A sort of social survival guide...hmm I'm not sure if one could write these sorts of things clearly. I mean I've attempted this before, writing all sorts of practical considerations, like things I've tried to think if caught in certain situations (like a coup d'etat in a more socio-politically turbulent society). Its sadly easier to write theory down that's generally untested as opposed to a living experience. If only you felt with a higher degree of certainty threatened, most likely social writing comes to a halt. At least more there is a more measured approach often times to writing and exactly what you might say to whom and for what ever reasons.
Obviously, while some might be compelled on the point of courage and bravery to stand up for their own sets of convictions, it might be at some greater cost. If only by way of the circumstance, that not only potentially any one individual (in the more devolved set of circumstances) might face or feel socially or in terms of other things, proximity and fear.
I remember reading some Knol (remember that old google wikipedia like service whose users where redirected only years ago to another service provider) by a Russian writer, not sure if her exact expertise but found something of useful information. It went along the lines of providing benchmarks to incursion, for lack of better words, for instance, if you happened to be living in one of those more socially turbulent societies. This is to say, measuring the degree of invasive behaviors of those engaged in varying sorts of socially and politically related hostilities. Reads like a level of contact criteria:
1. Are threats and or actions committed relegated to an electronic nature only?
2. Are you encountering them personally in public spaces?
3. Are you encountering these in private spaces (e.g., home invasion)?
Of course, the reading goes on further (at some point in my now more vague recollections), to say that there is actually something to be inferred by the level of contact received. Namely, that often times, when groups of individuals might be motivated to some greater extent, there may be something of informal if not formal risk assessments (logic) behind the perpetration of activities. Obviously, its higher contact risk when engaged in yet more potentially criminal behavior (if legal systems are able to do their jobs more adequately), and this may provide an individual, at least with a set of decisions to be had in so far as assessing their own personal security at least.
It at least helps to keep, I imagine, composure (in as much as possible), a level head with good reason, and much else. As I've tried to be in keeping in general to some other advice that I've picked up on over the years, for instance, when making appeal in writing: it is important to address fundamentally the issue of human rights (i.e., where violations are occurring and exactly what those sorts of violations might be), and then avoiding degenerating the argument to the point of like kind hostility, or at least if engagement in the same sorts of verbal hostilities/threat not only neither potentially aiding in addressing situations often times, but makes a given appeal more likely ignored if not something worse.
I'd mention at times, owing to the limited nature of one's view especially where one might be isolated in varying degrees and without the nature of social communications, might have more difficult time assessing with certainty the clearer nature of one's circumstance, it seems at times difficult making what one might feel were adequate assessments. For this, of course, there is the nature of precaution at least that one could rely upon, if for instance, the contact criteria above were generally limited to 1-2, it would seem more obvious that limiting one's public social exposure might help, and neither clearly broadcasting intent with respect to one's intent. More problematic to this circumstance (as I've written before), however, were that one's behavioral patterns in so far as going out and about might be known to some greater degree. For instance, you frequent the same supermarkets (to the extent that people that you don't clearly know and whom you've generally never met before seem to magically know your name), or that you go to the same set of commercial retailers. At least if you break from the frequency probabilities of going somewhere or doing something, you contend arguably less with the problems of encountering circumstances?! The later degree of contact nature, is obviously a more difficult one in dealing with, obviously in a democracy with legal systems, the logical step were resorting to local enforcement regarding a crime, but outside of this, it seems, then getting into another set of issues. Finally while it might not serve as psychological consolation, at least, for all categories of violence and related causes, political violence, for instance, in the history of the United States, actually topped the charts (grossly), and this is where the center of my writings are guided here. Often times, the causes while having the appearance of something else in nature may have a higher degree of attribution to these sorts of causes (i.e., whether by social incitements and propaganda alike in some form). Even while a statistic may be shown high, this hadn't necessarily meant widespread, or more likely often times if related to such a cause, the perpetrators may be in serving to a relative minority of individuals...why often times, risk assessment applies in the first place (as mentioned above). Even where the worst form of social political violence have taken the form of violence (i.e., genocide), often times has required coordinated planning where governments often suspected right away for the nature of these attacks, and often found guilty right away. This is to say, while risk assessment might take place with individuals (relative to groups of individuals), usually as applied to groups of individuals, there may be greater likelihood of risk assessment in so far as the coordination of activities going beyond the boundaries of law.
