Advice for an attacked liberal

I wrote this because a liberal friend of mine dared to break the party line -- and she was rat packed. The thing is, my advice here is about human behavior in general, not any particular ideology. 

 

*** 

 

~sigh~ Wisdom form Robert Heinlein, "A “pacifist male” is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described “pacifists” are not pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes, they hoist the Jolly Roger. "

 

You have unfortunately run across a scenario that has been known --for years --to anyone who does not agree with... well call it the party line, call it group think, but most of all call it being identified as an 'enemy' to the Great Warm Fluffy. That is a bombardment of verbal, emotional abuse, venom, condemnation, hatred, and 'WTF are you talking about?" accusations and rhetoric.

 

Except you, yes you are far, far worse because you have fallen from the true path. That make you a betraying heretic. Your sin is double because you have left the faith! You know better.

Someone earlier said 'call them assholes, not liberals" in an attempt to deflect negative light from 'The Cause.' 

 

Well no. True believers who engage in rotten behavior come in all stripes. But a lot of what they have in common is the claim that they have a superior belief system that makes them above being human (or at least better than you).

 

Then they turn around and engage in the exact same human behavior they condemn. Behaviors they refuse to acknowledge because... 'they're better than that.' 

 

Or some other mental gymnastic as to why:

1- it's not that but something else,

2- being a victim of it they can't do it to others (e.g., women can't be sexist, blacks can't be racist, victims can't be abusive),

3 - what they're doing is justified,

4- they were just so emotional they couldn’t help themselves,

5- canonical 'law'/doctrine supports their actions. 

 

This behavior-- as absolutely contemptible as one group might find it in another group (and serves as proof why WE are better than ‘those people’) -- is common to all groups. Basically, human is as human does -- mostly it's a matter of style. 

 

I refer to this kind of group savagery against others -- including other groups -- as a default setting. (Hang on to default, we'll get back to it.) What I want to point out first is when we're doing this, when we're part of the pack, when we’re tearing into someone, it seems so right, so justified, so 'reasonable,' that we --literally -- don't see this behavior for what it is. That’s both tribalism and us doing something we supposedly hate.

 

Because it feels so right when you're doing it, it's a hardcore a shock when you find yourself the target of it from those you consider 'your group.' 

 

Oh sure we expect offense from people from other groups. That’s part of the game. (In fact, that's another problem, we often only focus on the attacks, offenses, and stupidity [even if we have to strawman to make them look stupid] of the other group. This actively keeps them the bad guys. We steadfastly ignore, dismiss, minimize anything that might lead to respect and cooperation with those 'hated others.') But our own turning against us? Wait! No! Hey! We don't do that! We're better than that!

 

Well no. Nobody is better than being human. 

 

Still, we can choose to act in ways other than our most primal, default levels. And that's what you're seeing, default human behavior. But from people who claim they’re above it. 

 

Once again, welcome to the human race. 

 

One of our other defaults that we have to be careful about falling into is “man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one.” We’re really good at rationalizing our own bad behavior.

 

I'm going to get personal here for a second and point out that I am by nature not a good person. I'm not saying I'm a bad person. But I have both the power and choice to do good things or bad things. I know this about myself, and I -- just operating from default -- have made both kinds of decisions. It wasn't until I realized that I had to take conscious control of my decisions and behaviors that I was able to turn things around. Hence my saying "I am not by nature a good person. I have to get up every morning and make the conscious decision to meet the standards of being good."

 

With that in mind, stop and take a look at the behavior of people who have decided that -- by default -- they are good, kind, moral, intellectual, honest, caring, enlightened, smart, right, spiritual, yada, yada, yada. (Newsflash, this can apply to liberal, conservative, religious, atheist, male, female, black, white -- again, it's H.U.M.A.N.)

 

Such a person has a default green light for anything they do. Because the inductive reasoning is "I'm a good person, therefore what I am doing is good." From that position, they never have to check their behavior against those standards any more. 

 

This even if what the person is doing is the worst of the default behavior or deliberately cruel, hurtful, abusive and destructive. This is extremely common when someone makes the decision 'I'm a good person' as a default and then decides to vent their bile. 

 

Tying this back to what I was saying earlier, what is a 'happy, happy, oh boy' for a lot of folks is when you do something that violates the group think/party line/noble ideals/standards. You do that and then ... wait for it... you deserve it. All the hatred, bigotry and anger they pretend they don’t have not only has a target, but an excuse to be unleashed. 

 

That is where you're going to see levels of viciousness that is appalling -- especially among people who consider themselves weak and helpless. (or who are nobly battling for the weak and helpless). When self-certified 'nice people' default to tribal, ideological attacks there are no checks and balances on their behavior. See someone from a system that has checks and balances has learned you don't do this or you stop at a certain point. Many folks who come from self-certifying/default thinking haven't. So when they give themselves permission to go off, they get really, really nasty.

 

And they do so with the complete blessings of their beliefs and what a good person they are. This is perhaps the most unnerving aspect of it. It’s not unwittingly a violation of their own, avowed standards of conduct. Nor is it openly sadistic and hateful. This outright violation of their avowed standards is, in fact, sanctimonious and self-righteous.

 

It's not their beliefs that makes someone a good person. It's their behavior -- especially when it comes to meeting the standards of being a good person. Unfortunately, a lot of the self-certifiers believe that just having superior beliefs -- and this goes with all kinds of political/religious/humanism/ideologies -- is their free pass to be complete assholes.

 

The irony of it is how many people who are absolutely atrocious pride themselves on how caring, compassionate, enlightened they are because they embrace a specific ideology. To the point of arrogance and contempt for others.

 

So two bits of advice. One for those flying off on people and one for those being flown off on: 

 

One: Walk your talk people -- especially if you’re priding yourself on being compassionate, open minded and non-violent. Check your behavior against your standards of good -- especially if you’re upset and angry. 

 

Two: Don’t be afraid to call people who aren’t walking their talk -- especially on their verbal and emotional violence.

