Friday, February 10, 2017

Animal’s Guide to Negotiation and Compromise -- Out at the Sharp End.

I was asked the eternal question. Well okay, so it’s not really eternal, but -- because I talk so much about negotiation and compromise -- I get asked it A LOT. “How do you negotiate with such people?”
Such people are the bullies, temper tantrum throwers and “NO COMPROMISE!” idealists (read, pain in the ass fanatics). 
 
 
Here’s the thing. Most the people asking this question are ‘nice people.’ Unfortunately nice people translates into “People who have been conditioned to let others do the dirty work about shutting down bad behavior. People who have lost the skillset -- much less the willingness -- to do it themselves.” 
 
Yeah, about that... 
 
 
Here are basic skillsets to help you break the habits that leave you vulnerable to being bullied by ‘such people.’ 
 
 ****
 
 
We're going to start by quoting Nietzsche. "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
 
 
Keep that in mind, it will become important later.
 
 
Moving on, realize that although I speak long and loud about compromise, it isn't from a warm fluffy kumbaya singing standpoint. As a friend of mine once summed up "Negotiation without the means to back it up is just begging." I'm not much into begging. 
 
 
My deep love for negotiation and compromise is rooted in fact that shooting people -- who are shooting back at you -- is rather ... unpleasant. 
 
 
(And gawds know there's all that paperwork. But before paperwork there's the whole surviving being shot at issue. Which people who haven't been shot at [or think they have a monopoly on doing the shooting] don't realize is NOT as easy as they think. And of course when your friends and loved ones don't survive, that isn't much fun either.)
 
 
Negotiation, compromise and treating with people are the absolute best and effective ways I know of keeping blood off the walls and all over the floor. Yay for them! Love not having to scrub the walls or shampoo the carpet. 'Cause trust me, that shit smells.
 
 
Many people fail to understand that compromise has different levels. Not just that compromise works on many levels. (Which BTW is very true, yet often forgotten.) But there are many levels and types of compromise. Yeah there's all kinds of complex, on going negotiations over trade, business, and politics. But it works it way down through different levels until it can get to "You don't make a move. I don't make a move and we both walk away from this situation alive." If it's a one time deal, it's done and over. If there are proximity issues then it gets into a more complex 'to avoid having to shoot each other you stay on your side of the fence and I stay on mine." 
 
 
But remember kiddies -- YAY for compromise!
 
 
Having said that. Not everyone can be negotiated and compromised with. In fact, some people you're just going to have to shoot in the face. Not just because they're absolutists, but because they'll never agree to 'you stay on your side of the fence and I'll stay on mine.' (Which is ~gasp~ a form of compromise.) Nope. EVERYTHING is their side of the fence and you are on their property.
 
 
Make no mistake. These people exist. However, they are radically different than someone who has learned they can get away with not compromising. To the point of it has become their negotiation strategy. And a very successful strategy it has become. These folks are as common as cockroaches. And now for the cold bucket of water over your head. 
 
 
This strategy relies on you being a wimp.
 
 
But more than that, it relies on you not knowing there are other options than negotiation and compromise. Or you being unwilling to do them (see wimp comment). All you got is trying to compromise (see begging comment). Their hissy fit depends entirely on you not being willing to make NOT compromising too costly. Not in the sense of a screaming argument costly, but a shrug of 'okay, if you insist' before you drop them.
 
 
The reason I say they are as common as cockroaches, is like cockroaches they come in all sizes. They can range in size and targeting from a 12 year old being snarky with mom to Khrushchev banging 'his' magical third shoe on the table at the UN. The core strategy is the same, what varies is the degree and who they target. Which basically boils down to who they think can get away with it with.
If you're afraid to stand up to people -- whether because of the person or from fear of institutional reprisal -- that means you. In other words, you aren't negotiating, you're begging -- and THEY know it. Even if you don't.
 
 
Which brings us back to not becoming a monster, but first a word about negotiating.
 
 
One of best models for negotiation I ever came across is done with two circles. (BTW, I got this from SSgt Grizzly Bear whose MOS is 'Find evil men and shoot them in the face.") Each circle represents the wants and needs of a party. For negotiation to happen there has to be some overlap (Think Venn Diagram). The more overlap -- while still staying distinct -- the easier it is to compromise. The less, the harder and more likely failure. 
 
 
Common example, you have something to sell. I want to buy. You have the maximum you want and minimum you'll take. I have maximum I'll pay and the minimum I want to pay. As long as there is overlap, we have something to talk about.
 
 
The key point here is everyone gets what they need... not necessarily what they want (there's a difference)... but what they need. This makes compromise a win/win.
 
 
If however, there is no agreement (no overlap if you will) we go our separate ways. I do not need THAT particular one. We walk away from each other seeking to get what we need -- if not want. Although not technically accurate think of agreeing to walking away as a lower level of compromise and agreement. We agree to let the other person go about his/her way.
 
 
Got this? If everyone plays by these rules we can go about our business of getting what we need -- and maybe even what we want. Cool beans.
 
