I’m talking firstly physical “safety”, as exemplified by (in the city I’m currently visiting) the removal of iconic local statues that have been in place for years, because “inclusive” idiots very suddenly decided they were a “trip hazard”… Because everyone is on their phones now, and therefore don’t look where they are going. 😑
Of course, this is just a symptom of a much, much wider problem, and only “works” because we’ve spent three years being terrified of a fucking virus, and all the tribalism that brought…
But this goes much further - you have “cultural safety”, you have “safe communications”, you have “safety on campus”, you have “LGBTQ+ safe spaces” - all of which comes back to our most bizarre obsession with the primacy of feelings and feeling safe, even if, in reality, you are probably less “safe” than ever…
Some of this is worse in Australia than elsewhere (the physical “safety” stuff here is probably the worst in the world), but a lot of the other ideological stuff originated in North America…
All in all, it comes back to that saying about “freedom vs temporary safety”, I suppose, but geese, what a bleak, sanitized, generic and utterly boring society we are building, FML… 😒
I remember when "campus safety" meant avoiding the hell out of the nearby woods, because a rapist was running around in there ... and I just realized, given the time and place I'm thinking of, it was probably Paul Bernardo.
But what's really bizarre, is when one of those AI programmes bitches about "unsafe content". How the fuck is "content" unsafe?
The Corporations are to blame for that one.
Once they realized they can just spout "SAFETY" at every meeting and poster and training to completely nullify their own culpability in the event of an injury, they never stopped saying it.
And, as is always the case, the Left and the Woke just emulate their corporate masters from top to bottom and picked up on how effective yelling that word was.
I've heard them referred to as "magic spells", and they operate the same way. Recite the magic spell and people do what you want. Magic incantations like "racist", "homophobe", "bigot", "Nazi"...
A (public) high school in my home city is doing a student drag show, instead of the usual school play…
That is the logical end point of this stuff.
And the media laps it up as “revolutionary” and “ahead of its time”…
We’re doomed.
in Australia?
Yeah. Tas, specifically.
Really…
got any based pollies down there?
From James Lindsey/new discourses?
Companies avoid controversy and danger because it costs them money, risks investors, shareholders and advertisers pulling out and threatens the viability of their business.
As ITV are finding out today.
And that's a good reason to openly recite Benjamin Franklin. Or was it a different guy that said "Those who would trade liberty...?"
Yeah, exactly my point…
I didn’t attribute the quote, because no one seems to quite know, lol…
But yeah, that’s the one!
The sad truth is that most people don't care about liberty and just want to be taken care of.
It wasn't always this way, but learned helplessness designed by those who want a massive population of servants from which to choose.
100%
It's a power word that just overrides reason and erases logic.
I remember right after 9/11 and for several years after we had Safety show up in the weirdest ways. To this day there are safety checks at every big theme park, airport, or event.
There was a ring of steel around the Eurovision Song Contest, not just for any potential terror attack but to stop Just Stop Oil protesters getting on stage and sprinkling orange powder during the event. Two weeks later, they invaded a rugby game and one of the players decided to deal with one of the protesters in the same way they deal with the opposition - a rugby tackle to take them down to much cheering from the public. Nonetheless, it will be another excuse for the Government to give themselves and the Police even more authoritarian powers "for your safety".
Of note: the statues are of animals. They’re not ugly, or in any way degenerate, which I guess is why they have to go, lol…
They don’t block the way or anything. The only way you could really consider them a “trip hazard” is if Roy were deliberately trying to…
Which I guess is what has happened. 😑
They’ll be replaced by generic “safe” plantings and greenery, apparently. Which, uhh, I would’ve thought would be just as much of a “trip hazard”…
But then, this ideology isn’t meant to make sense, is it?
Failing its own internal logic is surely a feature, not a bug…
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
We have seen life expectancy fall in this country even as we now are forced to strip for the TSA and drive at slower and slower speeds on the roads.
At the risk of summoning Imp, this is because of women.
In Canada, our PM has repeatedly stated that his job is to keep Canadians safe. This is nonsense; his job is to pass legislation reflecting the will of the people of Canada (which he doesn't do).
Why does he say this? Because women keep him in power; polls show that if women didn't vote, we would have a Conservative majority.
Who, really, is concerned with safety? Men? The guys who drive their trucks through mud holes at high speed for fun? All the boys doing skate tricks? The people who do 99% of the dangerous work in any given society? No, men are concerned with handling risks and coming out the other side more or less intact, which is why we tend to seek risks to take, rather than avoid them.
Women are the ones who try to eliminate risk. Not only is this impossible, it creates a feedback loop; women aren't exposed to the danger that sustains their way of life so they form the opinion that danger is bad, they try to seek out and destroy the little danger that remains to them to feel "safe" and, when that's gone too, they find the next biggest danger. This is because they don't face danger and learn to deal with it; instead they hide and so see danger everywhere.
This is exactly the thinking behind "teach boys not to rape". 99.5% of boys will never rape, regardless of what you teach them. But they could so they're a danger. Teaching girls what to do if one of the 0.5% attacks them is unacceptable because, in the female mind, we need to eliminate danger, not face it (think of the fable of the princess being rescued by the prince; why does it persist?).
So, yes, this is happening and, no, it won't stop until women, as a whole, decide to leave public spaces in favour of their personal safe space ie. the kitchen.
Nailed it.