 

It’s not about the issue. It’s not about them. It’s about their behavior. It’s they aren’t living up to their own proclaimed standards. You claim you’re a nice person? Well your behavior doesn’t match those standards. You claim you’re compassionate? Well your behavior is abusive. You claim you hate conflict? Well you’re attacking and abusing others. Don’t attack the person, but do call them on their behavior. 

 

See on a deeper level these folks are using their ideology to give themselves permission to hurt and abuse others. They know it’s wrong, but by hiding it behind a noble cause they can unleash and spew their venom and hatred. Like hiding profiteering behind the banner of a noble cause, that banner is a distraction from what they are doing. Don’t let the distraction stand. 

 

If you do, they’ll continue to attack. They’ve not only hoisted the Jolly Roger, but they’re self-righteous about it.

Fisking “7 Lies Bad Self-Defence Instructors TellTheir Students”(Or, why one soundbite isn’t as good as another)

First off here’s the link to the article. (Read it first)
http://theselfdefenceexpert.com/lies-bad-self-defence-instructors-tell-their-students/ Conceptually I agree with this guy, but I'm still going to have to fisk this. Replacing one simplistic lie with another doesn't do anyone any good, no matter how well intentioned it might be. And the keyword here is 'might.'

(Brace yourself, this is a long one. And if you say TLDR, you’re part of the problem. This isn’t just your life you’re endangering, but anyone who listens to you about self-defense.)

< start fisk >

Let me first introduce you to an alternative to "Yes, but..."

It's "Yes and..." 'Yes but...' is a set up for a form of contradiction. 'Yes and ...' is acknowledging while the statement is somewhat true, there are complicating factors involved. This is going to be a 'yes and...' piece.

Let me also introduce you to the red flag that went up when the guy called these 'lies.' A lie is deliberately providing false information for gain or to avoid consequences. It is intentional deception.

We cool on this definition? Because let me assure you it's important to note the deliberate aspect. (Incidentally, this includes deliberately calling something a lie to evoke an emotional reaction based on that definition). With that in mind, let me ask you a moral question. Using that definition, we know a lie is deliberate action to deceive. But, what about someone who -- in good faith -- passes on the false information as true?

Is that person lying? (Answer before proceeding.)

Most people say 'no,' the second person is just passing on bad information. The lack of deliberate intent to deceive is where we cut slack for the second person. And for the record getting other people to pass on the bad information in good faith can be a definite benefit for the original liar. These secondary people speak with conviction and without the 'tells' of lying.)

So having established that, we move onto the next question. "What if that second person begins to suspect the validity of the information, but for personal reasons
A- Chooses to not investigate the validity of the information
B- Continues to pass on the -- now suspect -- information as if it is the truth? These especially for personal profit?

Is that lying? Is that something you give a pass on? Is it acceptable because it's for some greater good? What would you call this? And how far can it go before it becomes deliberate deception?

This is what the guy is calling 'lies' and that implies deliberate deception. Like 'yes and...' there's more going on.

Just so you know, I created this 'moral question' specifically for what is being taught as self-defense. Many instructors aren't exactly 'lying,' but they have a vested interest in NOT checking out the validity (or complications arising from) what they teach. While a lot of it can be ascribed to laziness, the question of 'where does it become deliberate' is a damned good question.

While I generally agree with the author's points (as it's a good summation of a lot of the overly-simplistic, reductionist noise that is commonly taught about self-defense), I'm still going to have to fisk it. Expanding on something I said, you don't do anyone any favor by replacing one overly simplistic belief with another. Okay he says the following are lies.

Lie number one: Self-Defence Is Easy
He says:
***
I hear and see this all the time. Instructors who think that if you grab here and touch there and then the opponent will fall to the floor and they tell students that self defence is easy.

***
Yes and...

This is a very market driven problem. Much so-called 'SD training' is what we call 'fear based.' It is not 'danger based.'

Danger based training is oriented on teaching how to handle dangerous situations. (Like how not to cause a melt down in a nuclear reactor, how to move safely around poisonous snakes and tigers, etc) Actual danger based training is commonly very nuts-and-bolts practical (e.g. don't stick your unprotected hand in front of a venomous snake's face). Following this kind of training actually keeps you safe(r) in these environments. (Incidentally, most injuries in these fields come from shortcutting these protocols.)

Fear based training make you feel more secure. It doesn't actually address danger. It addresses your emotions, by pretending to give you solutions to an imagined danger. "Ohhh, I've been watching the tele and I'm seeing all these horr'ble things. 'Ow do I protect myself?"
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/FEARvsDANGER.html

Now fear based training is also closely tied with talisman thinking Which is the belief that all you need is _____(fill in the blank).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J9VEBREa68

It is the search for a simple 'you just do this' answer BY THE CUSTOMER that by and large drives this point. Yes instructors who tell customers 'it's easy, you just do this' aren't exactly lying. They're telling the customers what they want to hear. A story that if you don't tell them that, the customers will take their money and give it to someone who will tell them what they want to hear. Is that lying or staying in business?
That's half of what's a 'yes and...' with this statement. My other problem is with the phrasing 'Self-Defense is easy" (Yeah, I spelled it the American way, he did it UK) Self-defense can be easy.

Physical conflict (especially fighting) is hard work.

I'd like to share another point here. From a conceptual standpoint, picking up a car engine is easy. Actually doing it manually is hard -- hence why we use machines. With a machine you just push a button (easy right?)

Self-defense, if that's your goal is not particularly complicated (easy). That's because it can be as simple as looking down a walkway, seeing two guys loitering in attack positioning and turning around and going the other way. (Not putting yourself into a trap is self-defense.) It can also be as simple as shoving the guy down and running like hell. (Not as easy as walking away before it happens, but nowhere near as difficult as standing there trying to punch it out. Having said that, it can be a motherin' complex and difficult process. On the other hand, the workload can be limited to holding a few pounds and repeatedly pulling the trigger. ALL of those can qualify as self-defense.