 
Problems occur however, when someone wants their 'circle' to eclipse yours.This is not compromise or negotiation, it's an invasion. Worse, it's not an occupation. It's more like the aliens form Independence Day where they come in, strip the planet and then move on.
 
 
We're gonna have to talk about that happy horseshit.
 
 
MOST people who do this behavior are El Cucaracha. They're used to getting away with this because most people are afraid to say "Not only no, but HELL no." (Or if you're a Southern girl, "Awww hell no.") When they run into people who are willing to say it ... well, you know what happens with roaches when you flip the light on. (Except unlike real roaches, damn are these people loud as they scurry away.)
 
The others are the ones you're going to have to evicerate because there's no compromising with them. They're going to try to invade no matter what you do.
 
 
The trick is not only to be able to tell the difference, but react accordingly. Even it it means letting the son of a bitch live and walk away because he didn't cross the line. But if he does cross the line... oh well, I'm pretty sure I made it clear what would happen.
 
 
I hope the Nietzsche quote has been simmering on the back burner. Because the only thing that separates monsters from those fighting monster is ethics, rules, standards and codes of conduct. Things like letting the cockroaches scuttle to safety -- instead of assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist and must be shot in the back of the head.
 
 
What are your standards about telling people no? What are your ethics about compromise and negotiation? How much do you allow other people to get what they need? Are you playing for a win/win or is your negotiation based on the assumption it's a zero sum game? What are the lines you won’t cross? What are the lines you absolutely won’t allow to be crossed? Under what conditions will you act? When will you start? When will you end? How much time do you spend honing these skills?
 
 
You asked how do you negotiate with 'such people'? Well start out with it's not a technique. It's more understanding negotiation and compromise. Then responding on the level and how hard they're coming at you. And, of course, balancing the acceptance that sometimes a situation can't be negotiated (and must be resolved by other means) with not crossing the line and becoming a monster yourself.

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

A Thought on 'Deterrents'

Don't get married to them. By that I mean 
A - don't believe having something that you think will ‘deter others from certain behaviors’ is all you need. 
B - get too convinced that because you have this deterrent someone won't make a run at you.
 
Those are common traits among people who have deemed an item and/or an attitude as a deterrent. Theirs is an unwarranted confidence. They have mistaken an item/attitude for what makes up actual deterrents -- namely the willingness, knowledge, ability and commitment to act and awareness.
But most of all trust. 
 
I'll explain that last one in a second, but first, a general thought on the others. It's not an item or an attitude that's 'the deterrent.' In fact, effective deterrence is a combination of factors. Each of these boost the others to make it not a bluff. That is a major problem. See the so-called deterrent many rely on is pure bluff, because they lack willingness, knowledge, awareness, ability and commitment.
They want that ‘one thing’ they have invested in to do all the work. That’s all they think they need. They don’t understand it isn’t the one thing. It is willingness et al that are most likely to cause would-be attackers to calculate the odds of success -- and say, "Uhhhh no." 
 
But know this: That decision is up to him, not you. Sorry for that little reality break, but that’s what-it-is out at the sharp end. But also know a big part of that calculation isn't about you -- it's about his resources and what he can do. Unlike many people in our modern world, the bad guys are looking at other people. But he’s not just looking, he’s ‘reading’ (awareness). If he 'reads' you correctly --as in he figures how far you are willing to go and he’s willing to go farther then -- your 'deterrent' or not, he's going to go. But if during reading you he sees your willingness et al goes as far as his ...well that's not going to be fun. It will be even less fun for him if yours goes farther than his. Around that time -- unless you’ve done something spectacularly obnoxious -- odds are good he’s going to go find another target. 
 
About that floor show of obnoxiousness...
 
Funny thing, willingness, awareness, knowledge, ability and commitment aren't loud and showy. In fact, loud and demonstrative are common indicators of their actual absence. (Those two are like chrome, more a plating -- not through and through.) The signs of willingness et al are far more subtle. But you can see them if you look for them -- and unless you're wanting to bleed you better look for them. While cheap ass punks and the young and dumb often don't know the signs, those experienced with violence do. Their lives depend on being able to recognize them. As such, it is the presence of willingness et al that usually cause the heavy hitters to recalculate. 
 
Which brings us back to that deterrent. See in the comfort and safety of quiet moments or the internet it’s easy to say or think ‘rawr, rawr, deterrent, rawr.’ But you know old Louis L’Amour had a saying, “Adventure is just a romantic name for trouble. It’s swell reading about in the comfort of your recliner, but it’s pure hell when it’s coming at you in a dark and lonely place.” 
 
I mention this because when trouble is looking them in the face, many people -- who thought that they only needed ‘one thing’ -- suddenly realize it needs a little boosting. Well, it’s always needed the boost of willingness, knowledge, awareness, ability and commitment, but until that moment they’ve blown those off. So in the heat of the moment they try to patch it with hostility, threats, insults and truculence. They do this in an attempt to show how scary and serious they are. (“See, how dangerous I am? You better not mess with me!”) 
 