This has been a thing for at least a good couple of decades now. I remember UK terror laws being introduced for "safety" because who is going to be pro-terrorism? Then the scope of those laws expanded for more "safety" with people defending it using the line of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". And we've also had the expansion of health and safety law beyond the noble concept of preventing reckless danger and businesses exploiting employees and customers for profit by putting both in greater danger of physical harm or death.
It's accelerated since the push for equality and demand to deal with "harm" which has now expanded into "offence", "disruption" and "inconvenience". We have useful idiots in the form of environmental protesters and TikTok influencers who are doing and being allowed to commit criminal acts in order to justify the Government asking for even more powers whilst winding up the public to get them to be on side with the Government but you're now also seeing vigilante action. You have groups pushing ideological arguments to demand the Government make them safe from the outgroup. Warning that failure to do so will result in result in extreme outcomes and harm. Hence we see the likes of the UK's Online Safety Bill, Workers Protection Bill, Protection from Sex Based Harassment in Public Bill, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and Public Order Act which can also be used by the Government to stifle debate, enact censorship, abolish protest and dissent plus outlaw behaviours which were previously deemed risky or offensive - things that would normally be dealt with by telling someone its at their own risk and the consequences are on them or a slap on the face, embarrassment and a downgrade in social respect.
And of course, we had "the event" and people begging to be kept safe from a virus that was sold as the plague with the public demanding lockdowns and our political parties engaging in a tragic game of authoritarian one-upmanship arms race. Plus the war in Ukraine which is being sold as Russia being a threat to the west and a threat to safety which has led to large public support for Ukraine in western countries.
And that's the terrible truth of this - your average person prefers safety to liberty. Not temporary safety either, permanent safety. They want a powerful, dominant leader who keeps them "safe". And will vote accordingly. We on this discussion board are not typical being on the pro-liberty side of the debate but most people in society are not.
Average is the key word here. The average of red and blue is purple.
But is there one group in particular who's overly concerned with safety? A group who was once protected and kept from danger but is now trying to engage in general society? A group represented by powerful special interest lobbies, a group who has been able to weaponize the judiciary on their behalf for decades?
OHS, Occupational Health and Safety is basically the result of litigation
Just offer those people who want safety prioritized before everything else the comfort and safety of a jail cell for the rest of their life. They'll have food, shelter, and security provided.
We used to; they were called homemakers...
I meant literal prison. Home makers still have liberty. If they want absolute safety, that must exclude liberty absolutely as the cost to be paid. Just like an inmate in a maximum security prison.
The obsession with safety is incredibly ironic since in a stagnant society the average person's value drops to zero. If a large number of people were to disappear, would we lose out on any major technological advances, innovative new products, great works of art, wonders of construction, or anything else that would improve your life? In a healthy society that is making real progress the answer is yes, so you have reason to personally care about the well-being of strangers. In a stagnant society you wouldn't miss out on any advancements by them disappearing, and would likely be better off as limited resources are split between fewer people. As society stagnates most people should have no reason to care for the safety of strangers, and they have little reason to care for their own safety as they wouldn't miss out on a great future advancements. Why is it then that the opposite happens, where safety is being pushed to an absurd degree when most people have no reason to care about it?
Needs a meme reply.
"It doesn't actually threaten me in any way, but maybe if I say that its about my 'safety' then you'll stay quiet and let me attack things that I don't like."
Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither and will soon lose both. This is the result of deliberate social engineering starting in public education.
Part of society catering to women.
RFK made a couple of nice statements a few days back.
All this talk of safety but don't you dare protect yourself or your kids.
Everywhere the liberal narrative took hold things got less safe.
When minnesota started doing blm riots murders shot up.
New york implemented so called "bail reform" on violent criminals and murders shot up.
Under any normal circumstances one would notice that crime went up, but someone dems find that if they just keep saying safety then lots of people just assume they're working on safety, rather than destroying safety.
Actions: make everything less safe
Words: we're improving safety
Perception: safety is fine
Honestly I think this one is one of the few things that aren't malice or marxists.
I work in a field in Australia that could be grouped under the "safety" field and get paid absurd money for essentially nothing so companies can say they are doing "safety"
I think occam's razor applies here, nothing can be 0 risk so people will always get hurt/die. But all the low hanging fruit has been plucked, now the only hazards are freak accidents, incompetent workers or as a result of previous safety measures.
We are objectively "safe enough" but no-one can ever say that because there will always be someone getting hurt and someone else (probably a lawyer) will point to the person saying "safe enough" and the person hurt and claim that you didn't care about that person and caused their injury/death.
But I feel like there is a difference between OH&S at work (which is sometimes reasonable), and someone deliberately finding bizarrely unlikely scenarios, in public places, then campaigning to have objects taken away, because someone “might” trip over them, if they weren’t looking…
I walked through the space yesterday. It’s gone from full of art pieces and activity (which kids in particular loved), 10 years ago, to absolutely nothing now, except seating (which of course you can also trip over) and some trees…
It feels absolutely deliberate, I must say…
Consequently, foot traffic declines; businesses leave, etc…
council "risk management" consultants have to justify their cost.
Unironically, yes.
The men doing these jobs may be concerned about their safety, but they're less concerned by that than actually getting the job done. These jobs will never be totally safe but the men who do them understand that they still need to be done.
Of course we should be concerned about safety, but not at the cost of literally everything else, which is what we see elsewhere.