The question is "What are the circumstances of the situation?" That, not some generalized use of the term is what is going to determine how much effort it's going to take. You want another wibbly wobbly 'It depends?’ You're not going to know what’s involved until you're there. What's the guy's commitment and pain tolerance? Some people you slap and they fall to pieces, others you can bust his nose and he still keeps on coming. Still others you can put four rounds into and he'll still split your skull with a cleaver. It depends.

The author pulled a sneaky here though in that he uses 'fighting' and 'self-defense' interchangeably.

They aren't. They're two different goals. They're two different results. But what he is correct on is that fighting is hard work -- pretty much always.

Lie number two: Never go to the ground

Ummm it depends.

Once again we have a marketing and demand influencing what people are teaching. The fact that he is phrasing it as an absolute is a a Calvinism vs. the Catholic church type situation.

How's that for a left turn? Here's a fast history lesson. Before the rise of Protestantism and the Reformation, the Catholic Church had become both rotten and money grubbing. They'd not only set up a toll booth on the road to heaven, but going to hell was having economic consequences.. One of the biggest complaints was 'indulgences' Basically, give the church enough money and/or land and you get a free pass into heaven. Murder, rape, oppression... no problem, just pay us enough. Conversely, excommunication was big business. Let's say you're a noble ass deep in debt to a merchant. You can't (or don't want to) pay and the merchant is going to take your property you put up as collateral. How do you keep it? Well you call your little brother up (3rd son of nobility goes into the church -- and the more dad had paid, the higher lil' bro's position). Bishop Little Brother excommunicates the merchant on trumped up charges. Oh hey guess what? According to canonical law when someone is excommunicated all debts to that person are null and void. (Can you say "Knights Templar" boys and girls?). First a guy named Martin Luther objected to the sales of indulgences, but then a guy by the name of Calvin cut out ALL human agency about who was going to heaven or hell. Calvin's 'predestination' -- which is extreme -- is counter-reaction to the other extreme. But most people only remember the second extreme, not the one it was a reaction to.

Never go to the ground is a counter-extreme to the Gracie marketing extreme '90% of all fights go to the ground.' Well of course a 100% THEIR fights are going to go to the ground, they're grapplers -- they take them there. But saying 90% gives them marketing power and wiggle room when some Doubting Thomas shows up and say's "90%? No that's too high."

So from one marketing extreme to another.  And like Calvin, folks forget who started it.

Having said that, grappling is a useful tool to have in your toolbox. Because hey, things do go to the ground now and then. Oddly enough when you're fighting is when the odds of it happening go up. Here's the other ...issue. I tell people that what is taught as grappling works right out of the box. It's a really good tool ... when you aren't trying to hurt someone.

If your job is arrest and control, restraint and containment until someone shows up with a syringe of happy juice or any other restrain without injuring (or minimum injury), or you have to sit on a friend or Drunken Uncle Albert at a family reunion, then grappling is GGGGRRRRRRRRREEEeeeat! No bullshit. No lie. For those circumstances grappling is the tool to have in your box.

For self-defense? Not so much. Oh and fighting? Yeah, there too.

The goal of ground work, which is an important aspect to have in your SD training is to GET UP ASAFUCKINP! You not only need to know how to cause major injury with the limited mobility of being on the ground (to get him to let go), but you also need to be able to get up quickly and SAFELY!

See here's the problem with grappling during both self-defense and fighting. When applied to someone on the ground, the shod human foot is considered a lethal force instrument in many states. It doesn't necessarily have to be other members of a wolfpack, there are lots of people who in a bar will take the opportunity to kick two people when they're down. If you're too busy 'fighting' the guy, you'll never see these other attacks coming in.

This is also why getting up safely and quickly is so so very important. It's not just a matter of getting up fast. Many of the fastest and most familiar ways of getting up leave you completely exposed and vulnerable to incoming attacks. Both hands on the ground levering you up? Believe me when I tell you a biker boot to the face can put you down and out. A kick that you can't block or dodge because your hands are busy being on the floor.

Now, reread what the guy wrote here:
***
So you are out and a guy has an issue with you. He hits you hard in the face and you punch him back, he lands 2 or 3 times and your really dazed. He hits hard and fast and is clearly a better puncher.

What are you going to do? Stand there and get beaten?

But what if some really strong guy stands there and outweighs you, and is bigger than you? What then? are you going to trade punches with a person who has 20 kilos weight advantage over you?

I have been to the ground lots of times because it made sense. Very often I would have lost if I had traded punches with someone. Yes there will always be a risk when going to the ground that you can get kicked or punched by the mates, but that risk still exists on your feet too!
***

Notice he's talking about fighting, not self-defense. Which hey, he's got a legitimate point for fighting.  But then he follows up with

***
Going to the ground should be a tactical decision, if it makes sense for the circumstances do it, if not don't. There is and should never be this blanket rule of "never go to the ground unless you have no choice"
***

Yes and the first few 'tactikool decisions' is assessing if it's fighting, use of force or fuckin' self-defense! Two of them grappling makes sense. Third, not so much.

There's a BIG difference in goals, tactics and results between groundwork in self-defense and floor fighting

Here are some common scenarios in terms of self-defense. One you down and him standing. Defending oneself from attacks in this position is a very distinct skill set. But you ONLY do it until you can get up again. Him down and you up. In this case, WHY AREN'T YOU RUNNING? Both of you accidentally going over in a tangle. Repeat after me "Break contact, continue mission" No fancy grappling moves. Get off me and get up. The guy is bigger and stronger and is trying to overwhelm you so he tackles you and takes you to the ground. See above. (Break contact...). The LEAST likely, but not uncommon is the guy IS a grappler. In which case, why do you want stay there? Or if that doesn't make sense, let me rephrase it another way... WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO DO? BEAT HIM AT HIS STRONGEST GAME? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Hey how about, since you're good at throwing the pigskin around, you jump into the middle of a NFL game? (American football to the rest of the world)

So do you need some floor work and familiarity with being on the ground? YESssssss

Am I talking about grappling? BJJ? Yudo? MMA style floor fighting? Not only no, but HELL NO! But framing it in terms of "Never is a lie, so learn grappling" is replacing one set of problems with another. Lie number three: You do not need to be fit for self-defense.