First, like their deterrent, it’s a bluff. Second, it’s a bad one. Third, this behavior is well known sign among the violent of someone who isn’t able to back it up. Fourth, most of the time it’s obnoxious. (As in Peyton’s, don’t insult, threaten or challenge.) Fifth, which personalizes it. Which now means, the guy has more reasons to attack. Reasons, you haven’t just given him, but like a shovel full of poop, you’ve thrown on him.
 
What a lot of people don’t realize is that their belligerence to shore up their bluff of a deterrent, is often what is going to tip the scales for the guy to attack. Worse, now because you’ve personalized it, he’s going to be coming in a lot harder than he would have before. Not only because you’ve insulted him, but you’ve also shown him how hard he has to attack you in order to ‘win.’ You’re so-called ‘deterrent?’ It’s not working anymore and -- even if it’s an item -- now you’ve just showed you’re more mouth than commitment. 
 
Your willingness, knowledge, awareness, ability and commitment, are vital elements in helping someone decide to ply their trade elsewhere or find an alternative strategy. But remember I mentioned trust? That’s something that a lot of keyboard commandos don’t understand. Which is a problem in and of itself. However a far bigger problem is how many instructors don’t understand how important trust is either. And how not understanding it, they don’t include it in what they’re teaching. 
 
See a would-be-attacker hast to trust you. By that I mean he has to know in his heart of hearts that if he continues to do A, you will injure him. However, if he instead chooses to do B, you will not.
 
Setting aside all the happy horseshit about turning an escape route into a death trap, there’s solid truth to ‘Nothing fights harder than a cornered rat.’ If your behavior puts a person into a corner, you’re going to discover the truth of that. This especially if you’re jumping around, howling and barking, trying to show him how dangerous you are. See you might think you’re telling him not to attack. But are you also telling him that it’s not safe to retreat as well? And that can include you not telling him that he has the option to safely leave. 
 
All the talk about lying and deception of the bad guy, nobody talks about you have to be trustworthy enough not to shoot him in the back. He doesn’t know you from Adam, why should he turn his back on you? This especially if you’re scared, freaked out and nigh unto panic. You know all the stuff you fear about him doing to you? Yeah, in that state you’re more likely to do it to him. So now you got two violent people stuck in a situation that neither one knows how to get out of safely. And in fact, it looks like ‘the first one to launch’ has the best chances of getting out of that mess intact. 
 Congratulations, in your fear, you just made his best chance to survive is to attack you. That’s why trust is so important. Someone who has the willingness, et al to act, must also be trustworthy. Trustworthy in the sense of if Loverboy acts, the bad will happen. Trustworthy that if he doesn’t, it won’t. 
 
 Hopefully by now you’ve begun to catch on that ‘deterrence’ is not an end game. It’s more of a calculated strategy to keep things from going to the next level. Often it works, but inherent in it working is having what it takes to take care of business when it doesn’t. And that’s where most people veer off into la-la land. 
 
First are the people who think all they need is that one thing. We’ve just talked about them, but now we’re going into some flavors. What sets the first set of folks apart is how often they don’t really think about all the things they’re doing that put them into situations where bad things can happen. I’m talking about because they have this ‘talisman of protection’ they can walk home alone from the bar at night. If it fails, they’re either at a complete loss or they try to patch it with belligerence. 
 
Second are the people who figure it’s going to fail, so why bother? They figure they’re going to be attacked no matter what so they get their ‘self-defense’ in first. Yeah, that’s called “starting it.” These are the folks who usually end up in prison whining about how they’re there for defending themselves. (When in fact they did all kinds of dumb things that took it outside the boundaries of self-defense -- like walking off their property, armed, to confront an obnoxious neighbor.)
 
Third is a subset I’ve run across in the SD world who both have their own unique definition of self-defense and...well, appear to be itching to unload on someone. I mean they’re looking for an excuse to ‘defend themselves’ against perceived aggression. What they have under their belt isn’t a deterrent, it’s a felony conviction waiting to happen. (These folks often self-identify with comments like “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6” or “There are no rules in a street fight.”) 
 
The fourth category are folks who never stopped to think that there was something beyond common sense and a deterrent. This group is by far the largest. I’m talking about the average good person who has a gun, knife, golf club or baseball bat for home defense. They don’t go out of their way to find trouble, nor do they do many things that will raise their chances of trouble finding them -- like walking home alone at night. At night, they’re usually home watching TV or doing the laundry. As their lifestyle doesn’t invite trouble it usually passes them by. When trouble does come a’calling, the greatest danger to them is thinking that the item/attitude is going to do the work for them. All they have to do is display it.
 
It is this last category of people who really need to understand what deterrence is and isn’t. This especially because most of them do not have the willingness and commitment to use an item. “Wait, me just showing it to you was supposed to stop you!” (The same goes for attitude by the way.) While those who do use the item (or attitude) aren’t acting out of commitment, but fear. Usually that manifests as using it at ‘the wrong time.’ Just so you know, fear is NOT the same as ‘reasonably believes.’ Which going back to something I mentioned earlier, is why so many homeowners are in prison for shooting an intruder in the back. (Remember that trust issue?) 
 
