Obsession With Being Badasses? (woman, problems, projection, men)

[Hackopotamus]

Originally Posted by zentropa

I thnk you might be romanticizing things a bit, from your parent's generation. You grew up in the 60s/70s (you graduated high school in 75, right?), not the 40s/50s. There were plenty of badasses around then... remember the Rolling Stones? Steve McQueen? The Sex Pistols? Pro Wrestling?

What you see is nothing more than the filter you view it through.

Graduated in '74.

The Stones bad asses? That's funny! I'm a big Stones fan but they are no where near bad asses. Greatest rock and roll band ever, maybe. Bad asses, no.

Same for the Sex Pistols. Pasty white, emaciated heroin addicted rail skinny is not a bad ass.

Pro wrestling was a joke and no one took those guys seriously.

Steve McQueen? Well, yes. The King of Cool. But he didn't have to project a bad ass image and that is what I'm talking about. Real bad asses don't have to go around trying to look the part or talk about how tough they are.

We had a few "Greasers" in high school but that was just a handful of guys. Most were just regular guys, some played sports, some were smarter, some were nerds. I had about 300 in my graduating class and while we had some tough guys (mostly jocks), there was not a single kid that acted like I see guys today.

I was in the army and there were some real bad ass tough guys I knew. Most of them were the same way, didn't brag about what unit they were in and didn't have big mouths.

I've been riding Harley's since 1976 and when I was young I rode with a club. We were not a 1% club but were affiliated. Yes, there some ass hats I knew but the real bad guys maintain a low profile so as to not attract attention to themselves. Just look for the guy with "ITCOB" patch. They usually stand in the background and keep their eyes open and their mouths shut.

I don't think I'm living in some dream world of what the 70's used to be like. Yeah, I did a lot of drugs but I'm pretty sure I remember most of it! Maybe because I was raised in the country where people are a little different but I also lived in the south Bronx for a year when I was 18. My buddies and I would ride the train into Manhattan and go home at 2 or 3 in the morning and we never once encountered any trouble, even with the brothers. Usually get a head nod or a "What's happening, man".

Some one posted that it is insecurity that makes these guys dress and act like they do. Okay, I can buy that but why are so many so insecure? It seems that people today are screaming for attention. The fascination with social media and "selfies".

[Razza94]

Originally Posted by Hackopotamus

Graduated in '74. The Stones bad asses? That's funny! I'm a big Stones fan but they are no where near bad asses. Greatest rock and roll band ever, maybe. Bad asses, no.

They must have slept with at least 10,000 women between them, is that not badass?

[Hackopotamus]

Originally Posted by Razza94

They must have slept with at least 10,000 women between them, is that not badass?

Uhmm, no. It makes them players, rockers, and maybe lucky depending on your outlook! Now if you said they constantly got in fights and kicked asses on a regular basis, then I'd say they were bad asses.

Cool, yes. Great musicians, absolutely. Would I want to hang with them, hell yeah. Tough guys, not so much.

[zentropa]

You seem to have a very specific definition of badasses, and you appear to admire them very, very much.

Was that the point of your rant?

[Hackopotamus]

Originally Posted by zentropa

You seem to have a very specific definition of badasses, and you appear to admire them very, very much.

Was that the point of your rant?

Yes, I admire strong, decent, good people (male or female).

My post is about people who are not good, decent, strong people but try to project an image of being tough and intimidating and why it is now so prevalent in our society. That is the point of my "rant".

And why is it when you post a question about a subject some people perceive it as a rant? I'm just asking opinions as to why this particular phenomenon is occurring.

You seem to be taking it personally. Do you have face tattoos and piercings and wear all black?

[2002 Subaru]

Originally Posted by The Dissenter

I didn't mention any one party (I'm not happy with either party right now) and far as I'm concerned both Trump and Clinton can have a seat. You are the one trying to make it political. Plus the bada$& problem in DC has long been a problem, it didn't just start.

Cool story after being called out, bro.

[Razza94]

Originally Posted by zentropa

You seem to have a very specific definition of badasses, and you appear to admire them very, very much.

Was that the point of your rant?

Is tough what we're classing as badass? In that case I probably wouldn't back Mick Jagger in a fight

[zentropa]

Originally Posted by Hackopotamus

My post is about people who are not good, decent, strong people but try to project an image of being tough and intimidating and why it is now so prevalent in our society.

How do you know they are not good, decent and honest?

And how do you know all your heroes were?

Again, you are looking through a very gauzy filter.

To find peace, we must live in reality.

[Phil75230]

So much to talk about on here that I can't even do justice to it all.