In his Burke series Andrew Vachss has a character the "Gateman" who is confined to a wheelchair -- but is one of the most deadly shooters in the series. Yeah, you don't need to be in good shape to pull the trigger.

Talking in real life, there was my 80 y.o. Korean Vet neighbor who -- while discussing a problem drug dealer in the neighborhood -- said "It's been a long time since I shot someone, but I still remember how."

Once again the author confuses (perhaps deliberately) fighting with self-defense. News flash, you DO have to be in good shape if you're fighting. If nothing else because fighting is a highly anaerobic activity.

Which hey, surprise, surprise you can be aerobically fit and STILL get wiped out while 'fighting.' Unlike jogging, fighting is fast burst energy expenditure. If you're not conditioned this way, you'll quickly run out of steam. Granted someone who is not in good shape will burn out faster than someone who is in good shape. But the type of conditioning is important, not just generalized good shape.

This is a reductionist statement That yes, if you intend to hang out and fight you do need to be in good shape.

On the other hand, you know what? Being in good shape (or at least moderate shape) really is a matter of good health and well being. So yeah, it's kind of important but for reasons other than having to do with self-defense.

In the author's defense, I will also say that he is from the UK. Where weapons are both limited and these limits make it VERY nice to be a yob. Safe too. They know they are dealing with a populace (including other yobs) that don't tend to be armed. This has a MAJOR effect on their aggression and tactics. As in yobs in England tend to look upon fighting as a fun hobby.

This gives a distinct advantage to the young and buff when it comes to long drawn out fistfights. Which hey, why would you want to do that shit if you're 40, married with kids?

Once again though we end up with what happens when you conflate fighting with self-defense.

Lie number four: Awareness will help you avoid most incidents.

Some years ago I watched a second generation from Gichin Funakoshi do a kata. (His dad had been taught by Funakoshi, dad taught him.) As I watched a kata that I'd seen hundreds of times before, I stood up in a room full of people pointed and roared "THAT WOULD WORK!" I often joke that night I was made to eat raw everything bad I'd ever said about karate. That's the conciliatory version. The other version is I was proven right, because it demonstrated what had been lost from what is being taught AS karate. (Or as a friend of mine so eloquently summed up, that demonstration "was the first time I'd ever seen karate," instead of the cheap knock off I'd been telling people didn't work)

I tell you that because I'll also tell you that the 'awareness' he's talking about is a cheap knock off.

The way most people talk about awareness is a lot closer to the Force from StarWars. Kinda vague, trust your feelings woo-woo that will allow you to do triple backflips without cutting your legs off with your light saber. Oh and predict the future.

So while I'll give him that about what is being taught, he quickly pogo sticks into "Yes and ... ' land. I'll tell you what I do agree with 100% that is his next line:

***
This annoys me Instructors that preach awareness but haven't got a clue how to teach it.
***

How about -- "they not only don't have an idea HOW to teach it, they don't even know what it is or how to use it." Which he kind of echoes with this

***
So how do you teach this? Well it isn't easy and that is why most instructors never bother. You see awareness is great and I have taught it to a lot of people, but you need to teach people about awarness and what to do once they become aware. This is where scenarios are essential!
***

Except what he is talking about is knowledge, assigning value, pattern recognition, assessment and reaction to stimuli, not exactly 'awareness.' But even there, realize what most people call 'awareness' (much less teach about it) don't even come close to those rarefied standard he's talking about.

Before you can have 'awareness' you need to have stable data. (Incidentally, that's what's missing from a lot of so-called 'awareness; training.) For example, many criminals carry their weapons in what is called 'the appendix carry.' Now unlike legal concealed carry permit holders, criminals seldom use holsters. (It has to do with ditching the gun.) As such they end up fiddling with it more -- which is a very distinctive action to watch for as he approaches. Both legal and illegal carry in this position has a VERY distinct set of drawing motions. Like you're not going to see it anywhere else. So seeing it is almost certainly a weapon draw (or a bluff to make you think it is so you'll run away.) The only other time you're likely to see this move is in a discussion about someone's appendix surgery as they show you their scar.

Thing is, this knowledge comes in what can be called 'layers.' As I often say "You can't spot abnormal until you know normal" Hint, strange people don't walk up to you in a lonely parking lot at night. If they do, they don't get closer than a certain distance if their intentions are good. And they ESPECIALLY don't pull up their shirt to show you their surgery scar. By the time all three of these are going down, you can be pretty certain it's a robbery. (Unless you've pissed some people off, in which case it could be a hit.)

Thing is most people don't know this, so even though they ARE aware of the guy walking up to them, getting too close, etc., they don't know what it means. Then they find themselves looking down the barrel of a gun. But wait! They were aware of his approach!

Even though the buzzword is awareness, the way most people in self-defense are using it is... well, just wrong. Have you ever heard your SD instructor give you that parking lot/appendix run down? But have you heard him talk about the importance of 'awareness'...? So there I have to say the guy is technically correct. "Awareness is not enough to keep you out of conflict" Or at least not awareness alone. Except what he does then go into is why his scenario based training is so good (Maaaaaaarketing)

Lemme give you a more functional look about awareness. I mean some really fundamental pointers.
https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/7128131-4-things-Andy-Sipowicz-taught-me-about-being-a-beat-cop/

Thing is a good grasp of people skills and knowing some basic things can keep you out of conflict. In fact, except for certain -- very specific-- circumstances, it will go miles keeping out of trouble. For example, shift changes. (Springboarding off the Sipowicz article). Good rule of thumb, when the families, children and elders clear out, it's a good time to go. That's because the night shift is taking over.