You really need to sit down and do some thinking about what you think you know about deterrents. Do some research and talk to a few folks who actually have been through situations. You’ll find they often talk about things that instructors don’t mention. Things that are present in the field, but until you’ve been out there you don’t know how important they are. 
 
I mentioned something earlier you need to know and seriously consider. Too many people think deterrence is the end game. It’s not. It’s more of a useful by-product of the combination of other factors. Factors, that if you’re lucky, you’ll never have to use. It is a huge paradox about us humans that the willingness to use physical violence usually means you don’t have to. That is a good thing. But the key word here is ‘usually.’ There are always going to be circumstances that, try though you might to keep it from going, it will go down. You can do everything right and the other guy decides to jump (especially the young and dumb). That’s where you’ll need to use that willingness, knowledge, awareness, ability and commitment. 
 
Having said that, the more willingness et al you have, the rarer those times are. Incidentally, when you have these, the bigger trick is to be able to recognize when the other guy has changed his mind and the threat has passed. (“Oh goody, I can go back to drinking my coffee.”)
 
Unfortunately, many people want the glorious result of deterrence, without the investment of developing willingness et al. At best, they are bluffing. At worst they are putting themselves into high risk situations with nothing but a bluff. 
 
So in closing let me say: Your attitude isn’t the deterrent. In fact, attitude often gets you into more trouble than it solves. It’s not the weapon that is the deterrent. While we’re at it, you’re not the weapon. If you’re going to do things that increase the likelihood of trouble finding you, you’re going to have to shift mental gears WHILE you’re doing them. (For example, walking home/to your car at night requires a different mindset than you had in the bar or at work. And it certainly isn’t the same when your inside of them.) 
 
What’s going to cause trouble to steer clear is you being will do whatever you have to to get home to you loved ones. That’s going to change your body language. That’s a message you can’t fake. If you don’t have that willingness and commitment you don’t have a deterrent, you have a tailsman you’re clutching as you walk by the graveyard. In which case you might as well start whistling too -- it’s about that effective.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Musings On Trump's Victory and Hysteria (Oh, and BTW, your bodyguard just got fired.)

Let me first say that no matter who won there was going to be violence. As we're seeing now and we will see more of the same..
 
Having said that --unless certain things happen-- I think this country has taken a MASSIVE step away from the major shitstorm I was seeing as likely (if Hillary had won). Make no mistake, people are most likely going to die, but I don't think it will be as bad if Clinton had got into the White House.
(It's just going to be different people).
 
This election had some serious lines crossed. One of which is while it's been a long tradition of supporters of a candidate to hate upon each other, candidates themselves tended to keep their sniping at each other. A new trend is the candidates started talking shit about the other candidate's supporters. To the best of my knowledge, Hillary really had the lead on this. Or at the very least, she REALLY crossed the line. How much would you want someone in the office of President who deemed you "Deplorable?"
 
Something that most Americans don't even know is that the agencies, departments, etc, they think of as the 'US Government' are under the 'Executive Branch" (There are three branches, President [Executive], Congress and Courts.) So the bureaucracies that run our lives ARE presidential. Every time there are elections not just he heads, but the top echelons of these agencies are swept clean and new political appointees are put in place. You're talking something like 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. This SERIOUSLY affects and effects the direction the agency takes, what they focus on and how they interact with the public (e.g., what laws they enforce and/or how ferociously).
 
The US media and his supporters have been crowing over the goodness of Obama's presidency. Two points on that. One is generalized. When you talk about the person that is one thing, when you're talking about the Administration, you're talking those 4-5,000 people steering these agencies in the direction the president wants. Two is a little more specific. There were a beau coup bunch of people who were getting sick and tired of what they consider overreach, special interests, waste and downright encroachment and forcing things on them BY THE GOVERNMENT.
 
On a more personal level, they were both pissed and afraid because -- and arguably with good reason -- of the number of people who would use these conditions (and government) as their 'muscle.' This made average people vulnerable and helpless IF they stayed in the system. Stay in and be helpless or step outside and take all the hassles of that. A whole lot of people were feeling trapped.
 
An example of this, look at the University of Virginia Rolling Stone Rape case. Not too long ago I ran an article that asked "How involved was the Department of Education in setting up the -- and I don't like this word -- hoax?" (Hoax implies a practical joke, this caused all kinds of damage -- including Rolling Stone is likely going to be sued out of business) In my research I found fragments that indicate there was -- at minimum -- a near conspiracy. It could go up to direct manipulation to create a situation for political and furtherance of an agenda and power consolidation. It -- no lie-- went all the way up to the White House and special task force meetings held there. Once the story broke the Department of Education swooped down on UVA. Once the story fell apart, the DoE disappeared from the situation.
 
My summation was "Fuck due process, we want a witch hunt." How do you handle a multi-state and government backed 'conspiracy' to invoke lynch mob mentality? But you can't talk about it because you know, rape on campus is such a crisis And even if it was 'a hoax' it started a conversation.
That's just one of the things that happened under this administration's watch. It also shows the influence the political appointees have on bureaucracies and 'The Government." But most of all it is ONE example why a huge section of the population was losing faith in the government under the Obama presidency. The government was forcing it's agenda on the people rather than....
The legitimate concern was that a Hillary presidency would perpetuate the current 'agenda' And as said agenda appears to be hostile to the majority while favoring minority groups (oddly enough not necessarily ethnic BTW) -- this was a matter of concern to many. 
 
