![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastThis letter could be addressed specifically to Ben Carson. It isn't.
Ben Carson recently commented, regarding the recent Umpqua shooting. His comment wasn't about how things would have been better if people would be armed. It was, perhaps, the second most annoying response. "What I would have done..." If you haven't heard what, exactly, he "would have done", you can at least guess that it was a fantasy-based bad idea.
Ben Carson is one of the people to whom this letter is addressed. Instead, let me address this to everybody who wants us to know "what I would have done".
Firstly, we're usually not interested in what you "would have done". Even if you really would have, it's rarely useful and certainly not applicable as the basis for policy.
More importantly, no you wouldn't have.
No, you wouldn't have put an end to bullying, assaults and/or harassment campaigns, through a swift application of violence.
No, you wouldn't have pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps without any outside help.
No, you wouldn't have taken cover, drawn your gun, taken aim, ensured that there wasn't anybody in potential crossfire, then fired between Roof's first and second shots.
No, you would not have successfully rallied, without any prior planning or training, a team to rush the shooter under the mistaken claim that "he can't shoot all of us".
No, (and I can't believe I have to say this) you wouldn't have held off German police forces from interning you if you'd been there and armed in 1940s Germany.
No, you wouldn't have.
It's okay to have your fantasies. It really is. Die Hard is a fantasy. Die Hard is not a plan. Die Hard is not a reasonable option. Die Hard is not an obligation for any hostages. As you translate Die Hard from hostage situation to bullying, to economic distress, to teenage pregnancy, to mass shooting, be clear that you are still engaging in fantasy. You might imagine that you would have, but you wouldn't... at least not successfully.
Ben Carson recently commented, regarding the recent Umpqua shooting. His comment wasn't about how things would have been better if people would be armed. It was, perhaps, the second most annoying response. "What I would have done..." If you haven't heard what, exactly, he "would have done", you can at least guess that it was a fantasy-based bad idea.
Ben Carson is one of the people to whom this letter is addressed. Instead, let me address this to everybody who wants us to know "what I would have done".
Firstly, we're usually not interested in what you "would have done". Even if you really would have, it's rarely useful and certainly not applicable as the basis for policy.
More importantly, no you wouldn't have.
No, you wouldn't have put an end to bullying, assaults and/or harassment campaigns, through a swift application of violence.
No, you wouldn't have pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps without any outside help.
No, you wouldn't have taken cover, drawn your gun, taken aim, ensured that there wasn't anybody in potential crossfire, then fired between Roof's first and second shots.
No, you would not have successfully rallied, without any prior planning or training, a team to rush the shooter under the mistaken claim that "he can't shoot all of us".
No, (and I can't believe I have to say this) you wouldn't have held off German police forces from interning you if you'd been there and armed in 1940s Germany.
No, you wouldn't have.
It's okay to have your fantasies. It really is. Die Hard is a fantasy. Die Hard is not a plan. Die Hard is not a reasonable option. Die Hard is not an obligation for any hostages. As you translate Die Hard from hostage situation to bullying, to economic distress, to teenage pregnancy, to mass shooting, be clear that you are still engaging in fantasy. You might imagine that you would have, but you wouldn't... at least not successfully.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-17 08:16 pm (UTC)- The Americans on leave on a French train who tackled an armed terrorist last August. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/europe/france-train-shooting/)
- The passengers on Flight 93, stopping the 4th 9/11 plane at the cost of their own lives.
- The French Resistance, the Yugoslav partisans, and many others during WWII
- Everyone who has actually stepped in to stop the bullying. When I was in the Navy, I got between an drunken Marine and a guy he thought was gay many years ago--admittedly, I had two guys backing me up, but we talked the drunk down and sheltered the little guy the drunk thought was gay.
So don't say 'you wouldn't have'. Don't say there are no heroes, and that no one would actually be a hero. Because some people do, instead of standing by.
--dragoness eclectic, who is not signed in at work, sorry.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-17 08:33 pm (UTC)It's a claim made against me when I acknowledge that bullying is a thing that happens "If I were harassed in school, I would have..." which is easy to say from the safe position and imagining that you would have had good health, good relative size differential, etc.
It's usually a fantasy.
I'm not saying that nobody can be a hero. I am saying that when your response to something like a mass shooting or bullying is to either grab at credibility or deny victims credibility by saying "what I would have done is..."
Consider that some of the fantasies I identified include things that would be nigh-to-actually impossible, even being generous.
Good for you for stepping in between the situation when somebody was bullying another person for... whatever reason.
But, consider someone telling you about that incident and you saying "what I would have done in your situation is..."