Livefire example, I grew up eating ethnic food. Food I can't get where I live. So I have to go up to ethnic areas to get ingredients. And some of these ain't the nicest areas. So when I do my shopping? Hint, it's not at night in those parts of town. That's when the not-nice-things come out to play. Hard to get robbed, murdered, into conflict if you're not there. (Or in my case, save me the trouble of hiding the body.) Oh yeah, and when I'm there, I'm really polite to the locals. So yeah, knowledge, scheduling, paying attention and a little politeness goes a long way to keep me out of violence.

Is that awareness? Or is awareness part of a bigger more effective strategy?

Lie number five: Sports martial arts don't work in the street

This one is just adorable.

I could say 'Yes and...' except there's a problem. The nature of which can be found in my saying, "You only have two problems using your training. One is it doesn't work. Two is it does work."

I came up with that as a way to explain that things aren't as simplistic as just 'winning.' But again, a lot of people want it to be. The complexities of the issue are many and they go way, way past just working or not working.

First, something that works great against a 17 y.o. punk will fail miserably against a 200 pound biker. Why? Well, you're facing a completely different standard of opponent. So is it the training 'not working' or is it an issue of circumstances? That's one of the many problems of trying to speak in generalities. I guarantee you the most half-baked, ineffective, commercialized martial art will 'work' for beating up eight year olds in the 'street.' Conversely, I know a few 'monsters' that I don't care about your MMA, RBSD, Urban tacti-kool combatives, Ancient warrior system (used byt the Pharoh's bodyguards) these guy's will use your ass as a pool cue. Again, it's about circumstances.

The second issue with 'working in the street' is it the right tool for the job? One thing that a LOT of MA training focuses on is the one-on-one 'duel' That doesn't really help you much when you're in a jam with a dude and his buddy blindsides you.

Oh that wasn't covered in your training? It's easy to ask, 'why not?'. But there's not exactly a good answer. But start with, did you -- or your instructor -- believe this is a wunder-tool that does everything (I often use the idea of a snake oil salesman, "Dr Bonner's Miracle elixir. Cures constipation, arthritis, consumption, polio, measles and venereal diseases. It'll cure what ails ya!") Do you think this specific training prepares you for everything? Because if you do, then it's not only not going to work in the street, but it's not going to work in a whole lot of other places too.

The third problem with working in the street is that training --in a very real sense -- like learning to swim in a pool. Now that's not a problem. The problem comes later. The reason you learn to swim in the shallow end of a pool is to work you through different stages and ingrain core mechanics. Ingrain them to the point you don't have to think about them any more. The raw skillsets are there, so you can turn your attention to other details.

However, just because you can swim in a pool, doesn't mean you are ready for swimming in the ocean, bodysurfing, surfing, swimming in a river, scuba diving, high diving or cliff jumping. Each of these have some VERY specific extra knowledge and skills that -- while based on swimming -- are radically different (and more) than just swimming in a pool. None of them replace basic swimming, but they are over and above fundamental swimming. A serious problem is people who think they know 'martial arts' often think they're prepared for ANY kind of circumstances. This is because, in their imagination, all self-defense is the same. It's like thinking that because you know how to swim in a pool, you automatically know how to swim in the ocean, bodysurf, surf ...

One thing that seriously made my teeth itch is for years American Filipino Martial Arts instructors/students parroted that 'sticks were an average weapon. That they had elements common to all weapons.' However, where it became an annoying squawk/screech (and flat out wrong) is when it mutated into 'If you know sticks you know how to use any weapon. As a friend of mine who knows both FMA and Western broadsword said "Yes the similarities are important. But just as important are the differences.")

There are two questions you need to ask.
A -- 'What exactly DOES your training prepare you for?' It is a legitimate and important question because of the next point and understanding both limitations and application. Something that works GRRRRREEat in one set of circumstances, fails miserably in others. Conversely, what won't work in other circumstances works great for these.

Which is question B -- What doesn't it work for?

The bonus question (at this point) isn't 'does it work?' It's do you know how to assess the circumstances when it's the right time for that tactic?

And that is a much bigger subject than I have time to go into.

Fourth problem is what you're being taught lacking important parts to make it work? Or are you leaving them out?

Bad mechanics is a double edged sword. A whole lot of what is being taught out there is like a detailed and tricked out car that's missing an engine. It's got the form, but not what makes it go.

I can go into this problem all day long but let me give you a fast example. Where is the block? I demonstrate this by having people -- especially those trained in 'hard styles' -- show me a block. When I ask where is the block a super majority of them demonstrate the end position. (Let's say inside middle block An Makgii/soto uke.) That -- they claim -- is the block. No. The block is the whole motion. The defensive action occurs while moving towards that end position. By the time you get to that position the blocking action has already occurred.

Why is this important? Because if you're in such an all fired rush to get to that end position, it's REAL easy to drop important components of the process in order to get more speed. (Including incidentally dropping important parrying defensive actions that people have mistaken as 'wind up.') In the safety of the school, this flawed blocking process works. But against a dedicated attack, the lack of mechanics usually collapses. That's if you were never taught the mechanics of the move -- which happens a LOT.

The other way mechanics can be missing is if you're so freaked out that you forget to put them in. Basically instead of doing a blocking action, you're flailing. Going back up one problem, did your training ingrain these mechanics so you don't have to think about them, but that they are always there? Did you then train to do them under adrenal stress? (swimming in the ocean.)

It's not does the martial art system work in the streets? It's: Can you manifest the necessary mechanics under stress and while being attacked?

That brings us to the fifth problem. It's not the MA system, it's you that's going to get it done.

Let me rock your boat by pointing something out. Martial arts alone don't work in the streets is technically correct because martial arts have NO physical existence. They're an idea. They're a skillset that NEEDS humans to manifest. Without a human there is no marital art.

This is huge disconnect because many people think, it's the martial art that will carry the day. It's not, it's you. Just knowing a skillset called martial arts does not mean you're going to 'win.' YOU have to apply those skills. Unfortunately a lot of people think just knowing the martial arts is some kind of push-button, because I know it, it's going to work. No. You gotta MAKE IT WORK.

Okay, so there are just some of the points about "It doesn't work." The other issue is it does work.