To the point that some folks were gearing up for either armed rebellion or civil war. This is what I think we've avoided with Trump's election. I've long been telling people to consider that the people who were supporting Trump were the ones who were STILL willing to play within the system. A dangerously significant number of them had dropped out. Most of them heavily armed, pissed and not afraid to shoot people.
 
I'm hoping with Trump's election those people are going to start to stand down. Stand down because the witch hunts they feared would happen under Hillary Administrations won't be happening.
Which incidentally before you buy into the hysteria and tell me about government approved witch hunts that will happen under Trump realize we're talking the difference between a) the continuation and escalation of the polices and interpretations of the last eight years vs. b ) times from 50 to 100 years ago coming back 
 
Times that ended 1920, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1973 -- and most recently 2015. (Anybody here want to tell women they don't have the right to vote anymore?) Times that most people don't want to bring back. We've become accustomed to these rights.
 
I tell you all of this because there are some other people who are seriously pissed that Trump won. Okay that's fine. There are other people who are hysterical because they think the new Gestapo is going to round them up and send them to the gas chamber. (We'll come back to this in a second) The majority of people however, have just breathed a sigh of relief that this election is over. In smaller numbers, but still a majority -- or if not a small majority then a plurality--are the number of people who are hoping the government will change directions from it's 'business as usual.'
 
Which is kinda what they were voting for.
 
In closing l mentioned the gas chamber crowd. First off, I submit for your consideration that people who believe the worst of everyone else, usually has a double dose of those same traits themselves. Second, and this is really worth considering is how much of their fear is based in they've been using the government to not just enforce their agenda, but as their goon?
 
"I want this. Go out and intimidate people -- and bust a few heads -- to get it for me."
 
For example. I have been for gay marriage since the AIDs epidemic. Why? Because as my friends were dying I saw too many people I knew, respected and loved get completely fucked by insurance companies, families of SIGs and the law standby helpless because a couple -- that had been together for decades -- weren't allowed the legal protections of marriage. (Yes, I just said "I was for gay marriage before it was fashionable.")
 
Am I for forcing religious institutions into performing services? Am I for hundreds of thousands of dollars penalties for not baking a cake? Am I for specialized government agencies to specifically hunt down those who don't want to participate? Not only no, but HELL NO!
 
Take any cause and you'll find much of the same. Abortion? Yep. For it Birth control? Yep. For it. Demanding others HAVE to pay for it? Nope. Equality? Yep. Special treatment? Nope. Against rape? Yep. Title IX tribunals? Hell NO! Equal opportunity and employee protection? Yep. To the point of where you can't fire an incompetent employee lest you get a charge of ________(fill in the blank)? Nope. The list goes on and on and on. And they all happen under the government being used as a goon. What can be originally a protection can be twisted and weaponized.
 
The long and short of it is though that I'm betting that a lot of people who are in hysterics right now ... well, it's not just that they've been walking past a fierce dog behind an electric fence and snapping their fingers at it. Many have actively been throwing rocks at the dog. 
 
Well they've just seen the fence they've been basing their behaviors has been blown down. To further the analogy, they're screaming for it to be put back up before the dog realizes it too.
 
Will the dog come out and bite them? Probably not. It's got other things on it's mind. Having said that, they'd better realize their rock throwing days are done. The Administration is about to change and along with it, the protection they not only relied on, but hid behind while abusing others. (Speaking as a bodyguard I can tell you about people you're hired to protect talking shit from the safety of being behind you.)
 
So now that the bodyguard is gone, sure you don't want to change your behavior? Like oh, I don't know, sit down and talk with people of different perspectives instead of insulting, attacking and forcing your agenda down their throat?

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Why Liberals Should Get Guns

There are lot of guns out there already. Most of them quietly collecting dust and ... if anybody asks... the answer from these dusty gun owners is 'No I don't have a gun.' In this blog, I'm not talking to folks who have them already -- whether you admit it or not.
 
As many guns as are out there, there are a lot of comfortable, college educated, middle class people out there as well. These folks don't have guns in their homes. They live in a nice safe bubble and have a 'that will never happen' attitude.
 
My concern is that bubble is likely to get popped. Something that is of particular concern to me is that these good folks do not realize what kind of shenanigans have been being built up under the guise of ideologies they sincerely believe in and support. 
 
As such, I kinda worry for them. Because of the shenanigans of others, I know some good folks who have a target painted on them. A target they don't know or recognize because they're not allowed to notice. 
 
Two points. First, I have friends across the political spectrum. Second, I have also moved away from the hardened echo chambers endemic to the coasts. 
 
That last comment requires some explaining. That’s because most of the people I’m reaching out to live within a two hundred miles of the coast line. To that end, let me say: Just because your lifestyle takes up all your time doesn't mean that's all there is to life. Something people on the coasts don't seem to realize is how easy it is to slip into an exclusive lifestyle that you don't have to deal with 'other perspectives.' The irony of this is it's arguably far, far worse in areas that pride themselves in their diversity.
 
