.

Honestly I don't really think there's any disagreement here on anything but the semantics.

If anyone's personal goal is to go out and be a hero though, I think that kinda flies in the face of dudeism completely, not the hero part so much as the goal part... I'm not even concerned about making the finals.  Do I think it's possible that dudes can be heroes or vice versa?  Sure.  We are people for our time and place and if the time and place necessitates heroism then that's cool.  But running out and looking for daring do or wrongs to right or a purpose and a calling, that just doesn't seem what we're about nor does it seem to really lead to any kind of happiness or peace in life.  No disrespect to those who do... all told some of them are nice folks... some are reactionary assholes with unhealthy personal obsessions... that's not really for me to decipher though.

The original discussion was about abiding in places with oppression and war and the answer is yes... it is possible and it definitely exists in abundance and sometimes even better than in "privileged" society.  Folks overseas are abiding all kinds of hardship and keeping their personal room tied together and not letting it get to them.  Folks in concentration camps abided atrocities left-and-right and survived them with their psyches intact.  There are folks abiding even in the worst of circumstances and it all just has to do with how they frame the world and what they place importance on.  Are these folks deadbeats?  People the square community shouldn't give a shit about?  I don't think so.  For me, these folks give me hope that I can abide whatever comes my way just by staying limber and not getting so attached to things that can be taken away.  I can fret about the injustices of the world, but my efforts will never rectify them as long as there are imperfect people on the planet.  I can fret about the dictators oppressing their people, but history has shown that unseating one just leads to another popping up somewhere.  I can fret about the man trying to hold me down, but I'm never going to beat him at his own game.  Should I roll over and take it?  No... I should just sidestep and watch the world learn the lessons it needs to... then forget them and go back to unrest... shampoo rinse repeat.  Back and forth the waves of light and dark undulate but I won't get swept up in that noise.  I can only control one thing and only in one moment: myself and the present.  So that's where I choose to live and I choose to do only that which is necessary... and move back to a state of content, striving only not to be the person who seeks to control his universe, and letting it go when I fuck up.

For those of us who aren't in that dilemma-riddled position of being the chosen one equipped to overthrow that oppressive regime... thus rebooting the cycle all over again, that's really the best state we could be in for our own benefit and those around us.

[BikerDude]

Well, if being a man boils down to being willing and able to inflict violence upon others (for any reason) then I'll be eternally happy to not be a "man". If being unwilling to inflict violence upon others, finding violence of any kind for any reason to be abhorrently sickening to the very depths of my being, means that I'm a coward, then I will embrace being a coward.

I will take a bullet for, almost, anyone. I'll take a beating so that others don't have to (and I have, several times). But I will not, I absolutely refuse, to inflict violence upon another human being.

No it doesn't depend on inflicting violence.
I'd say it means standing up for your convictions.
Which I commend you for.
Pacifism is refusing to inflict violence on others and importantly being willing to absorb violence in defense of your convictions and the welfare of others.It is not about avoidance of risk. Of course if being a man also depends on your Johnson, I'd have to say that a refusal to be willing to inflict violence on the likes of the nihilists would put things into jeopardy. If you are willing to have her dick cut off without a fight I can say that I don't understand it but on a weird level I guess my hat is off. But I'm in part scratching my head, in the parlance of our times.
Genuine pacifism is admirable.
Especially when so many lacking any real convictions hide behind the label of pacifist.

[SagebrushSage]

Honestly I don't really think there's any disagreement here on anything but the semantics.

I know, right? I didn't think I'd encounter so much grief here for encouraging caution.

Like it or not, I'm not Audie Murphy or Edward Snowden. I don't have exceptional courage or any exceptional skills save for technical writing and manual labor. What I do have are creditors. When you risk injury, you risk letting down the people that are depending on you. My job is to survive and avoid injury so that I can pay my debts. I can afford heroism when my debts are paid.

[Brother D]

The original discussion was about abiding in places with oppression and war and the answer is yes... it is possible and it definitely exists in abundance and sometimes even better than in "privileged" society.  Folks overseas are abiding all kinds of hardship and keeping their personal room tied together and not letting it get to them.  Folks in concentration camps abided atrocities left-and-right and survived them with their psyches intact.  There are folks abiding even in the worst of circumstances and it all just has to do with how they frame the world and what they place importance on.  Are these folks deadbeats?  People the square community shouldn't give a shit about? 

I think that they aren't given a shit about, which is why they are easier to subjugate. I agree with the rest though.

[Dude Skippy]

...(a bunch of great stuff)...

Nice post man. 

As for the rest of the recent discussion dudes, will you just make sure that you're takin' it easy? I know that tone, inflections, and all that stuff can be hard to pick up on with written discussions, so I could be way off the mark here.

But all the same, thanks to everyone for some great thought-provoking stuff. I'm glad that I decided to drop by the forum again, and seek out wiser fellas than myself.

