I recently read Sidney Poitier’s auto biography and he speaks to this point very specifically. As a child, he was pretty well on his own in many ways. He put himself, through his immaturity, into a lot of pretty precarious (threw a polysyllabic word in there for you luftballooneyegouge…hmmmm 5 syllables?) situations.
He says that taught him better than anything to KNOW what his limitations were. Sure, it’s not always the best approach to personal growth, but it does deliver a better person if they survive, and thins the herd if they don’t.
Would I encourage it with those I love? Nope, but when I go into panic mode when I see my grandson 15 feet up a tree, it is mixed with a bit of awe that he has the guts to do it. My heart is pounding until I see his feet planted solidly on terra firma and I do wonder a bit if his next thrill is a step beyond?
Side note. I just had an Occulus experience. It is so weird feeling you are in a crazy dangerous situation, but KNOW within that you are totally safe. Our future is going to offer experiences that will (actually are) replicate swimming with blue whales with all the accompanying sensations, except getting wet. Thrill seekers are going to need bigger and bigger and bigger thrills to get that hormone dose that literally feels great. I think I can hardly wait, but I also wonder if it is really a good thing related to the human experience.
@spitfire3dc
As usual, you’ve tied in rather quickly to the theme of my post.
An attitude of “safety first” means one will never know their true limitations — only the limitations of their fear.
BTW, if 15 feet up a tree unnerves you, just wait until he asks for a trampoline and tries his first back lay-out kaboom!
An interesting note about thrill seekers. If they are doing it just for the hormone rush they are little more than junkies. The focus shifts from confronting fears (arguably a good process that produces some rather fine feelings as side-effect), to seeking the side-effect (addictive process) and the risk having to increase in-step with it.
What could possibly go wrong?!
Adversarialism is often not the friend one might think it is. One can still make effective contrary argument or win a point of debate without it. But we can get so engaged in jumping to conclusions, that we trip on the words.
It depends. Different strategies, different strokes for different folks. Most Americans may claim to want safety, but they aren’t prepared for an emergency. It’s recommended to have a week’s worth of food and water, batteries, clothes, etc.
Then there are the preppers/ survivalists who can take things to the extreme… but you know they’ll come out on top in case of social collapse.
@Jear77
It’s more the assertion that “safety is job 1”.
I got this notion from a Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) interview. He said that safety is important . . . but all-important? He proposed that it was perhaps “job 3”!
A bit of a tangent here:
It’s related I think, to the idea of the worship of security — which in an uncertain world is is a rather foolish thing to worship. Preparedness can certainly lead to FEELINGS of security. But genuine security? What if something happens to your shit? Or you run out and cannot find replacements?
“Preparedness” in actual survival skills is likely a more workable option. Then nobody can “take your shit”; and it’s a lot harder to run out of natural resources compared to manufactured contrivances.
@griz in regards to security… while i may like to be safe, where i live, if someone knows how to jimmy a knife into the space between the door and the frame, they could force it open quite easily. Do i know the knack? No. I was simply told by my friend/ roommate it could be done. The thing that probably protects my safety is that the entrance to the apartment is a nondescript wooden gate.
@luftballooneyegouge i’m working on a similar solution. The problem is that i can’t alter the property, so it has to be something that doesn’t alter/ drill into the brickwork
@Jear77
How do you secure the frame without altering the property? If you have to spend hundreds to a grand plus time & effort,…. you’re still getting robbed,… just by you yourself.
@luftballooneyegouge Drilling into brick wouldn’t work (it’s crumbling on the inside… what do you think it’s doing on the outside – it’s crumbling too). A gate that you can close can attach on the inside can attach to the existing frame, without bothering the existing brickwork.
@Jear77
I wonder if you could present a case for a “reasonable safety issue”, and then offer to solve it by purchasing and installing the lock for them? What sane landlord would turn down a simple fix that would increase the value of their property that they don’t have to pay for or worry about doing?!
I properly-worded proposal could have them jumping at it.
It would help foster “peace of mind”. But really, locks only stop the law-abiding. If someone really wants in, there are ways around or right through most “security systems”.
So the question then becomes, how to get on with a productive and joyful life in the absence of total guarantees?
The original theme of the post was not doing away with sensible safety precautions — but about the obsession with them hoping that one might somehow control all of the “nasty” things in life.
I now see your response about the gate. For a pricier fix, a more astute proposal would be needed. There’s still the possibility of raising money for it in a way that doesn’t affect your personal finances.
But a locking gate is a BIG upgrade to a property’s resale value. If you are going to do something like this for him it would be fair to ask for something in return.
27 responses to ““Safety First” — an off-shoot of the “Safe Spaces” thinking.. Good or bad for society?”
I recently read Sidney Poitier’s auto biography and he speaks to this point very specifically. As a child, he was pretty well on his own in many ways. He put himself, through his immaturity, into a lot of pretty precarious (threw a polysyllabic word in there for you luftballooneyegouge…hmmmm 5 syllables?) situations.
He says that taught him better than anything to KNOW what his limitations were. Sure, it’s not always the best approach to personal growth, but it does deliver a better person if they survive, and thins the herd if they don’t.
Would I encourage it with those I love? Nope, but when I go into panic mode when I see my grandson 15 feet up a tree, it is mixed with a bit of awe that he has the guts to do it. My heart is pounding until I see his feet planted solidly on terra firma and I do wonder a bit if his next thrill is a step beyond?
Side note. I just had an Occulus experience. It is so weird feeling you are in a crazy dangerous situation, but KNOW within that you are totally safe. Our future is going to offer experiences that will (actually are) replicate swimming with blue whales with all the accompanying sensations, except getting wet. Thrill seekers are going to need bigger and bigger and bigger thrills to get that hormone dose that literally feels great. I think I can hardly wait, but I also wonder if it is really a good thing related to the human experience.
@spitfire3dc
As usual, you’ve tied in rather quickly to the theme of my post.
An attitude of “safety first” means one will never know their true limitations — only the limitations of their fear.
BTW, if 15 feet up a tree unnerves you, just wait until he asks for a trampoline and tries his first back lay-out kaboom!
An interesting note about thrill seekers. If they are doing it just for the hormone rush they are little more than junkies. The focus shifts from confronting fears (arguably a good process that produces some rather fine feelings as side-effect), to seeking the side-effect (addictive process) and the risk having to increase in-step with it.
What could possibly go wrong?!
Why so binary? Seriously?
Only through this binary filter could one ask a question like: Is Safety a Detriment to Society?
@luftballooneyegouge
I would invite to you read the whole 2-word quotation I provided as the opening to the thread.
@griz
My questions still apply.
@luftballooneyegouge
A binary of “first” would be “last”.
The more extremist or absolutist view tends to disallow for anything in between.
Likewise, “asset” and “detriment” don’t have to live as extremes either.
Or was it “good” and “evil” you take exception to?
@griz
Right,…. I should be reading your mind and not your words.
@luftballooneyegouge
Adversarialism is often not the friend one might think it is. One can still make effective contrary argument or win a point of debate without it. But we can get so engaged in jumping to conclusions, that we trip on the words.
It depends. Different strategies, different strokes for different folks. Most Americans may claim to want safety, but they aren’t prepared for an emergency. It’s recommended to have a week’s worth of food and water, batteries, clothes, etc.
Then there are the preppers/ survivalists who can take things to the extreme… but you know they’ll come out on top in case of social collapse.
@Jear77
It’s more the assertion that “safety is job 1”.
I got this notion from a Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) interview. He said that safety is important . . . but all-important? He proposed that it was perhaps “job 3”!
A bit of a tangent here:
It’s related I think, to the idea of the worship of security — which in an uncertain world is is a rather foolish thing to worship. Preparedness can certainly lead to FEELINGS of security. But genuine security? What if something happens to your shit? Or you run out and cannot find replacements?
“Preparedness” in actual survival skills is likely a more workable option. Then nobody can “take your shit”; and it’s a lot harder to run out of natural resources compared to manufactured contrivances.
@griz true. There’s a spectrum. I wrote about it in a tabletop RPG article going live tomorrow.
@Jear77
May it be well received and cause them to crave more from you!
@griz in regards to security… while i may like to be safe, where i live, if someone knows how to jimmy a knife into the space between the door and the frame, they could force it open quite easily. Do i know the knack? No. I was simply told by my friend/ roommate it could be done. The thing that probably protects my safety is that the entrance to the apartment is a nondescript wooden gate.
@Jear77
Get a deadbolt.
My percentile dice rolled a 68 when asked if Jear’ll get robbed.
@luftballooneyegouge i’m working on a similar solution. The problem is that i can’t alter the property, so it has to be something that doesn’t alter/ drill into the brickwork
@Jear77
…maybe a metal plate covering the gap?
….maybe even hardened chewing gum?
@luftballooneyegouge the solution is a gate i can pull shut after me and lock. But it’ll take a few hundred $, maybe a thousand.
@Jear77
How does a gate the size of the door impact the masonry less than a deadbolt lock?!?!?!?!?!?
@luftballooneyegouge because i can put a frame on the inside of the door. The door opens *outward*
@Jear77
How do you secure the frame without altering the property? If you have to spend hundreds to a grand plus time & effort,…. you’re still getting robbed,… just by you yourself.
@luftballooneyegouge Drilling into brick wouldn’t work (it’s crumbling on the inside… what do you think it’s doing on the outside – it’s crumbling too). A gate that you can close can attach on the inside can attach to the existing frame, without bothering the existing brickwork.
@Jear77
http://www.ytdk.me/door-plate-locks/door-plate-locks-lock-cover-plates-armour-plate-glass-door-locks/
@luftballooneyegouge something to look into, but it’s a start.
@Jear77
They use ’em on commercial and school doors. They’re everywhere.
@luftballooneyegouge getting it isn’t the problem. Getting it installed correctly is!
@Jear77
I wonder if you could present a case for a “reasonable safety issue”, and then offer to solve it by purchasing and installing the lock for them? What sane landlord would turn down a simple fix that would increase the value of their property that they don’t have to pay for or worry about doing?!
I properly-worded proposal could have them jumping at it.
It would help foster “peace of mind”. But really, locks only stop the law-abiding. If someone really wants in, there are ways around or right through most “security systems”.
So the question then becomes, how to get on with a productive and joyful life in the absence of total guarantees?
The original theme of the post was not doing away with sensible safety precautions — but about the obsession with them hoping that one might somehow control all of the “nasty” things in life.
I now see your response about the gate. For a pricier fix, a more astute proposal would be needed. There’s still the possibility of raising money for it in a way that doesn’t affect your personal finances.
But a locking gate is a BIG upgrade to a property’s resale value. If you are going to do something like this for him it would be fair to ask for something in return.
@griz the door opens outward