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?

I don't see the problem.

@TarantinoIsAMisogynist Currently it seems that those with the lowest tolerance for risk are able to define what is considered acceptable for everyone else.

Agreed ... and there's a lot of condemnation aimed at people who disregard the "official guidance" as to what's safe and what's not. I guess it's the logical next step from the assumption that being unsafe in any situation is equal to asking for the worst possible outcome in that situation. This adds a moral dimension. So you swam in a river without checking its status with the watchdog, and got gastroenteritis? You deserve it, you irresponsible goon!

This is only possible because the decisions about what level of risk is unsafe are getting made by authorities, rather than individuals. If we were more adult about individually assessing reasonable levels of risk in our lives, and taking the consequences, there wouldn't be so much finger-pointing and "But Daddy said not to do that!" attitudes.

Yes totally!

I also agree with the PP about the (seemingly endless) threads on MN asking "Is it safe to [X]?"

Taking one example - "Is it safe to walk after dark in [area]?", well no, of course it isn't "safe". You could sprain your ankle, you could be hit by a car, you could get lost, there are dangerous individuals living in literally every town and village across the UK, and you could run into one of those. I live in a very nice village where crime is almost non-existent, but it still isn't "safe" because nothing is. Even staying at home isn't "safe".

Safety is a delusion - people kid themselves that if they follow a set of rules and avoid doing whatever arbitrary thing other people have deemed to be "unsafe", they will be safe. Because as you say, most people are very bad at assessing risk.

So people end up constraining their lives in order to comply with those arbitrary rules, fearful of being unsafe, and fearful of being judged as reckless. And worse, they also spend their time judging others who choose not to constrain themselves in the pursuit of "safety".

Yes, I get what you mean now. I hadn’t thought about it before but you’re right.

So people end up constraining their lives in order to comply with those arbitrary rules, fearful of being unsafe, and fearful of being judged as reckless. And worse, they also spend their time judging others who choose not to constrain themselves in the pursuit of "safety".

Yup. Because if we didn't constantly reassure ourselves that we'd "done the right thing" by sticking maniacally to safety guidelines, thus avoiding any possible bad outcome, then we'd open ourselves up to the possibility that we might have done the wrong thing – and then something bad is almost sure to happen, and everyone would say we'd deserved it! And maybe we would!

"Official safety guidelines" are the new amulets: hang it around your neck and ward off the evil eye.

Unalive is to get through tik tok filters.

The thing that pisses me off about "safe spaces" is that what they actually mean is a safe space for group think.

It's all lovely and safe until you dare stick your head above the parapet.

I think I understand where you're coming from. Everywhere is expected to be safe these days. Hell, people are expected to be safe. Encountering people with views who differ from our own is regarded as making some people feel unsafe (yes, universities, I'm looking at you). Displaying visible symbols of particular ideological beliefs with the implicit translation, or in some cases actually explicitly worded 'you are safe with me'.

Such is the endgame of a culture of individualism. AFAIC, this whole rhetoric of stategic helplessness and default victim status has now gone beyond tedious. I'm not in my job to make people feel safe. I'm there to stretch them, challenge them, to critique and debate issues which by default are uncomfortable. Unlike not wearing a seatbelt, there is no immediate physical risk involved in hearing opinions you don't happen to like.

As to safety, relatively few things in life are safe. More accidents happen in the home than just about anywhere else and even a high proportion of RTAs happen within close proximity of the home.

Sensible risk assessment and precaution is fine. The above examples, however, have IMO tipped over into silliness. And it defeats the purpose when few people continue to take them seriously for precisely that reason.

I don’t know how to describe it properly but I think unsafe used in the way you describe has entered our lexicon? A woman at work makes me feel unsafe - she’s a bully and I avoid any 1:1 interaction with her. My young children have very high energy and don’t listen when they are excited - I avoid putting them in unsafe situations for them.

I think you're right but I don't think it's very helpful language. Like, if someone was bullying me I would say I was afraid of them and want to avoid 1-2-1 situations. That might be a reasonable reaction to the bully's behaviour, but at least I know it's my reaction.

If, by contrast, I talk about it being unsafe for me I might forget that I can chose my response and feel a bit more like a helpless victim. I might expect people to protect me but this may not happen and I may experience the situation differently, with less agency.

But either way, I'd be experiencing a bully.

However, I find dangerous to be too simplistic.

Something can be unsafe without actually carrying a risk of death or permanent disability - and watering down 'dangerous' would mean it's given less heed: DP telling his DD carrying the cat isn't safe because the cat might get scared and scratch her is a million miles away from her using a wet fork from the sink to retrieve a jammed piece of toast from the toaster, for example.

TL:DR Unsafe is not safe, there's a significant risk or chance of something unpleasant happening. Dangerous is where it's going to lead to disaster, pretty much guaranteed and its sheer luck that it hasn't this time.

Agree, other than “It suits neo-liberalist capitalism very well, because no-one's looking at actual structural inequality.”

I think this language is used by people who know all about have already accepted structural inequality and are aware of their powerlessness in the face of it. All they feel they have left is their own “reality”, and nuclear options such as “you can’t do this, it makes me feel unsafe”.