News flash folks, self-defense is -- at least theoretically -- legal. Fighting is illegal. So guess what? If you get into a fight and use your martial arts training, you're breaking the law.

You may have felt you were ~cough cough~ defending yourself, but what you were doing is fighting.

Now are you going to win or lose that fight?

Yeah, that's the problem with your martial arts training working. You're still doing something illegal.

One of the things that I often tell people is to take an MMA bout and imagine both participants dressed and in a bar. If you saw that on the bar's security video, what would you call it? (Important question because that's what the jury is going to call it too)

I tell you this because where sports martial arts really do work well is when you're fighting. A little MMA training gives you the serious edge in illegal violence. Yep. They work all right... to get your ass arrested and convicted.

Lie number six: You Don't Need Much Knowledge of the law. I'm really, really torn about this. Him calling it a lie is both right and wrong. Because technically speaking the statement 'You don't need much knowledge of the law is correct.' You're not a lawyer.

But there is a thunderin' herd of things you do need to know. Things that AREN'T being taught. Things that have legal consequences and implications. Things that will put you into prison or keep you out.

Where we run into the first problem is there's a BIG ASS difference between the law and the legal system. And I hate to break it to you, but our legal system isn't exactly friendly to self-defense. In fact, there are many prosecutors who look at SD claims as slam dunks when it comes to getting a conviction. So yes, self-defense is technically legal, but it's a can of worms. That you DO need to know.

The biggest flaw with what he's pushing here isn't about the law, it's you knowing what self-defense is BEFORE you act.

Unfortunately most people make up their own definition -- and that's what gets them into trouble. Yes the legal guidelines of self-defense are important (Starting with the BIGGEST mistake of them all 'immediate'). But if you cannot explain why what you did was self-defense, it's going to be sold by the prosecutor as illegal violence. That you also need to know.

The other side of this coin is do you know how to explain WHY what the other person was doing was a physical danger to you? This one SERIOUSLY screws up most people. Sure you can recognize when you're in danger, but can you explain (or get an expert witness to explain) why that's a dangerous situation? A situation that required your use of force for you to remain safe?

See most people think that just feeling oneself in danger is enough to 'justify' them acting. All they have to say was "I was afraid." Well see the problem is, they don't know what justify means in a legal context. The act by which a party accused shows and maintains a good and legal reason in court, why he did the thing he is called upon to answer.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/j060.htm

Yeah, justification means YOU have to prove it was the right call. Or in this case, your lawyer does. Now here's the bitch, you have to have acted to those standards.

For example there's some yahoo here in Denver who stopped a robbery, but then chased the dude out into the street, shooting and shot the robber's car up as he was trying to drive away. The gunslinger is facing charges. Why? Let me ask you this: When did the guy's action STOP being about protecting others from the immediate threat of robbery? THAT is why he's being charged.

Way too many people in the martial arts are all freaked out about the freeze. What they do not pay attention to is the equally big problem of when to stop. When does what you're doing cross from self-defense into excessive force? And as such, make you the one breaking the law? That’s a big part of knowing what self-defense is ... and is not. That's the real booger of a problem because most people don't know when to go, but nor do they know when to stop. They don't know the difference between fighting and self-defense and they don't know how to explain to the cops that it WAS self-defense. Wanna know how far beyond just knowing the law this subject is? Well here's a bit of bathroom reading...for the next month http://www.amazon.com/In-Name-Self-Defense-costs-worth-ebook/dp/B00LIBWADA

Lie number seven: Knife Defence: Just Do This,Then This ......Blah Blah Blah

There's that weird UK spelling again.

He claims that his first and most serious complaint is inexperienced instructors teaching.

My first and most serious complaint is that using a knife on another human being is automatically a use of lethal force. That's the same as using a gun in case you missed it. Now for the guy with the knife this is a legal complication that most people don't get.

But it's the guy on the other end who's got real problems. You can fuckin' DIE! This is not a fight. This is not a dick measuring contest. Nor is it, as so many people teach a situation where you neutralize the knife hand and then proceed to beat the shit out of him like it was a regular fight. The presence of a knife kicks the danger up through the ceiling.

All a knife has to do is touch you and you are injured. Knives cut flesh. Simple physics. The guy doesn't have to be some kind of trained knife fighter, hell a five year old can kill you if she accidentally hits you in the right spot. Even if she doesn't you're going to get slashed up. (I'm thinking of my friend Kasey Keckeisen who while trying to make this point, had the brilliant idea of handing his daughter a real knife. His wife said "No" But when he handed her a rubber knife Sydney went psycho ninja on him. There's a really cute picture of her with this homicidal look on her face and a knife.)

When it comes to facing a knife, the HARDEST step is getting past your own ego. It's recognizing that the danger level just went through the roof and you need to adjust your behavior accordingly. If that means you turn and haul ass, you do it with COMPLETE commitment, dragging your mouthy ego saying "We could have kicked his ass" along with you. Or recognizing the immediate and high level of threat, you it it (and most likely him) NOW!

You do not EVER try to fight when there is a knife involved. That's the fastest way I know to end up in the hospital or the morgue.

Fundamentally I agree with him on this point, but I think the reasons he cites are wrong. At the same time, he does describe some issues that will crop up IF you're dumb enough to try to stick around and fight the knifer. And -- although he never quite came out and said it as such -- he is right, entirely too many inexperienced instructors try to teach you to fight against a knife. Except the real knuckle heads who teach you how to knife fight -- and those boys are even more inexperienced with street knife use than he describes.

< / fisk > 

 So there it is. The “7 Lies” fisked. 

Like I said at the beginning. While I technically agree with him, replacing one set of overly simplistic sound bites with another isn't a good idea - especially when you're calling the other sound bites lies. 

At the same time look at how much more complicated things are than just comfortable little sound bites. I know that it looks like too much work to consider all of this stuff, but we are talking real life. If you use your training -- any training whether martial arts, self-defense or firearms -- these are the things that will come crashing down on you. Can you navigate these treacherous waters? Yes. It’s possible. But you’re going to need more than just sound bites in either direction.

