They also make our own opinions, views and emotions much more visible to the general public and to those around us than they ever were before.

The death of Diana for example, other than screwing up a pre-booked few days away in London by scheduling the funeral for that weekend, didn't particularly register on my emotional radar. I certainly didn't take the time to go canvass opinion on what other people's thoughts and feelings were.

These days I wouldn't have to go canvass them, as they would be spread all over the social media. Posting an alternate view to the majority (i.e. that she was a spoilt, attention seeking mentalist) would likely have got me lambasted, whereas at the time I could happily express that view and only those closest to me would know it.

How many of those who express sympathy, condolences or regrets regarding complete strangers on social media do so because they feel that's what expected of them, rather than actually meaning it?

You have a pretty dim view view of humanity of which you are a part.
People usually express condolences because they mean it. if they don't mean it they don't bother.
Simple really.

There are lots of mindless sheep out there incapable of rational, independent thought processes.
Of course there are.

One could of course argue that those that take this elitist view are themselves just sheep who like to feel superior, in a smaller, more select flock.
Not that I take that view.

Back in Victorian times, grief was more or less a constant companion for most British families. Infant mortality was huge and life expectancy small. So you could say it wouldn't be worth changing out of the black garb as you would need to don it again pretty soon after.

As for all the weeping and wailing that goes on nowadays, I reckon it's down to the covert feminisation of all things masculine.

Life expectancy was not low. The stats used by people claiming this are weighted by high infant mortality and death in childbirth. If you got through that, then there were fair chances you'd live quite a long time.



Not very macho in the first place, were you then, if a bit of "covert feminisation" has made you all ready to blub at the first opoortunity.

If I die on the road I'd quite like an old teddy bear tied to a lamp post until it turns green - the colour that killed me.

Boys weren't expected to cry, in fact you was considered soft if you did, whilst it was accepted that girls could cry whenever, without suffering any humiliation. This has changed, probably for the better but you now get blokes blubbing just as much as women, hence the increase in shows of public emotion.

Nothing wrong with men crying. I've done my fair share recently.

I have to admit I did twice cry in public as a boy so have to admit to being a bit soft. Once was after been hit with a hammer and once when I thought someone had broken my back. With regard to the first incident I went running home to my Mum who told me not to be so soft and go and hit the lad concerned. A few minutes later the two mothers heard the screaming and came to drag me off him as I had him against a wall punching him incessantly. It's probably a good thing they came out.

Probably would have been a good thing to let you finish - you've been bottling the frustration up ever since.

You're right. Just saying that if half the population are repressed from an early age, into not showing any emotion, when the blocks come off you have a tidal outpouring.