I can’t find it now but several days ago I received an email from an organization I have a peripheral relation to that they are committed to “protect[ing] their vulnerable population.” Protecting people is good but “vulnerable” didn’t sit well with me. One of my goals in life is to avoid being vulnerable. You and I may have limited ability to affect whether we’re marginalized but vulnerability is, to some degree, within our control. If a bully punches you, gouge him in the eyes. Impress upon him that his aggression will cost him.
I write this in the context of the Democratic Party having inflicted no meaningful damage on Trump for his lawlessness. That’s not recent. It goes back to his first term. People have let Trump skate all his life. He’ll continue until he’s forcibly stopped.
This is where the criminal decides if you are safe to attack.
Yes, with all violence, the assailant’s safety is a critical factor in deciding whether or not to attack…
“Can I get away with it?” is a major motivation for what people decide to do — or not do. Hence, the interview.
This is one interview you want to fail. If you fail, the assailant decides that he cannot successfully, or easily, attack you. Then if he is a criminal, he will proceed to seek easier prey.
Chad Loder (emphasis mine):
In my self-defense classes I focus on how most people are socially conditioned to follow the norms of a civilized, polite society — and there is a MENTAL SHIFT required to use violence to defend from violence.
I’m reminded of this while watching our elected officials dithering and delaying.
Marc MacYoung in his book “No-Nonsense Self Defense” talks about the Criminal Interview — a process by which a would-be attacker decides if you’re safe to attack.
They start by crossing a small boundary, like approaching you on the street and then standing too close. They observe how you react.
Most people will be uncomfortable with a stranger approaching them on a dark street to ask the time. Our instincts tell us we’re in danger.
But many people will freeze or go along, not wanting to violate the norms of polite behavior.
A predator will note this lack of pushback and then escalate.
The key to the Criminal Interview is that the would-be predator operates unconstrained by norms — all options are on the table for them.
The predator is testing how far they can push their potential victim before getting pushback.
The predator is trying to figure out “Can I get away with this?”
I think the fascists who are now carrying out a coup in the US have spent the last 8 years conducting a Criminal Interview of the Democratic party.
They’ve concluded, correctly, that the Democrats are incapable of making the mental shift required to do what’s necessary to defend themselves.
In these scenarios, the predator counts on their willingness to use tactics higher up on the “escalation ladder” than what the victim is willing to use.
By the time the victim makes the required mental shift, it’s too late. The predator has already maneuvered them into a disadvantaged position.
One could make a plausible argument that the Republicans began their Criminal Interview with the 2000 election.
After the “Brooks Brothers Riot”, Democratic leadership not only acquiesced to a judicial coup, those leaders pleaded on TV to pacify a population who were ready for mass disobedience.
The stolen 2000 election ushered in Bush and Cheney’s lawless admin.
The invasion of Iraq was authorized with 40% of Democrats helping.
Obama never held Bush and Cheney responsible for torture and war crimes…