Ask the questions they didn't

If you don't ask specific questions, you won't get important information.

This simple statement has bigger implications than you might think.

Often this 'missing' information, is something that if people knew, it might change their minds (or undermine the narrative the questioner is pushing). This makes it incredibly important for people-trying-to-sell-you-a-narrative NOT to ask certain questions.

See if they themselves don't 'know' (or refuse to acknowledge whatever-it-is is an issue, then they can be VERY convincing about their narrative. (In many cases, almost religiously fanatically so.)

To explain this, let's talk about using research as a source of authority and the research itself

The people who use studies to promote their chosen narrative are relying on the authority of a study/source without questioning the methods used to get those 'findings.' This is a double edged sword. The first edge is to cut you. "Who are you --you mere mortal --to question SCIENCE?!"

But the other edge keeps them from getting cut. It's important for them not to question research either. If they ask, "what questions weren't asked," they risk undermining what they are using as the foundation of their righteous cause.

For example: A domestic violence advocate WON'T ask if the researcher asked how many times the woman was the sole attacker and/or initiated the physical violence. That's because such information is dangerous to the narrative of 'women are always the victims of domestic violence.' A narrative that is distinctly at odds with reality. Way too often, the findings of specific studies concur with that narrative. (This BTW, is part of the reason I maintain any so-called 'expert' in DV should be mandated to live in a trailer park for a year. Being at ground zero you see things left out of the tale-o'-woe being told to the researcher. Issues that if you don't ask certain questions ...)

This brings us to the people doing the study. Although soft fields try to use 'scientific methods' there's a big difference between hard and soft 'science.' To the point that most hard scientists I know get twitchy about calling some of these fields 'science' in the first place. (As in let's call them 'fields'.) Between issues of funding, desired results and outright academic fraud there's growing public doubt about many studies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html?_r=0

That's over and above the issue of 'what questions (as a researcher) you don't ask."

Questions that could both blow your desired results and have results other than who is paying you wants.This is technically different than lying or deliberately holding back known information. It's more a "don't ask, don't tell' with a "If I don't ask I can honestly claim my research shows..." spin thrown on it.

You could think of it as plausible deniability if you want. At the same time if you never ask certain questions, you are shielded by the questions you did ask -- and the authority of if not science, research.

For example, let's say you want to promote an anti-gun or a race narrative. "Save the children" or "Blacks are 12 times more likely to be murdered than whites!" (Unfortunately the two points are somewhat interrelated)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/09/deaths-of-children-are-the-most-devastating-effect-of-our-gun-culture-the-nra-has-no-idea-what-to-say-about-them/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/black-americans-are-killed-at-12-times-the-rate-of-people-in-other-developed-countries/

Here's a set of questions about homicides that are NOT asked (At least at a Federal level. The information is available on local police reports.)

1- Does the 'victim' have a criminal record?

2- Was the victim involved in criminal activities?

3- Was the victim living with/in proximity with someone who was 1 and 2?

See bad news for the narrative. It's not about age or race per se, Usually it's about being a violent criminal and/or around violent criminals. News flash, gangbangers shoot gang bangers -- and they're often under 21. Yes that innocent 5 year old child or baby mommy (who herself is still a teen) wasn't a gang member. But the baby daddy they were next to when the drive by happened is.

These three questions throw a complete wobbler into any study or statistics about age, race, guns and 'victims.' All of a sudden things get WAY more complicated than those simple narratives. Which hey, real life is.

But if you are a researcher and you want to keep your finding coming, you have a hard choice: Intentionally don't ask questions that would give undesired results or risk your funding -- and your job. Is it lying? Welllllll... technically no. But it's sailing awfully close to the wind.After all, you can show your research methodology.

Think I'm making this up? This has been a well known problem inside academia, business and government for a long, long time. However, the general public still has faith in science and institutions -- sometimes to the point of scientism and ... well, I don't know what to call it, but it's the belief that you can get the government to force others to do what you want and somehow, magically, you won't create an authoritarian system.

Scientism is easy to explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

The other has to do with lobbying the government to do something about ____(fill in the blank) and uses studies for their credibility. If for no other reason to get funding, but often there's a large getting new laws passed that most people don't see.

So here's the point of all this. Start asking the questions these folks aren't. When someone comes in and starts promoting a narrative, dare to ask them the question of "What questions weren't asked to arrive at this conclusion?"

It works well with both positions and studies.

When the sign says "No Guns Allowed"

I was asked by a concealed carrier what his self-defense options are in businesses and locations that prohibit firearms (which as property owners IS their right). It’s a simple question, but not a simple answer.... 

**** 

 Okay, you're asking a very important question. But you're approaching it from a direction that, while it seems to make sense, is kind of limited. It’s a lot bigger and more complicated of a subject.

If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail ~ Abraham Maslow

That quote -- in a nutshell -- sums up the problem of only having a lethal force response. I tell people that self-defense is a square on the floor. You have to stay INSIDE those lines. 

Those lines --

1) The danger must be physical

2) The threat (to your body) must be immediate

3) Not stopping when the threat stops/excessive

4) It’s not participatory

One, entirely too much violence is over issues you can't put in a wheelbarrow. Your pride, your feelings, your social status cannot be put in a wheelbarrow -- so fighting to 'protect' them is NOT self-defense. People get into fights over this stuff and then claim self-defense -- not even in the same state. Yet they squeal about going to jail for self-defense. This would be true if what they were doing actually was self-defense, but most of the time it isn't. They were fighting over things that can't be put in a wheelbarrow and it escalated. Two, the hardest thing about using lethal force is that when it is legally allowed someone is trying to kill you. Believe me when I tell you this complicates things. If the person isn't in the process of attacking you can't claim self-defense. Well you can, but you'll be convicted. Three is an ugly hybrid. You are legally required to use the minimum force necessary to stop a threat. That is to say without specific circumstances you can't shoot someone for just punching you. This is a critical problem with ONLY having lethal force options. You are further required to stop when the threat stops. (Otherwise you end up being Jerome Ersland walking back and executing a downed and helpless kid -- and like Ersland convicted). Four, you CANNOT be a participant in the creation and escalation of an event. That's fighting. Self-defense is legal, fighting is illegal. (This is why your actions before the incident will be gone over with a microscope to see if you were part of the problem.)