To an increasingly large extent, as I get older, I actually have sympathy with these people (as a younger woman I was irritated my the mediocrity of it as a viewpoint). Structural inequalities have been the norm for so long that they’re all that a certain demographic knows now. Add to that broken levers of investigation, justice, democracy - well, no wonder they’ve taken to social media to lick their wounds rather than get out there and do something. They don’t think they can change anything.

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.

I thought the same when I went on my speed awareness course years ago. I know you have to set a speed limit somewhere, but it's ridiculous to pretemd that your speed suddenly becomes safe at exactly 30 mph for example. Presumably it would be even safer at 27, so why not make it that?

I agree @masomenos that there are many reasons why attention has shifted from (shorthand) the axes of oppression (class, sex, race) and i appreciate your point that despair at the impossibility of structural change could well be driving this turn towards solipsism.

It makes me despair though. I feel, I suppose, that there is something toxic and narcissistic there too, which weaponises the serious societal failures you identify.

Well, @thestudio , perhaps we despair because we are amongst the last generations that experienced some power. Structural inequalities were taking root while we exercised that power in realms of diminishing importance, grateful for the crumbs we were given (I’m thinking Thatcher to the end of Blair). We made hay while the sun shone. Now there’s no more sunshine, no more hay. Younger people are complaining.

Yes I suppose it’s narcissistic in the “me, I, me, I” sense. But maybe (I don’t know, I want to find out) this is really because they’re powerless. Maybe they’re left with no other option but to weaponise whatever weaknesses they can find just so that somebody listens. And maybe this is what they want their future to look like. Who knows.

You're right that we experienced some constrained forms of power - but the question is whether that power was already invested in us or whether we took it for ourselves by caring, both about those abstract principles and about how they impacted not only ourselves but others with quite different lives and experiences to us.

Probably a combination, I think? I do understand apathy, but I don't understand and deeply resent the retreat from the very idea of (for eg) a class analysis.

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.

Thanks for coming back with an example.
I can't agree with you on that point. Of course there is a point when shortage of staff becomes unsafe. Be that in a hospital ward, a Nursery, a school, a voluntary youth group , a care home, and so many other scenarios.
Yes, we will probably all have a different perception of where that 'line' or that 'point' is, so it isn't binary, I agree, but I would say the overwhelming majority of descriptive words aren't binary. They just paint a picture, of your perception.

If you think about the word 'tall' - People from some parts of the world are shorter than others, so they would consider a 6' man to be very tall. You put that 6' man in a college basketball tam in USA and he would be considered a titch.
Just in this case, you are talking about risk assessment, which is subjective.

Though I agree with @NeverDropYourMooncup
Unsafe is not safe, there's a significant risk or chance of something unpleasant happening. Dangerous is where it's going to lead to disaster, pretty much guaranteed and its sheer luck that it hasn't this time.

A lot of people don't like to think - they want to be told X is safe. Y is unsafe.

I think in most cases it's much better to be able to make you're own assessment and make your own judgement call as to whether you think a risk is acceptable or not.

When I paddle a river I don't think - is this safe or unsafe? I think - is the risk acceptable? Is it within my capabilities etc?

Brilliant post, thank you, I couldn't unpack why it felt so wrong and challenging (to someone like me with diagnosed PTSD) when used so imprecisely but this is exactly it. Thank you!

Yes, probably a combination. I think also the structures of modern society (parliament, the judiciary, media, monarchy, the executive - hell even Royal Mail, the water companies, large grocers, gas companies etc) have all been challenged and found wanting. Tertiary education has been so dumbed down as to be of negative value in many cases. Put the two things together and you have an inability to analyse and a lack of motivation.

There are still people who think like you and me. Many, many people. There are many people who care about others. Compassion exists but it just isn’t found where it used to reside. I like to think that our core values remain unchanged and it’s the times that have changed around them. History teaches us this. We have to adapt, without losing sight of who we are, where we came from and where we want to be. In any event, we’ll be dead before the young’uns, hopefully, and it’ll be their world to live in at that point!

I see where you’re coming from here, and I would agree with this:

Yes, we will probably all have a different perception of where that 'line' or that 'point' is, so it isn't binary, I agree, but I would say the overwhelming majority of descriptive words aren't binary. They just paint a picture, of your perception.

except that institutions do act as if it’s a binary rather than a spectrum. So some report or other will say ‘staffing levels are unsafe’ as if it’s a fact. And this is directly related to the word’s status as an antithesis to something else; it’s not a descriptive word in its own right, it’s a ‘not the other thing’ word, an un-word. The word ‘dangerous’ is a descriptive word in its own right and doesn’t have the same reliance on the opposite concept, so is by its very nature not reliant on a binary.

You obviously didn't watch the channel 4 Despatches programme on the nhs this week. One in 72 dying whilst waiting in A and E. So yes, unsafe.

No it's not

I agree. You put it better than I could.

What the fuck are you on about.
Jumping into the mouth of a lion covered in salmon oil= unsafe.