Wait what?
 
This isn't a racial issue, although one can see an ideological divide that runs along similar lines. In fact, I'm going to use that example. In his documentary on racism in the UK Trevor Phillips mentioned a concept call "Sunset segregation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4ANE_-3oc
 
I really like the idea because speaking of a complex and diverse urban area he mentions that people mix during the day, but then go home to 'their own' (by choice) at night. This allows them to maintain a distinct cultural/ethnic identity and comfort. They may work in diversity, but they live in self-imposed self-segregation. A self-segregation they actively work at achieving.
 
That can also apply to ideological echo chambers. You can either choose to isolate yourself among like minded people or you can have an echo chamber built around you while you’re busy doing something else -- like your career. (There are certain professions with political bias. http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/jhaidt-819710-haidt-postpartisan-social-psychology/
 
The more you self-segregate yourself along ideological lines, the less likely you are to realize that's what you're doing. This to the point you don't realize you're no longer leaving your 'ideological neighborhood.' It's a bit of fancy intellectual gymnastics to be parochial amongst millions
It is not until you spend time away from the coast (especially the urban corridors) that you realize exactly how much of an echo chamber those areas have become. Another shocking revelation is the pressure is to maintain isolation from other points of view there has been on you. (Le froggy has been boiled.)
 
Some other things you realize when you get out of the echo chamber that was built around you, are
1 - there really are other points of view,
2- that just because someone has a different point of view doesn't mean he/she is an ignorant, evil and rotten SOB,
3 - how some folks are using your 'good name' to hurt others,
4 - the growing anger against people with your 'label.'
5 - that maybe, just maybe you should start trying to ease some of the growing pressure.
 
I was raised a liberal and - quite frankly I still believe in values such as equality, freedom of speech, rights and breaking institutional abuses of those. (This is why I can have friends across the political spectrum.) But I've also seen enough 'good things go bad,' AND 'evil done under the name of good' to be cautious. With the folks that I'm about to tell you about, this gets me branded as a conservative, sexist, racist, privileged bigot oppressor.
 
Fortunately -- having been called worse (and more accurately I might add) by my mother -- I am thick skinned to name calling. (But share this around and see how much name calling there is.)
 
I'd like to warn my liberal friends that there's a lot of bad stuff being done to other folks under the name of liberalism. There are folks marching under that banner who are pissing off, taking other people's rights, twisting laws/policies, profiteering and flat out attacking others and claiming they are you. In a sense, this goes beyond just identity fraud. In some cases it's outright crime, violence and destruction, while screaming your name. 
 
I identify these faux-peace, aggressive, totalitarians as 'progressives' -- not liberals But as I said, they're using your name to attack others. ("YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH ME? YOU &^%$#!!!! MY NAME IS _________.) 
 
Here's the thing, the folks they're pissing off actually believe they are you. You can be moderate and mellow as you like, but the good name of liberal has been abused by those claiming to be you and representative of what you believe. A very good parallel is these folks are the liberals' version of the Westboro Baptist Church. They aren't you, but they're twisting what you believe and claiming they are you. Far worse, they're pushing towards violence.
 
It's a push that is likely to blow up. How I don't know. Too many variables to accurately predict. 
 
But having been on the ground for a few riots and natural disasters, I can tell you how fast mobs can form and turn against you. More importantly I know how groups you thought you were sympatico with can go tribal -- and your narrow little ass ain't in that tribe. That especially applies to progressives turning against liberals. There are a lot of people who are more than happy to commit violence on their fellow citizens in the name of their ideology. (Look up ‘struggle sessions’ in the context of the Cultural Revolution.) 
 
I'm very sorry to say, the pressure is growing.
 
This is why I'm saying liberals should seriously think about exercising their Second Amendment rights to own a gun. Not because you’re planning to be part of some glorious uprising against oppression, but to keep your home and loved ones safe in case that push towards violence gets out of hand. 
 
As in, it comes to your neighborhood.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Tribes, Super-tribes and Uber-tribes

Something I am working on is explaining the human 'wiring' to be tribal and how modern society has pushed us out of our comfort zone when it comes to the 'size' of our tribe.
 
This is a simple concept with MASSIVE implications. 
 
Starting with that we 'owe' obligations/sharing/support/concern to those INSIDE our tribe. The rules of how we treat those inside our tribe are very specific. We NEED the tribe for our survival. These reciprocal tribal obligations are what kept our species alive on a planet that was trying to kill us. Yes, this is a species level survival issue. Other species went extinct, we haven’t -- because we are social primates. 
 
At the same time, when it comes to those outside our small tribe... well it ranges from not my problem to 'fuck them' to -- and this is the source of my growing concern -- "We're going to get those evil rat bastards." Changing tracks, I want you to understand something about an idea you take for granted. Nations are a VERY recent invention in terms of humanity. (250 years vs. 200,000 years.) Here’s another kick to the gut. The idea isn’t global yet either. But let’s look at what you were raised in in the West. We are told that as a nation we are a giant Uber-tribe. If you are a US citizen you have 324,000,000 fellow tribes people. You’ve been conditioned to accept this as ‘normal.’ 
 