Now those four lines remain no matter what level of force. And levels of force are a REALLY important idea. Let's say that square on the floor is pushing away someone who's getting to close and threatening you. Except, now imagine putting a dinner table inside that square. That's a higher level of force. (Let's say you really have to hit the guy hard to get him to back off). The restrictions on when you are allowed to do that are stricter (the table is smaller than the original square). If you have an item -- especially a so-called self-defense item - in your hand, that's a smaller coffee table put on top of the first table. Now if you use lethal force, that's a folding chair you're standing on ... on top of the coffee table... on top of the dinner table... inside the square.

And you damned well better believe a prosecutor (who influences the cops arresting someone) is going to both try to knock you off that chair and/or cut the legs out from those tables. He's trying to sell the jury the idea that you weren't inside the SD square. 

Now I'm going to tell you the bad news. While it is 'technically' wrong, you need to understand this...

"When you claim self-defense, you are confessing to a crime."

Ordinarily half of the prosecutor's job is proving that the accused did it. (The most common criminal defense is SODDI -Some Other Dude Did It). You just did that job for him. You just admitted to shooting, stabbing or clubbing the guy -- but you're claiming that you had good reason. 

As an aside and in the name of accuracy -- and because lawyers nag me if I don’t say it -- when you claim self-defense you are confessing to the elements of a crime. So you’re not confessing to a crime, but the elements. Got that? (But know the prosecutor is going to be treating it like a crime.) Gee, lawyers splitting hairs, what a surprise. This brings us to another idea that is technically wrong, but easier for laypeople to understand...

"When you claim self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to you"

Actually it's production of evidence; but unless you're a lawyer what the hell does that mean? It means you are responsible to provide evidence that it was self-defense. That’s a whole lot more than just saying “I wuz defendin’ mahself.”

I can tell you one of the things that trips people up. In law, words have specific meaning AND they don't mean them how you use them or think about them. For example, you think "I was justified in defending myself." Simple right?

Except look at this definition form the 'Lectric Law Library. Justification: The act by which a party accused shows and maintains a good and legal reason in court, why he did the thing he is called upon to answer. 

“Lucy, you have some 'splainin' to do.”

If you can’t explain and provide evidence about what the guy was doing and why you sincerely believed it was self-defense then the prosecutor is going to eat you alive -- especially if lethal force was involved. Being justified is more than just in your mind, it’s being able to explain to other why what you did was out of self-preservation and not a crime.

I tell you all of that so you can understand this:
You asked about self-defense options going into a 'No guns allowed' business. But that's NOT the problem. The problem is everyday walking around with ONLY a lethal force option. That's a huge danger you are in every day and you don't even know it.

 

Of all use-of-force-levels, lethal is both the rarest AND most frowned upon. Yet is the one that the shooting world jumps to and prepares for. They start at lethal force without understanding anything below, much less the square. By only having a firearm (or knife) and no other options, you have climbed up on that chair, on top of those tables. What are you going to do if the situation doesn't require lethal force? I know of an incident where a woman pulled her pistol on a crazy guy who wanted to talk to her about the Jesus connection with the martians. You can't pull a gun just because a crazy person wants to talk to you. If I did that I'd never get through a family Christmas.

Now that's a joke I make, but being charged with brandishing/felony menacing/whatever they call it in your state, isn't. And that is exactly what she'd done. She had no other use-of-force option than lethal. So even though she hadn't pulled the trigger, she'd climbed up there and then jumped off the coffee table. That wasn't 'self-defense' anymore because she'd crossed the excessive line.

Why did she do that? Hint, hammer, nails, looks like...

You need to have other use of force options ALL THE TIME! So if you walk into a situation and it says no guns you've got multiple options. One you choose to take your business elsewhere. (That's what I do.) Or you can choose to carry anyway. (Not that I recommend that, but you're a grown up and responsible for your choices.) Or you choose to comply. That's fine, you shrug and shift gears to either less-than-lethal options or things that aren't projectiles.

It is your familiarity with using these options -- especially when to use them instead of a gun -- that is doing the work. Not any particular item that you choose. Everything works in certain situations, everything fails in others. The answer is in having a full tool box (to handle different jobs) instead of just a hammer.

For example, how familiar are you with using different weapons? Because I know how to use sword, staff and flexible weapons -- unless I'm standing naked in an empty parking lot -- I'm next to an improvised weapon. Anywhere. If I can reach it I can use it. (Including the time a guy threw a cat at me... lemme tell ya, that sucked.) Me with a knife -- which I routinely carry as a tool -- yeah that's not going to work out too well for someone. I don't need the 21 Foot rule because most people -- even with guns -- close the distance themselves. Empty handed? Three goals of empty hand, 1)escape, 2) control and 3)disable. Do you know how to do any of these? I ask because they're WAY more useful than a gun when the problem you are facing is a quarrelsome drunk or someone who wants to fight you. (Notice I didn't put fighting in the list of three.) Knocking someone down and running like hell is well within the SD square. Fighting isn't. What's your escape route? Anytime you walk into a building you need to be looking for all the ways to get out. Even if you have a gun, someone comes in shooting in that door, you go out the other. But especially if you've disarmed.

I wrote this some time back, but it's things to think about. Unlike many people who are telling you what to do when someone is shooting, I've actually been in those situations

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/activeshooter.html

I know this probably isn't the answer that you were hoping for, but the fact is there are lots of options. Options that are however based on the circumstances you find yourself in. There is no one 'you just do this answer,' but that’s what people seem to want. On the other hand, once you are familiar with these different levels you'll be better equipped to have a full tool box instead of just a hammer. A hammer that’ll put you into prison if you use it when you shouldn’t.