4 ms·

> This is a reminder that opting out of controversy means tacit approval of the existing power structures. No it doesn't. There are quite a few reasons why you

> This is a reminder that opting out of controversy means tacit approval of the existing power structures. No it doesn't. There are quite a few reasons why you might opt out of having a position of a controversial subject none of them mean you tacitly approve of the status quo.

Spellman 7y ago
Honest question, care to elaborate? From my perspective opting out means no change. And no change means structures stay the same. Therefore, they persist and are maintained with your (weak) approval. This is different from not taking a side on a subject. You can be open to and encouraging healthy debate. I recommend most rational folks to elevate the conversation and not hold strong affiliations for most topics! But removing yourself entirely to me seems to be an act that allows the status quo to persist.
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  > Honest question, care to elaborate? Many people may not think it is their place to speak. Some people may think they wouldn't be the best person to advocate. Others might think other people speak better about it. Other people might not be in a position to speak about it. In the UK we have many people who claim to talk for the "working class" that as one of my friends put it "looked like they have never done a day of heavy lifting in their life". I wouldn't speak on behalf of the working class, I do a white collar job. > From my perspective opting out means no change. And no change means structures stay the same. Therefore, they persist and are maintained with your (weak) approval. Does it? Many structures fall in under their own weight, many organisation reform from within. You are assuming the world and people within them around doesn't ever change. There is a whole bunch of assumptions you are making. Sometimes the best thing you can do is to do nothing. I used to cycle to work every day. That was more effective to get my coworkers cycling in than any amount of advocacy I may have done verbally. Just yourself being the change you want in the world is sometimes sufficient.
  - Spellman 7y ago
    To your first point (don't feel equipped/proper place), that's definitely true. But that doesn't mean you can't support those who are better advocates instead. In your example, by ignoring the "working class" and their issues, you implicitly leave the existing (both good and bad) structures in place. To the second (things change anyways), structures and the world reform due to pressure from individuals within and without. So, yes, perhaps you can hope the system changes without your input (and honestly due to human limitations you really shouldn't have involvement in every issue) but my point is ignoring the issue isn't purely neutral. You are instead offloading the responsibility of change to others. So my point is to point out how being "passive" is actually an "active" choice with consequences. Interestingly, by cycling, many would argue you made an actual statement by your lifestyle that influenced others on a topic. This is why people use the term "everything is political." Your actions, as you noted, spoke louder than any verbal advocacy and changed people's lives. This leads to a similar statement, "be the change you wish to see." Because verbal advocacy is often easy and simple and valued much less persuasively than actions and lifestyle. Does that make sense to you? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your positions? These are great questions and good examples!
    - uk_programmer 7y ago
      > To your first point (don't feel equipped/proper place), that's definitely true. But that doesn't mean you can't support those who are better advocates instead. And it doesn't mean I have to either. > In your example, by ignoring the "working class" and their issues, you implicitly leave the existing (both good and bad) structures in place. No I don't. I neither leave it in place or remove it. > To the second (things change anyways), structures and the world reform due to pressure from individuals within and without. So, yes, perhaps you can hope the system changes without your input (and honestly due to human limitations you really shouldn't have involvement in every issue) but my point is ignoring the issue isn't purely neutral. Sometimes things literally do stop existing when you don't pay attention to them e.g. I don't watch broadcast TV because I don't want to pay the TV license for something I barely watch anyway. I live my life as if it doesn't exist. So as far as I am concerned it doesn't exist unless I choose to pay attention to it. > You are instead offloading the responsibility of change to others. So my point is to point out how being "passive" is actually an "active" choice with consequences. Who made it my responsibility to change anything? Again there are a bunch of presumptions you have made in that statement and I don't think you even know you made them. > Interestingly, by cycling, many would argue you made an actual statement by your lifestyle that influenced others on a topic. There you go again. You are inserting assumptions in with the term "lifestyle". It wasn't a lifestyle. It was just cheaper and quicker to cycle. > This is why people use the term "everything is political." Your actions, as you noted, spoke louder than any verbal advocacy and changed people's lives. This leads to a similar statement, "be the change you wish to see." Because verbal advocacy is often easy and simple and valued much less persuasively than actions and lifestyle. No people use the term "everything is political" because they want to make everything political because it benefits them and their political agenda to make something that is apolitical, political.
braythwayt 7y ago
Let's say I make hats. If I'm selling a hat with a Swastika, and I get a lot of sales for it, can I really say, "I'm not tacitly approving racism and neo-nazis, I just make hats. What I actually approve of, is making money without taking any responsibility for the social consequences of the choices I make to make money?" Or if I sell cigarettes, can I say, "I'm not tacitly approving of cancer, What I actually approve of, is making money without taking any responsibility for the health consequences of the choices I make to make money?" I think that when you do a thing to make money, and it has consequences, you are tacitly saying that you approve of the consequences.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  > Let's say I make hats. If I'm selling a hat with a Swastika, and I get a lot of sales for it, can I really say, "I'm not tacitly approving racism and neo-nazis, I just make hats. What I actually approve of, is making money without taking any responsibility for the social consequences of the choices I make to make money?" Who are you making the hats for? If you are making replica SS uniforms that are used in films and TV then probably not. In Thailand there isn't the historical baggage of the Swastika. When I was over there I saw "HFC" literally "Hitler Fried Chicken", I don't think they were neo-nazis. I think something got lost in translation. > Or if I sell cigarettes, can I say, "I'm not tacitly approving of cancer, What I actually approve of, is making money without taking any responsibility for the health consequences of the choices I make to make money?" The smoker is quite capable of making his own choices. I smoke a cigar from time and time but I don't chain smoke cigarettes. Lets take a less extreme example, when you are selling a pint of beer at the bar are you "tacitly" approving of alcoholism. Obviously not. > I think that when you do a thing to make money, and it has consequences, you are tacitly saying that you approve of the consequences. Not necessarily as we have seen.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    > The smoker is quite capable of making his own choices. I smoke a cigar from time and time but I don't chain smoke cigarettes. The fact that smokers are capable of making their own choices is irrelevant. I also smoke cigars, and if I decide to sell cigarettes or cigars, I am tacitly approving of some portion of my customers getting lung cancer, throat cancer, whatever. That's literally what the word "tacit" means: Implied by or inferred from actions or statements. I sell cigarettes, you can infer quite reasonably that I approve of a world in which some of the people ho give me money wind up with cancer. Period, full stop. Why are we working so hard to give people wiggle room on this? When it comes to firearm sales, pro-gun people will tell us that it's a shame about all those dead kids, but the greater good is served by having the freedom to own firearms with few restrictions or impediments. Those people have no problem understanding that we make choices, and some of those choices lead to unpleasant outcomes, but we tacitly approve of those unpleasant outcomes as part of approving of some other outcome we value more. That's simple responsibility.