Except there’s just one little glitch...
 
This is beyond most people's functional ability -- WAY beyond. Dunbar's number postulates that we can only maintain between 100 to 250 stable relationships. That is our actual ‘tribe’ (or village if you will). With a little mental gymnastics most people can be comfortable with the idea of a Super-tribe (lots of people like them). We start gritting our teeth at the Uber-tribe. Where people really glitch is when someone tries to promote the idea that the 'tribe' is global. Ummmm I owe tribal obligations to 7 billion people? Totally over the sanity horizon, for anyone not espousing it, is saying animals, trees and Mother Earth are also your tribe -- and you owe them the same obligations. 
 
Riiiiiiiiiiiigght.
 
Here's the hitch. Uber-tribes are just too big. Going back to something I mentioned in passing we can sort of, kinda wrap our heads around Super-tribes. These are imaginary super groups that we both self-identify with and label others as. In the self-identity category, this reduces the ‘uber’ to a smaller, more intellectually manageable super-size. So now instead of 324,000,000 million your Super-tribe is a tens or hundreds of millions. The four main categories we use to separate ourselves from the Uber-tribe are politics, race, religion and socio-economic.
 
We're more comfortable with drawing these lines between Super-tribes. But guess what? When we do that we fall into the "Us v.s. Them" mindset of tribalism. A mindset that historically had checks, balances, limits, consequences and most of all rules of behavior -- especially when it came to getting along. Rules that if you broke, people you loved died. 
 
This isn’t just internal rules that you followed. (Kosher and Halah food rules will keep your family from dying of food poisoning in the desert.) It’s very much keeping people you love from getting killed because of something you did to a member of another tribe. That's tribal warfare out at the sharp end. And despite the bad rap it gets, way more time and effort is spent on trying to keep from having to try to slaughter each other than killing. This is people you know and love dying.
 
Except now we've got a weird mix. A mix that can manifest in many different ways. One way is “Well I didn’t know the guy personally, but a member of my Super-tribe was killed by a member of a hated other Super-tribe, so that’s that.” Another version is "I want my Super-tribe controlling the Ubertribe" (with no idea of what it takes to actually run things). Then there’s folks who seem hell bent on “We’re going to force you to do what we want.” This can -- and often does -- mix with "I'm relying on the rules of the Uber-tribe to keep me safe as I spit my hate at the other Super-tribes.”
 
This is a bit of a problem for a variety or reasons. One of which is you virtue signal inside your own tribe for status and conformity "Those rat bastards..." “Yeah!” Allowing for the “Jungle Book” aspect of dancing and chanting of ‘It’s so because we say it’s so!’ --not a problem. This is acceptable behavior INSIDE your tribe's territory. However the rules of different tribes are different. No big surprise, but what has been lost in the Uber and Super-tribe shuffle is the rules of how those of different -- often hostile -- interact when they find themselves in proximity.
 
These are different still. 
 
This loss is not a good thing. Starting with you don't walk into a mixed environment and behave the same way you do among your own. This especially by calling out how stupid, wrong and evil the other group is. It doesn’t matter how much you believe it. It doesn’t matter how much you do it back home. You don’t do it outside your tribe because you've just insulted about six different people there who are from that Super-tribe. Oh yeah, and you ignored the effects of your word on the 12 others whose tribes are more closely aligned with the other than yours. Now as long as everyone has more invested in keeping the peace than responding, you can 'get away with it.' If by that you mean nobody throws your ass through a window (which in case you didn't know, really slices you up.) 
 
The problem that I am seeing is that good will is waning. More than that, because people aren't getting punched for bad behavior anymore, it's escalating. People in certain Super-tribes are getting more emboldened about their words and behaviors, more self-righteous, more hostile. While those in other Super-tribes are getting pushed towards the point where 'keeping the peace' loses priority in light of the constant stream of insults, abuse and hostility.
 
Which again, 'those rat bastards...'IS perfectly acceptable to say INSIDE your Super- tribe, but not in mixed company. You conduct yourself differently when you are dealing with folks from other tribes -- or, and this is something people tend to forget, in neutral territory. That may be acceptable behavior where you’re from, but in this area you don’t know how many of the people you just pissed off are armed.
 
Another problem that I am seeing is that punching someone for lipping off has been banned. This low-level consequence used to teach people there were lines you didn't cross unless you were willing to pay the price. Two relevant points. There are all kinds of levels of striking and reason for striking. I tell you this so you can understand the first point, a hit is the level you use for people inside your tribe whom you don’t want to hurt. The second point: Violence between different tribes often involves weapons. That’s because the intent IS to hurt. Stop and consider the implications of what I’m about to say. Lower levels of physical violence can indeed escalate. However, they more commonly serve as a safety valve. A pressure relief that would go before the boiler blows up. That safety valve has been wired shut ... and pressure is growing. Worse, it seems there are some folks out there intent on stoking the boiler. 
 
