"Hard times create strong men" - maybe, but starvation doesn't make you strong. Being dead from disease doesn't make you strong. Rising to adversity might make some people stronger, but it will harm others who survive but are damaged. It could be that the already-strong people rise to adversity and the weak get crushed by it, Darwinianly? Or that the weak endure through hard times as much as anyone because hard times are generally about health food or money and even 'weak' beggers can get enough of those to survive. Today's homeless are generally enduring lack of food, poor health, low money, and nobody considers them being made 'strong' by it, they're harmed by it.

"strong men create good times" - warriors are strong, barbarian raiders were strong, unpleasant bosses who abuse their workforce and reign by terror are strong, those are horrible times. Is there a connection between strong people and good times? What about average people who are neither weak nor strong, working in concert? What about people who are generally considered weak, but are thinking long term planting the trees that will shade tomorrow, community building, etc?

"good times create weak men" - do they? Do they necessarily? Why is this framing "good" as "bad"? Wouldn't going to the gym regularly and getting stronger be "good times" for someone? Wouldn't working the family farm hard, being physically strong and providing for your family, be good times and not making you weak? Is it luxury which makes people weak - previous point, do strong people create luxury specifically?

"weak men create hard times" - do they? Plenty of strong people (dictators, for example) have created hard times for millions. Plenty of weak people have had no impact on the times at all. Isn't the history of progress littered with people who were "a weak and sickly child" who spent their lives hiding indoors, thinking about math, died young, and changed the world - were they making hard times?

It's connected to the 'one generation makes family wealth by working hard, next generation preserves it but can't build it, next generation spends it'. In that, the hard times are where you have no money and have to work. The good times are where you have money and no work. The next hard times are where you lose the money and have to work again. But then, getting back into work and earning money is a homeless unemployed person's good times, life on the up.

At the 'level of civilizations' it's far too vague to say the fall of Rome was caused by "weak men" or that the rise of Rome was caused by "hard times".

I would certainly include competence as contributing to a strong character

Or worse, because bad times create broken people. And while broken people can stand adversity, they are much less able to create something non-broken.

Also, whether hardships makes or breaks you depends largely on your outlook and coping skills (this comes from someone who's had CPTSD and had to stop suicidal idealisation and learn coping skills in my late 20s).

All skills diminish, if unused. Having too easy times means there's less need to "cope"

It's very likely most millennials have poor coping skills due to the predominantly emotionally neglectful parenting styles the previous generation

When people say that phrase today, "bad" literally means WWII.

I think that in apocalyptically bad times good people (the "weak") get taken advantage of by ruthless assholes (the "strong") who do better when they act like selfish monsters, but those kinds of people just prolong the bad times. The "strong" just endlessly fight amongst themselves while oppressing everyone else. "Might makes right" doesn't result in favorable outcomes.

Good times allow (and insist) that folks behave like a civilized people who look out for each other and that not only helps promote future good times and advancement but also creates an environment where genuinely vulnerable people who couldn't survive the bad times can thrive and contribute. When people are fighting for survival they don't have time to invent new cool things and learn about how the universe works.

I guess after a while the good times allow some of us to get annoyed by all the good people who keep telling everyone we have to be nice to others and to look around at all the vulnerable people who couldn't survive without our support and wonder if we'd just be better off without them, but I can't imagine that working out better in the long term.

Perhaps things play out somewhat the same in less than apocalyptically bad times too.

I missed that one, though know that I read it I realized there's a lot of bot calling going-on on an FPS server I regularly visit.

By the way, is this site done with calling regular people "normies" ?

I don't think that's even remotely what the quote means. You seem to be taking it as "weak men make up hardships" as opposed to "weakness leads to a broken down system and future suffering for society".

For example, one might say that weakness in facing climate change will lead to hardship in the future. Another example would be that weakness in facing fascism allows it to rise and wreak havoc on society. Coincidentally, that quote is super popular among fascist-leaning types.

And speaking of fascism, it's unfortunately getting worse again

In any case, I don't know what to call it, but the resemblance to witch trials, heresy (and maybe fascism? I'm unsure now) is just uncanny.

It might resonate the first time you hear it (most good propaganda does), but if you contemplate it for more than 10 seconds and you'll realize it's obviously untrue.

Also, you don't have to be macho or physically strong to be strong. That just seems like your own bias leaking into the discussion.

That it might promote contempt for weakness might be true, though, and it didn't cross my mind. I don't like that it does that. At the same time I don't think weakness should be glorified either. Ideally, weak people should be helped to develop their own strong self.

Bret Devereaux has a series of posts where he delves into the history of the idea behind the meme - https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

It's a thoroughly interesting debunking, and in part IIIb, he talks about how the trope was used to promote racial purity and superiority.

I don't know if it improves later, but they seem to only consider physical prowess as a form of strength. I generally interpreted this as strength of mind.

Also, I've taken the phrase less literally than they did. Man to me implied "human" (ie the same as man kind) because these quotes are usually designed to be succinct and memorable. They seem to think it's exclusive to human males.

But I've not read it in full yet, so we'll see when I finish it