I wonder about one aspect of his analysis, though. It seems to me that there's a place between sheepdogging and denial. It's the one I tend to advocate for around issues of security theater, and it goes, Bad things happen. Pretending we can prevent every single one of them if we're only careful enough, vigilant enough, is wrong and often counterproductive, since the quest for perfect safety can impose tremendous costs without actually creating materially more of that safety. If you accept that, you're not in denial: you've simply acknowledged the reality that you can't control everything, and possibly refused to give in to emotive overestimation of certain risks. (It's much less likely that you'll die because of a terrorist attack on a plane than it is that you will because we aren't obsessive about how we allow people to drive cars. And we aren't that obsessive about the cars because we pretty much accept the additional risk that goes with speed limits over 55, and not jailing drivers for cell phone use, and like that.)
On the other hand, possibly I'm misapplying the system. I've had people who use it insist to me that it isn't that there's a fourth category they're not acknowledging, it's that I'm actually a sheepdog. This seems relatively unlikely to me, but it's flattering enough that I'm willing to at least give it a 'hey, maybe, what do I know?'
It is... hmm, not simplistic, but a limited analysis. He's definitely simplifying for the sake of the argument.
I think, though, that it's fair to say the sheepdogs don't believe that every threat can be stopped. They recognize that some threats can wipe out the whole flock regardless of anything the sheepdog might do, or other threats might take out a sheep on the opposite side of the flock before the sheepdog can get over there. The key is that a good sheepdog will go for the throat of any threat it can stop, while the sheep mill around baaing about how violence is never the answer and wallow in their helplessness, which they can only get away with because of somebody else's sacrifice.
I'm no fan of security theater either, FWIW, and I seriously debated whether to post the link because of the way the author conflates M-16-armed soldiers in airports with his other points. But I decided those other points were worth it: that violence is actually quite rare, that the sheep tend to conflate sheepdogs with wolves and want them all banned (and believe that's even possible), and most importantly, that people can choose whether or not to be sheep. And that choosing to be a sheep does mark one as a potential victim when the wolves come around. (I'd tie this back to certain recent much-discussed events, but frankly, the asbestos underwear chafes.)
And also that choosing not to be a sheep, to be a sheepdog instead, involves more that just saying, "Oh, I'm not a sheep." It involves preparing yourself to make good on that statement: learning the skills, acquiring the equipment (and having it with you), and most importantly of all, doing the mental preparation to react and use those skills and equipment when necessary.
On the other hand, possibly I'm misapplying the system.
You're definitely focusing more on the security-theater implications, while I'm focusing more on the standing-up-for-yourself implications. The article, I'll grant you, lends itself to either interpretation.
it's that I'm actually a sheepdog
I think a case could be made that someone who argues fiscal policy reform at cocktail parties has sheepdog tendencies, anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
On the other hand, possibly I'm misapplying the system. I've had people who use it insist to me that it isn't that there's a fourth category they're not acknowledging, it's that I'm actually a sheepdog. This seems relatively unlikely to me, but it's flattering enough that I'm willing to at least give it a 'hey, maybe, what do I know?'
no subject
I think, though, that it's fair to say the sheepdogs don't believe that every threat can be stopped. They recognize that some threats can wipe out the whole flock regardless of anything the sheepdog might do, or other threats might take out a sheep on the opposite side of the flock before the sheepdog can get over there. The key is that a good sheepdog will go for the throat of any threat it can stop, while the sheep mill around baaing about how violence is never the answer and wallow in their helplessness, which they can only get away with because of somebody else's sacrifice.
I'm no fan of security theater either, FWIW, and I seriously debated whether to post the link because of the way the author conflates M-16-armed soldiers in airports with his other points. But I decided those other points were worth it: that violence is actually quite rare, that the sheep tend to conflate sheepdogs with wolves and want them all banned (and believe that's even possible), and most importantly, that people can choose whether or not to be sheep. And that choosing to be a sheep does mark one as a potential victim when the wolves come around. (I'd tie this back to certain recent much-discussed events, but frankly, the asbestos underwear chafes.)
And also that choosing not to be a sheep, to be a sheepdog instead, involves more that just saying, "Oh, I'm not a sheep." It involves preparing yourself to make good on that statement: learning the skills, acquiring the equipment (and having it with you), and most importantly of all, doing the mental preparation to react and use those skills and equipment when necessary.
On the other hand, possibly I'm misapplying the system.
You're definitely focusing more on the security-theater implications, while I'm focusing more on the standing-up-for-yourself implications. The article, I'll grant you, lends itself to either interpretation.
it's that I'm actually a sheepdog
I think a case could be made that someone who argues fiscal policy reform at cocktail parties has sheepdog tendencies, anyway.