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… 😒
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?