 I’m going to leave you with this thought. You have a whole lot of people who are out there with no idea about the nature of intra and inter-tribal violence. Many of who are apparently pushing for conflict against other Super-tribes. 
 
 Do they recognize what they are doing? 
 
Are they thinking that they are under the protection of the rules of the very Uber-tribe they are rejecting and holding themselves apart from? Are they thinking that the rules of their Super-tribe are the only rules that count? (Translated to: I have the right to do ____, but you don’t have the right to react except according to my standards. Solid example: I can scream my hate at you, but you can’t strike me for my words.) Are they willfully abusing people? This by relying on other’s preference to keep the peace instead of reacting to their goading? Are they giving themselves more and more permission to act because they’ve moved into a Super-tribe echo chamber? An environment that not only encourages, but demands they loudly ‘virtue signal’ whatever ultra-orthodoxy is in fashion at the moment? Is this a fight they think they can start and then walk away from if it gets too intense?

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Why Civil(ian) Unrest Scares Me



I often tell people I weathered the LA Riots -- and most of them have no clue what that means. Nor do they understand why I fear mob uprisings (especially thick are those who are pushing for such uprisings).   You really do want cops keeping a lid on things and you really  don’t want to be anywhere that isn’t happening.
 
I'm watching a thread where anti-cop rhetoric is strong -- including singing the 'No cops! Let people sort things out themselves' song. Yeah, about that... I've seen what happens in those circumstances. It ain't pretty.
Here are some ruminations from a guy who has actually been on the ground when the shit hits the fan. Back in ‘92....
****
 
When the rioting came within two miles of my house, I spent the day sitting on my porch, smoking my pipe, reading with a shotgun on the table. To be more precise, a riot gun. Just so you know a pistol can be scary, but shotguns carry a very distinct message -- namely, “I ain’t playing.” (The survival rate with shotguns is waaaaaaaay lower than with pistols.) I wasn’t playing.
 
Let’s talk about ‘not playing’ What was not widely reported is on the other side of the LA  city limit lines, police from different municipalities were geared up and waiting. Mini-riots tried to break out in multiple cities in the LA area, but the local PDs -- literally -- smashed them on the spot. Meanwhile, inside LA city limits, it was the withdrawal of the LAPD that both kept the damage localized to Los Angeles and allowed it to escalate.

This resulted in looters driving into LA from other cities to 'riot.'

Here's some more grist for the mill. The LA riots, contrary to popular perception were not just a "Black thaing." They may have started that way, but at the end, not so much. LA has been described as a 3 piece suit -- Brown, Black and White. You saw Men’s Wearhouse in the rioting and looting. What is of particular interest is how the established Mexican Community very clearly said "It ain't us, it's the Salvadorians, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans” (newcomers).  Which if you watch the raw video feeds and can tell the facial differences of these ethnicities you can see the Chicano claim holds water.  The importance of this is which ‘communities’ had roots and owned homes.
 
At the same time, REALLY pay attention to when the neighborhoods themselves turned back the rioters.
 
I want to point something out. The LA Riots are considered the worst (in cost, death and injury) in US history.  Yes the LAPD lost control -- but again, the 'idea' was to pull back and let things calm down.  The hypothesis being that since the Black Community was pissed at the police, no cops present wouldn't provoke them.
 
(That's the official version, the actual politics of the situation were ... well, somewhat more complicated. But let's stick with the 'we're going to pull back so as not to further antagonize' version.)

Shit exploded instead.
 
Official numbers of the dead vary. I've heard 54, I've heard over 60. (It depends on how you count.) Over 2000 is the reported numbers injured. While some sources say 10 people were killed by the police, it is generally assumed that most of the deaths and injuries were committed by the rioters. It’s an easy assumption to make; take a look at this clip ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzuWr0FYe5Y
(Fidel Lopez 3:10, Reginald Denny, 11:50)

Here's the issue with official numbers. They DON'T tell us how many rioters/ looters were killed or injured in/by 'neighborhoods' rebuffing them.
 
I tell you this because when you watched  live broadcasting of the riots, you repeatedly saw rioters being turned back by coming under fire by someone protecting their property. I can guarantee you they weren't 'warning shots.' (In Koreatown, there were snipers on the roof.)
What else is not widely reported is that when the National Guard finally did roll into town it was done in a way so as NOT to increase the body count. Yes. You heard me.
 
The broadcast media and helicopters flying over the city were sending the message "The National Guard is coming in at 6 pm tonight. Get yo' ass off the streets before then."
 
The rioters being given a chance to 'go home' -- BY THE GOVERNMENT -- is what kept the body count low.  This even though it allowed rioting to continue for another 24 or so hours. Had the national guard done what they did in Detroit, Watts and Kent State -- there would have been blood in the gutters. That’s because when troops come rolling in and someone in the mob shoots or lobs shit ... the mob loses.

I tell you all of this because there are no simple answers to this. Police cause problems. Police prevent problems. Civilians cause problems. Civilians prevent problems. But what can be clearly stated -- and needs to be understood -- is cops, unlike civilians -- have rules of engagement, limits and use of force restrictions.
 
Civilians don't. That’s the other way bodies start stacking up.