Obviously, while some might be compelled on the point of courage and bravery to stand up for their own sets of convictions, it might be at some greater cost. If only by way of the circumstance, that not only potentially any one individual (in the more devolved set of circumstances) might face or feel socially or in terms of other things, proximity and fear.
I remember reading some Knol (remember that old google wikipedia like service whose users where redirected only years ago to another service provider) by a Russian writer, not sure if her exact expertise but found something of useful information. It went along the lines of providing benchmarks to incursion, for lack of better words, for instance, if you happened to be living in one of those more socially turbulent societies. This is to say, measuring the degree of invasive behaviors of those engaged in varying sorts of socially and politically related hostilities. Reads like a level of contact criteria:
1. Are threats and or actions committed relegated to an electronic nature only?
2. Are you encountering them personally in public spaces?
3. Are you encountering these in private spaces (e.g., home invasion)?
Of course, the reading goes on further (at some point in my now more vague recollections), to say that there is actually something to be inferred by the level of contact received. Namely, that often times, when groups of individuals might be motivated to some greater extent, there may be something of informal if not formal risk assessments (logic) behind the perpetration of activities. Obviously, its higher contact risk when engaged in yet more potentially criminal behavior (if legal systems are able to do their jobs more adequately), and this may provide an individual, at least with a set of decisions to be had in so far as assessing their own personal security at least.
It at least helps to keep, I imagine, composure (in as much as possible), a level head with good reason, and much else. As I've tried to be in keeping in general to some other advice that I've picked up on over the years, for instance, when making appeal in writing: it is important to address fundamentally the issue of human rights (i.e., where violations are occurring and exactly what those sorts of violations might be), and then avoiding degenerating the argument to the point of like kind hostility, or at least if engagement in the same sorts of verbal hostilities/threat not only neither potentially aiding in addressing situations often times, but makes a given appeal more likely ignored if not something worse.
I'd mention at times, owing to the limited nature of one's view especially where one might be isolated in varying degrees and without the nature of social communications, might have more difficult time assessing with certainty the clearer nature of one's circumstance, it seems at times difficult making what one might feel were adequate assessments. For this, of course, there is the nature of precaution at least that one could rely upon, if for instance, the contact criteria above were generally limited to 1-2, it would seem more obvious that limiting one's public social exposure might help, and neither clearly broadcasting intent with respect to one's intent. More problematic to this circumstance (as I've written before), however, were that one's behavioral patterns in so far as going out and about might be known to some greater degree. For instance, you frequent the same supermarkets (to the extent that people that you don't clearly know and whom you've generally never met before seem to magically know your name), or that you go to the same set of commercial retailers. At least if you break from the frequency probabilities of going somewhere or doing something, you contend arguably less with the problems of encountering circumstances?! The later degree of contact nature, is obviously a more difficult one in dealing with, obviously in a democracy with legal systems, the logical step were resorting to local enforcement regarding a crime, but outside of this, it seems, then getting into another set of issues. Finally while it might not serve as psychological consolation, at least, for all categories of violence and related causes, political violence, for instance, in the history of the United States, actually topped the charts (grossly), and this is where the center of my writings are guided here. Often times, the causes while having the appearance of something else in nature may have a higher degree of attribution to these sorts of causes (i.e., whether by social incitements and propaganda alike in some form). Even while a statistic may be shown high, this hadn't necessarily meant widespread, or more likely often times if related to such a cause, the perpetrators may be in serving to a relative minority of individuals...why often times, risk assessment applies in the first place (as mentioned above). Even where the worst form of social political violence have taken the form of violence (i.e., genocide), often times has required coordinated planning where governments often suspected right away for the nature of these attacks, and often found guilty right away. This is to say, while risk assessment might take place with individuals (relative to groups of individuals), usually as applied to groups of individuals, there may be greater likelihood of risk assessment in so far as the coordination of activities going beyond the boundaries of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment