To hate the term ‘unsafe’

[BernardBlacksBreakfastWine]

Bit niche, I admit. But here’s why:

Life is risky in lots of ways. Basically everything from getting in the car to go to work to playing sport to eating processed food - all carry risk. We generally manage this, and there are communally agreed thresholds in many cases (sometimes mandated by law - eg seatbelts in cars - sometimes not - eg dietary choices). It’s a sort of continuum, if you will, from ‘absolutely fucking reckless’ at one end, through to ‘wrapped entirely in cotton wool’ at the other.

When a choice or an activity strays too close to the ‘fucking reckless’ end of the spectrum, it seems reasonable to me to call it ‘risky’ or ‘perilous’ or ‘very dangerous’; these are all words/phrases that carry meaning of their own and denote different degrees of danger.

But to label a behaviour ‘unsafe’, to me, denotes a fictional situation in which everything one side of an arbitrary line is ‘safe safe safe safe…’ and then it suddenly and arbitrarily tips over into ‘unsafe’ in some sort of banal binary way. My problem with this is that it smacks of a sort of smug, unimaginative box-ticking mentality with no understanding of the nuances or variables of life. If you operate on this sort of model, it leads to a very black-and-white sort of thinking and eventually an abdication of real risk assessment.

I have similar feelings about the word ‘unwell’ instead of ‘ill’ but I’m not sure if that’s reasonable and I haven’t really formulated an argument on that one.

Anyone see where I’m coming from with the ‘unsafe’ thing?

Another who would like an example of what you mean, as I can't say I've ever heard the word used other than to express it's meaning.

The only context I know of the word unsafe is in mental health context, feeling unsafe. It describes feeling anxious and somehow in danger and a bit out if control.

I've also realised that I didn't read your OP properly @BernardBlacksBreakfastWine and you're talking more about a sort of binary thinking about risk that would previously have been more nuanced, rather than the language of safe spaces that I was cross about . I agree and sorry!

I think that arbitrary line that you mention is the tolerability of risk (either to an individual or generally perceived by society). When a risk is perceived as being intolerable then it is viewed as being unsafe.

Activities that are a risk to our safety often have a benefit to the individual or society. The example you use of driving presents a risk of serious injury or death to the driver and to others on the road but getting places faster has significant benefits. The risk is managed and reduced to levels that are perceived by society to be tolerable by the rules that are in place (highway code, wearing a seatbelt etc). If those rules aren't followed then the risk is no longer sufficiently reduced and it is perceived as being 'unsafe'.

You are right that safe/unsafe is a binary outcome imposed by whoever decides it. I think climbing a cliff without a rope is unsafe. The risk of falling is intolerable to me because I gain little benefit from it. Someone who enjoys it would probably argue that it's safe enough.

Yes, it's much easier to say things are unsafe- because almost nothing is safe! So yes, travelling in a vehicle without a seat belt is unsafe, but its not at all helpful to say so if people then assume that travelling with a seat belt is safe. Its not. You could still die. I'm struggling to think of a single thing that could be described as safe.

What people really mean when they say safe is 'safe enough' imo which hopefully means they've done an internal risk assessment but I agree with OP that it would be better for others who are listening/learning to actually describe the possible dangers and assess them overtly. So they realise that there is risk everywhere and it's not all the same.

Plus, 'unsafe' is such a bland, corporate, institutional sort of word. It is a shame the way it's edging out more descriptive language.

I am various Facebook groups for solo female travellers and it really irks me when people ask if places are ‘safe’ - if you are looking for guaranteed ‘safe’ just stay at home

The “Newspeak” language in 1984 eliminates some words and replaces them with un- words e.g. “bad” is replaced by “ungood”.

Your reference to black and white thinking and objection to unsafe just reminded me of it.

I suppose I think of risk as the presence of danger.
Whereas unsafe is more the absence of safety.
But I'd never really thought properly about it.

I can see that when it comes to keeping vulnerable people safe, the terminology seems to have shifted to talking about "unsafe conditions". Should we just be saying "risky or dangerous conditions"? 🤔

The image that keeps coming to mind is a low bunk bed without a safety rail. I think of it as "unsafe" - that is, lacking the thing that would make it safe. Does risky or dangerous sound too much? Sort of. But it's an interesting question - I will ponder!

I agree with you OP

I think the word "safe" was so overused from 2020 in the pandemic that it lost all meaning, tbh.

Agree. Stay safe! Bleughhhhh.

Out of interest, how do you feel about the term "not safe" as in, "it's not safe to wander the streets alone at night"?

I'm not entirely convinced by the idea that "unsafe" demarcates an artificial dichotomy as opposed to a spectrum (but I think it's an interesting question and you've made me stop and think about it!).

You say: When a choice or an activity strays too close to the ‘fucking reckless’ end of the spectrum, it seems reasonable to me to call it ‘risky’ or ‘perilous’ or ‘very dangerous’

But those words aren't really the same. Risk means a high chance of danger. Danger is a certain or very probable harm. Perilous is the same as dangerous .Safe means no or low probability of harm. To me unsafe means the opposite of safe: there is not a very low probability of harm.

There is a linguist test to see if a term sits on a spectrum and the test is: does the term make sense after a gradable adverb (e.g. very) and "unsafe" does. Sometimes can be very unsafe, extremely unsafe, pretty unsafe, and so on. This tells us that unsafety is also a continuum.

So I think the term unsafe is perfectly acceptable. The problem perhaps is when it gets misapplied.

That's the post that nails it.

Yes, sorry - I’ve been a bit slow with the examples.

For example, people talk about staffing levels in hospital being ‘unsafe’. I get that the more competent staff there are, the better, obviously. But using the binary ‘safe/unsafe’ suggests that there’s a magic point on the scale where it pings from unsafe to safe and suddenly everything is fine. It’s just the banality of that which annoys me. Clearly there are official guidelines and standards which dictate what staffing levels are acceptable, but the idea that those rules represent a real safe/unsafe boundary is so simplistic and bureaucratic.

That’s what I initially meant, but I’ve since read with interest people’s comments about other irritating aspects of the word!

As someone who's spent a lot of time on pregnancy threads recently I agree. So many women freaking out because they've accidentally eaten a shred of some food that has been labeled 'unsafe in pregnancy' when what it really means is 'there is a tiny risk that this food could carry XYZ and in the unlikely event that it does there is a further tiny risk that it may affect you and your baby'

Obviously there are exceptions to this, but I think everything being bundled into one group causes unnecessary anxiety in an already anxious time

To add: the implication being 'it's unsafe in pregnancy' = 'you will definitely harm your baby if you eat this'

But lots of situations are 'OK OK OK OK OK hmm hmm ummmm - unsafe'; there is often an absolute demarcation from benefit > risk to stop right now and it's reasonable for somebody's sense of safety and security to cross from OK to uncomfortable to No (I'd suggest crowd dynamics at a big event or train station in the event of cancellations as examples there).

Your voting is too binary

I see "safe" as activities of wider benefit that outweigh risks which have possibly been mitigated. "Unsafe" is where the benefits are outweighed, the risks are not managed or obviously better ways of achieving that benefit with significantly less risk.
There is a lot of grey on that spectrum.

Swimming is a great exercise for health.
There is a risk of drowning if you inhale water or swallow contaminated water.
Swimming is generally made safe by learning effective technique, understanding your physical limits, wearing aporopriate clothing and going to lifeguarded venues with clean water.
Swimming can be unsafe/ carry a high risk of harm if you go to an unassessed body of water with currents, exceed your physical capacity and expose yourself to contaminated water.
People tend to have a binary of swimming pool= safe, open water= unsafe which is broadly sensible.
However, weak, poorly supervised swimmers occasionally drown in pools. I'm not going to say open water swimming is "safe" but the safety rate of informed, prepared, equipped open water swimmers is very good. Swimming in nature has additional mental benefits to in a carefully managed pool. The reputation of "unsafe" is because of lack of risk assessment, preparation, and physical condition. Statistically, I'm at higher risk of drowning from going for a run near the river than a well-planned open water swim! It's not as safe and managed as a heated, indoor pool, but I prefer the benefits of swimming outside.

A lot of people are pretty poor at risk assessment. Child safety is always an interesting, lively discussion topic because the reality is so variable and nuanced. A lot of people don't consider the risks of being too risk averse- being too sedentary, and the risk of encountering people/ content of ill intent online rather than outside while actively playing.

The words "safe/unsafe" don't generally bother me- there are plenty of absolutes at either end. There is a lot of unrealistic expectation and assessment in the grey zone between. In the UK we're used to a lot of management of health and safety compared to much of the rest of the world, and that does affect personal assessment.

(The whole "Covid Safe" phase was really nauseating- so many stupid, pointless rules in order to tick arbitary boxes and fill paperwork)

That’s a separate thing - it’s to get around censoring of particular words online, in particular on TikTok.

OP’s post is almost spooky - I think the same thing regularly but assumed nobody else did. You see it on here a lot - people ask “is xyz area of London safe?” or “is it safe to let my child do abc?” or “It’s not safe to let a 9y.o do such-and-such.” See the recent “10yo walking from the tube station” thread for numerous examples.

Asking whether something is “safe” is a silly question, but people seem to have some emotional need to categorise places/activities as “safe” or “unsafe”, as if in the former they can just relax and know that nothing bad will ever happen to them.

I think it’s because we find dealing with the reality of risk - that it’s always there, and all we can really do is try to manage it - to be emotionally stressful, especially when it comes to our children. So we prefer binary categories, and as long as we can put our decisions in the “safe” category we can pretend risk doesn’t really exist.

I don’t totally disagree, but the choice to use ‘unsafe’ rather than dangerous once you pass the threshold for tolerable risk, to me, suggests that everything up to that point has been ‘safe’. That’s what the word implies. However, if anything beyond the tipping point is ‘dangerous’, it isn’t subtly sending a message that everything up that point is ‘safe’ because it’s a totally different word with its own semantic value rather than being a counter version of its opposite. It’s that message - that everything up to that point is ‘safe’ - that trouble ls me. It’s so simplistic.

I agree OP and PPS have really teased out interesting examples.

@Itsausername91 food choices etc in pregnancy is a great example of how calling something 'unsafe' can encourage a certain type of thinking. Almost rule-based, I would suggest. Compliant and performing compliance as a good pregnant person. This in turn invites arguments about what the actual level of risk is, infantalising women etc.

I paid a lot of attention to what was considered 'unsafe' when pregnant and deciding how compliant to be. I wish now instead of allowing myself to be distracted by this I had used my own brain and applied critical thinking to what nutrition and actions would be good and optimal for my and my baby's health.

So to bring it back to the general point I think categorising something as safe/unsafe can be tightly connected with being compliant with current societal expectations. Something might still go wrong, maybe something life changingly terrible, but as long as you did not do any 'unsafe' thing it will not be your fault.

Oh, and thought I was agnostic on the 'unwell' point, as I sometimes use it to describe myself when I feel fatigued or irritable the result of my body being in less-than-ideal health.

But I just saw it used in an email about a colleague who is off sick all week because they are actually ill with COVID and starting to think you have a point!

I agree OP, and I also agree with the posters who mentioned the co-opting of the language of the abused, and who drew the connection with compliance.

The idea that 'safety' is even possible is a delusion imo - everything in life lies somewhere on a spectrum of relative safety, but that spectrum varies from person to person, and from one situation to another.

I also strongly believe that keeping ourselves 'safe' should not be one of our primary goals in life, but a lot of MNers seem to disagree.

the choice to use ‘unsafe’ rather than dangerous once you pass the threshold for tolerable risk

This language also raises interesting questions to me.... Who defines "tolerable risk"? Tolerable by who?

My tolerance for risk will be different to yours, so who defines what it is acceptable and what is deemed reckless/unsafe? I have a risky hobby, which I am skilled at because I have 20 years experience. Me doing that hobby carries much less risk than someone else doing it without the skills and experience, but society would likely censure us both equally if we were injured or killed on the basis that the hobby is viewed as 'unsafe'.

Currently it seems that those with the lowest tolerance for risk are able to define what is considered acceptable for everyone else. Some of the threads about Michael Mosely were quite eye opening on that point.