Yes, "bad asses" have been around since our species first evolved, and even before that.

Yes, there's a bit of faddishness that comes into it ("Sensitive New Age Guy" of the 70s and maybe 80s too).

Still, human nature or faddishness or not, this is something worth addressing. This isn't something so trivial as one's personal tastes in a certain "type" - this goes to the very heart of what it means to maintain a civilized, safe, and humane society.

I blame in large part, our species' reptilian brainstem for overglorification of badasses. In brief, our "basebrain reptilian impulses"[1] - the criteria we use to size up a person's worth - overemphasizes individual survival or well-being over species survival and/or well-being.

That basebrain reptilian impulse is designed for survival in a Stone Age environment and certainly a pre-Industrial Revoultion one - not a modern society and certainly not a Digital Info Age one. We modern humans have moved considerably beyond that dog-eat-dog level of existence - especially in economically and technologically advanced nations. In more detail...

Note: Actually I question whether dog-eat-dog environments actually ensure long-term species or individual survival, especially very long run survival. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume the gladiator match interpretation of evolution (i.e. Social Darwininsm) is the full and complete explanation of how evolution works.

Back in 10,000 BC and before, when the absolutely only way to widen the gap between yourself and death was to simply be stronger, smarter, and braver than all your rivals (i.e., personal superiority at resources, personal defense, animal cunning / "wilderness" smarts[2], and general 'social dominance skills', etc.), there was, perhaps, some justification in placing such a high value of those traits above the more civilized, humane traits (empathy, sympathy, kindness, cooperation, compassion, willingness to help others in great need, etc).

However, as we actually found other ways to further widen the gap between ourselves and extinction[3], the immediately visible and obvious dog-eat-dog survival skills became less and less necessary for resource-gathering, physical security, etc. Foresight, creativity, etc. became more and more what drove back threats to our well-being - including talents and ideas that may not have any immediately obvious survival or materially enrichment value but eventually would prove to be of high practical value later on, once our knowledge of science and human behavior increased to the point where we found that formerly arcane knowledge ('mere trivia', really) did indeed have a practical use.

Yet, merely coming up with ideas was not enough. No matter how good the ideas people came up with, they will not share them unless they can be trusted to not be taken advantage of or otherwise exploited or abused. Who shares their ideas with those who can use their own ideas against them? Thus, the rules of the survival game have changed for we humans because the physical environment is different for us. All of this means is that unless you're in the police, the military, or some other occupation requiring you to exercise direct, literally hands-on physical control over others, the 'bad assed' traits are going to have less use as time goes on.

At the same time, we're still the same old human beings - our physical and psychological evolution is not, cannot, keep up with our technological development. Thus, we still tend to glorify bad-asses uncritically (esp when young) while treating the civilized and humane traits as a consolation prize for those who (in effect) cannot survive in lawless, dog-eat-dog gladiatorial match type of environments - even though physical or even personal forcefulness is not an essential part of 'building new and better mousetraps', or even aps.

I can say a lot more about this, but I think my point is clear. Kneejerk (over)glorification of badass types is very likely just evolutionary baggage, especially when one focuses too narrowly on the immediately obvious physical survival skills and by doing so misses the broader picture of how societies truly prosper and grow (i.e. widen the gap between their people and survival). This is not just limited to petty popularity contests - it comes to play in our definitions of 'good leadership', how we choose our heroes, and even who's in or out of our own personal social circles - often with negative outcomes for ourselves and even society as a whole. Until we as a society start questioning more rigorously whether our basebrain reptilian instincts really are a reliable guide to determine another's personal worth, we will continue to see "bad" types come back in, then go out, then come back in like tasteless fashion trends.




[1] IMO, it's a more forceful wording, even if it's not 100% accurate scientifically speaking.
[2] The post Stone Age equivalent of it is "street smarts".
[3] superior ability at foresight, better vocal chords, language interpretation more sophisticated than grunts, a shoulder-arm combination that let us throw things better than any other animal, creativity and insight to let us discover how to make fire, stone spears, grow our own food, etc)

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by zentropa

How do you know they are not good, decent and honest?

And how do you know all your heroes were?

Again, you are looking through a very gauzy filter.

To find peace, we must live in reality.

Regardless of how accurate hack's views are, I think I see his deeper point.

While it's true not everyone who is strong, smart, brave, or otherwise socially dominant (i.e. Alpha, to oversimplify it) is going to be rude and cruel to others, dishonest, etc.; there's nothing to prevent an strong, smart, and brave people from having even the most detestable traits. And yes, weak, timid, and dull-witted people can have those negative traits, too; but they can also have highly civilized and humane traits too.