Some proper snowflake bollocks here.
Should Michael Schumacher be fined for the worry he caused mountain rescue when he fucked up doing his dangerous thing?
I'm not sure it's "snowflake bollocks", but I'm not sure it's quite as binary as you make it, either!
There's a spectrum of risk-taking, and a lot of where things lie on the spectrum depends on the expectation of risk. So, to take this thread topic as an example, an urban light rail system isn't intended to be used as a means to jump into water, whereas a ski slope carries with it the expectation that people might get hurt, or need to be rescued.
Another example: people drive cars, and occasionally crash them, resulting in the need for someone to come along and pick up the pieces; but we tend, societally, to take a dim view of people racing on the roads, because that's incurring a level of risk we're not prepared to be set up to deal with.
But I think that, by the time we get to disapproving of people taking what we (and we'll all have our own degree of it) consider to be "unacceptable" risk, it's too late. Most young men don't jump off trains: presumably because, somewhere along the way, they've developed enough awareness to know that, despite peer pressure, or the thrill of taking such a risk, the chances of doing themselves some serious harm aren't worth it. In my experience of working with young people, the ones that engage in the riskiest behaviours are not doing it because they're inherently more prone to enjoying risk than others, but because the way they calculate whether or not to do something is either non-existent, or faulty.
What's more, they often end up as traumatised as anyone else when it goes wrong. Tombstoning has been quite popular in this part of the world, with all its cliffs and deep water. Quite a few young people, especially in the more risk-prone groups, have lost friends or witnessed terrible injuries as a result, and their response is almost invariably "I didn't know". Not "I knew what could happen, but we did it anyway", but complete ignorance of the consequences. And I can't believe that's just an innate failing of those people - I think it's more that they are often prevented from taking
any risks when they're younger (and the risks are likely to be far smaller), so they never get to experience that "oh shiiiiiiiit" feeling when something nearly goes wrong. So, by the time they hit adolescence, all fired up with hormones, bravado, and peer pressure, there's nothing in them to tell them "this could be a bad idea".
The answer - or one of the answers - is to let them take controlled risks from an early stage in life, and learn not so much where the edges lie, but that there
are edges. Then, the calculation of "what might happen if I do this" gets built into their thinking - or is at least more likely to. They'll still take risks, and sometimes it'll go wrong, but there's a much better chance that they'll do so having weighed up, at least partly, what the consequences might be. Rather than find out traumatically, or too late.