The Presumption of Safety

I believe others would agree that the illusion of safety is not actual safety. The things that we do every day are dangerous, but there is an inherent difference between accepting danger as reasonable and necessary and ignoring danger as though it were nonexistent or negligible. I think we typically operate somewhere between 'there is a possibility of a meteorite landing on me' and 'let's have a pushing contest at the edge of this very high cliff'. This brings up a question of what is truly safe, and how it is different from what we only think or presume is safe.

I like the example of speeding because it is ubiquitous in developed areas, and common to think "it does not hurt anyone to go faster than a sign says." However, ignoring a posted and legal sign is a distraction from the actual issue. I do believe that humans make rational decisions that support the common good; the possibility exists to go faster or slower than a speed limit dictates. However, is this decision made rationally or out of frustration, because "I'm running late," or "my passenger will die from blood loss if I don't drive fast enough"? Not paying attention to the speed I drive has an effect, and it is different than when I choose consciously to drive faster because I checked and it is still safe. The point is to recognize, understand, evaluate, and accept the inherent danger instead of ignoring it simply because it has not resulted in death and/or injury yet.

Why? This goes to the 'right' fear preparing us for what we should actually be wary of. For example, if I am a woman, I am most at risk of violence from an intimate partner-not a stranger. If I am a child, the most likely person who kidnaps or murders me is a parent-again, not a stranger. It is important to dispel the illusions we carry regarding our safety. It is vital to become aware of actual dangers. By guarding against illusory threats, I'm ignoring or don't have the energy to watch for real ones. When I don't pay attention to real danger, I put myself-and potentially others!-at greater risk.

I believe the privileged have the illusion of safety, where we assume that we are safe whatever we do. This may come out of a history of not experiencing everyday violence or imminent danger. This does not preclude responsibility to become aware or maintain vigilance of possible threats. Complacency is not safety, rather it is an invitation to harm.

"You Know"

This may be a pet peeve masquerading as an erudite post, but I think there's some value to bringing it up. I certainly own that I dislike the expression, "You Know," I think it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. The main problem I have with it is it's overuse. When I hear the expression more than I hear actual content, then it's a problem. If it takes the place of real words that convey meaning, then it's detrimental. This is exactly what I witness, time and again.

It's not communication because if I already knew, then I wouldn't need to listen to you. What I'm listening for the words that inform me of your meaning, those that let me understand what you felt, experienced, or think. I can't do that just by imagining what I would feel or how I would react-because those are my own things. What "I know" is what is already inside me, and those would be assumptions, projections, and most likely wrong if I applied them to you.

So, for my sake if not your own, please take the time to find words that mean something and actually allow me to understand you. Maybe we could even find a "You Know"-free day, a sort of national holiday without this inanity.

An Exploration of Nonviolence

There are a few points I want to make here, but they all lead up to what is the main idea I had for this post. I will work to be brief with the preliminary items in order to get to the point.

First, I find it cumbersome to define or describe something by what it is not. This may be better labeled peacefulness or "peace-able-ness", but the traditional term Ahimsa may be best.

Next, this works with human nature, not despite it. Not to get into another discussion, but there are a number of incorrect assumptions built up around what constitutes "Human Nature". I will leave that for another time, as I want to get to the point.

Finally, as social beings we are inclined not just to relate, but also will respond to the suffering and needs of others.

Nonviolence requires the development of an effective means of self-defense. The peaceful practitioner must not only engage in not harming others, but also in preventing the violence of others. I'm not advocating some sort of pseudo-nonviolent militarism. If we accept that all life is precious and deserving of preservation, then we consider the 'victim' as well as the perpetrator and surrounding community. It is precisely because we feel the pain of others that we must prevent the perpetrator from committing their violent act. It is because our own injury or death at the hands of another human would continue to hurt those who care about us that we must prevent the violent act of the perpetrator. We cannot always do this with kind words and calm requests. There is not always time to relate, especially when the other is out-of-control (meaning not rational in the moment). Most perpetrators regret or repent their acts, given time, incentive, and opportunity to examine them. It is imperative that we avert the calamity and the near-perpetrator progress towards repentance. To accomplish this goal, we must have a way of incapacitating the perpetrator that is effective, but does not inflict undue violence (as this would make us a perpetrator in turn).

This also stipulates that the prevention of violence is always the 'highest good', and it would not serve a 'higher' cause to suffer or die instead.

Fairy Tale Ideals

Communication is difficult. It's tricky for me to be clear in writing and I work hard to be understood, just as I do in person. I judge I'm not alone in struggling to have others understand what I say. It struck me the other day how easy it is in fairy tales for people (and even non-human entities) to talk and understand one another. This ties in with my complaint about how simplistic and dichotomous these stories are. There isn't any doubt about what the princess wants, so the prince doesn't need to ask to marry her. Neither is there any question of what should happen to the big, bad wolf or evil stepmother. It's right there as part of their names.

Anderson, the Grimms, and Disney are not the only ones to blame. Parents who have not resolved their own unrealistic expectations and communication issues are a bigger problem. It becomes a cycle where unprepared and immature adults pass on their limited understandings the best they can to their children. I see this as no less a responsibility than talking calmly to rather than hitting a child to teach them.

These stories in no way prepare children to form realistic understandings of the world, and that would be fine if they had nothing to do with the topic of shaping expectations. However, these stories are moral tales that give a sense of fairness and the benefits of being "good". Especially since these are the stories that the most important people in the child's life choose to share they have a serious weight and importance. Being backed up by flashy media and repackaging of the same ideals outside the home contributes to the problem.


When children grow up with this, they must struggle to integrate these ideals into the reality they encounter. Since these books and movies are so simple, they are led to believe that communication should be effortless and bad people wear pointy hats or have fangs. What can it mean when they have trouble talking with others? What are they supposed to think when their "prince" can't just read their mind? How can they have realistic expectations of themselves and their partners with all these stories of "true love" flying around? What about when their princess doesn't share their ideas of fairness and how to be "good"? Or when their stepmother comforts them after dad beats them?

I'm glad for movies like Shrek and Up because they are showing a different side to these fables. I can even appreciate some of the recent contributions to female empowerment through movies like Brave (and I've heard many great things about Maleficent). I think there need to be more relate-able and honest stories like these for our children. They can handle some reality in their fantasies.

Why We Work

I often hear people refer to the so-called "helping professions". I have a sense that this is disingenuous. Every job, every field, and every profession is about helping others. This may not be the expressed or intended purpose (since most businesses operate to make a profit), but helping others is what actually happens. I also believe this is what motivates most people to do their jobs, that inherent sense of reward. Customer service and nursing, banking and policing, teaching and trash collection are about serving and helping others. It may be that nobody wants to do that particular task or people are so specialized that they don't have time or knowledge to do the job; either way, the one who steps up to that role is helping others by doing so.