[BikerDude]

The original discussion was about abiding in places with oppression and war and the answer is yes... it is possible and it definitely exists in abundance and sometimes even better than in "privileged" society.  Folks overseas are abiding all kinds of hardship and keeping their personal room tied together and not letting it get to them.  Folks in concentration camps abided atrocities left-and-right and survived them with their psyches intact.  There are folks abiding even in the worst of circumstances and it all just has to do with how they frame the world and what they place importance on.  Are these folks deadbeats?  People the square community shouldn't give a shit about? 

I think that they aren't given a shit about, which is why they are easier to subjugate. I agree with the rest though.

OK well I just ask politely isn't it important also that they should give a shit about themselves?
I mean if people simply abide at every stage don't they eventually own some portion of their lot in life? Not calling them bums or deadbeats. Is the advice every day to abide as they become more and more subjugated until finally it's up to others to come to their aid?

I am the most liberal person that you are likely to meet. I've never met a social program I didn't support because I do believe that the game is totally fixed. And I am not a pacifist. I wish that this country lived up to the foundational ideals and opposed oppression. Unfortunately they are only lip service.
So not only do I applaude black lives matter I have huge respect for the black panthers from the sixties. And the Students for. A Democratic Society (you know the port Huron statement) later the weathermen and then the weather underground. None of these could be considered very mellow organizations.
They refuse to abide. I applaud every time that people take measures to at least try to steer their own destiny.
So when a group takes no interest in standing up for its self isn't it a bit selfish to then claim that nobody gives a shit about them and depend on their own personal Walter to pick them up?

I'm not referring to the Jews here. Just making a generalization.

[BikerDude]

Honestly I don't really think there's any disagreement here on anything but the semantics.

I know, right? I didn't think I'd encounter so much grief here for encouraging caution.

Like it or not, I'm not Audie Murphy or Edward Snowden. I don't have exceptional courage or any exceptional skills save for technical writing and manual labor. What I do have are creditors. When you risk injury, you risk letting down the people that are depending on you. My job is to survive and avoid injury so that I can pay my debts. I can afford heroism when my debts are paid.

This is exactly the point.
We are fortunate that heroism is not required of us.
In dire circumstances heroism becomes the very act of caring for those who depend on us. Heroism is always demanded by circumstance. For me suggesting abiding as a substitute in those circumstances is not appealing. Sorry it starts to resemble cowardice.

The discussion is about abiding in dire circumstances. When one gets way past worrying about the cable bill.
This is why my contention is that abiding is a first world luxury. And at the risk sounding like a Walter it's a luxury that has never persisted for free. Freedom isn't free. Eventually somebody has to be a Walter.

[BikerDude]

I'm tired of everyone, myself included, kicking me around. I will defend myself in this thread for as long as anyone cares to speak against me. Anyone who has anything negative to say about me can go fuck themselves. I get more than enough of that from myself as it is, and I'm tired of hearing it.

The original discussion was about abiding in places with oppression and war and the answer is yes... it is possible and it definitely exists in abundance and sometimes even better than in "privileged" society.  Folks overseas are abiding all kinds of hardship and keeping their personal room tied together and not letting it get to them.  Folks in concentration camps abided atrocities left-and-right and survived them with their psyches intact.  There are folks abiding even in the worst of circumstances and it all just has to do with how they frame the world and what they place importance on.  Are these folks deadbeats?  People the square community shouldn't give a shit about?  I don't think so.

OK so once they get out what do they do?
Abide?
Were there people in the concentration camps before them?
Did they do anything to help those people?
Did they expect others to help them?
Of course they will but wouldn't it be ridiculous to call their actions over rated?

[SagebrushSage]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/heroism

See definition 1, "the qualities or attributes of a hero."

We all will act bravely in defense of our homes or loved ones. Such acts would be rightly called heroic. All humans, more or less, have the potential for great courage in the right, or perhaps wrong, circumstances. So, since we are all heroes in potentia, we therefore all have at least some of the qualities or attributes of a hero. Heroism is an innate human ability, not a rare trait accessible only to a privileged few.

To be clear, even though we all possess heroism, we are not all heroes. I am not a hero, for example. One only becomes a hero upon performing a justified heroic act. We do not call people who act heroically unjustly, such as terrorists, or such as bystanders taking unnecessary risks against the instructions of emergency personnell, "heroes." Such people are usually called either "villains," "loose cannons," or "casualties."

It is very common for people to use poor judgement in the application of their own innate heroism. For example, see this story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-donald-trump-attacker-indicted-20160629-story.html. It is a perfectly valid topic of academic discussion to consider what circumstances where heroics might not be justified.

I used to be a fellow of the loose cannon persuasion, and I provided an anecdotal example of my foolish behavior to demonstrate this point. Saying that I acted wrongly out of a misplaced sense of heroism is the opposite of calling myself a hero. It is calling myself a fool. This is why I say that I am not aggrandizing myself here.

I believe that the hero-worship in this country tends to lead to people such as George Zimmerman taking stupid risks or harming others unnecessarily. I believe that the gung-ho over-emphasis on heroism in our country produces a lot of harmful, "loose cannon," often violent, behavior. So, I say that heroism is overrated, and advocate caution in its application.