Spellman 7y ago

Honest question, care to elaborate? From my perspective opting out means no change. And no change means structures stay the same. Therefore, they persist and are maintained with your (weak) approval. This is different from not taking a side on a subject. You can be open to and encouraging healthy debate. I recommend most rational folks to elevate the conversation and not hold strong affiliations for most topics! But removing yourself entirely to me seems to be an act that allows the status quo to persist.

uk_programmer 7y ago
> Honest question, care to elaborate? Many people may not think it is their place to speak. Some people may think they wouldn't be the best person to advocate. Others might think other people speak better about it. Other people might not be in a position to speak about it. In the UK we have many people who claim to talk for the "working class" that as one of my friends put it "looked like they have never done a day of heavy lifting in their life". I wouldn't speak on behalf of the working class, I do a white collar job. > From my perspective opting out means no change. And no change means structures stay the same. Therefore, they persist and are maintained with your (weak) approval. Does it? Many structures fall in under their own weight, many organisation reform from within. You are assuming the world and people within them around doesn't ever change. There is a whole bunch of assumptions you are making. Sometimes the best thing you can do is to do nothing. I used to cycle to work every day. That was more effective to get my coworkers cycling in than any amount of advocacy I may have done verbally. Just yourself being the change you want in the world is sometimes sufficient.
- Spellman 7y ago
  To your first point (don't feel equipped/proper place), that's definitely true. But that doesn't mean you can't support those who are better advocates instead. In your example, by ignoring the "working class" and their issues, you implicitly leave the existing (both good and bad) structures in place. To the second (things change anyways), structures and the world reform due to pressure from individuals within and without. So, yes, perhaps you can hope the system changes without your input (and honestly due to human limitations you really shouldn't have involvement in every issue) but my point is ignoring the issue isn't purely neutral. You are instead offloading the responsibility of change to others. So my point is to point out how being "passive" is actually an "active" choice with consequences. Interestingly, by cycling, many would argue you made an actual statement by your lifestyle that influenced others on a topic. This is why people use the term "everything is political." Your actions, as you noted, spoke louder than any verbal advocacy and changed people's lives. This leads to a similar statement, "be the change you wish to see." Because verbal advocacy is often easy and simple and valued much less persuasively than actions and lifestyle. Does that make sense to you? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your positions? These are great questions and good examples!
  - uk_programmer 7y ago
    > To your first point (don't feel equipped/proper place), that's definitely true. But that doesn't mean you can't support those who are better advocates instead. And it doesn't mean I have to either. > In your example, by ignoring the "working class" and their issues, you implicitly leave the existing (both good and bad) structures in place. No I don't. I neither leave it in place or remove it. > To the second (things change anyways), structures and the world reform due to pressure from individuals within and without. So, yes, perhaps you can hope the system changes without your input (and honestly due to human limitations you really shouldn't have involvement in every issue) but my point is ignoring the issue isn't purely neutral. Sometimes things literally do stop existing when you don't pay attention to them e.g. I don't watch broadcast TV because I don't want to pay the TV license for something I barely watch anyway. I live my life as if it doesn't exist. So as far as I am concerned it doesn't exist unless I choose to pay attention to it. > You are instead offloading the responsibility of change to others. So my point is to point out how being "passive" is actually an "active" choice with consequences. Who made it my responsibility to change anything? Again there are a bunch of presumptions you have made in that statement and I don't think you even know you made them. > Interestingly, by cycling, many would argue you made an actual statement by your lifestyle that influenced others on a topic. There you go again. You are inserting assumptions in with the term "lifestyle". It wasn't a lifestyle. It was just cheaper and quicker to cycle. > This is why people use the term "everything is political." Your actions, as you noted, spoke louder than any verbal advocacy and changed people's lives. This leads to a similar statement, "be the change you wish to see." Because verbal advocacy is often easy and simple and valued much less persuasively than actions and lifestyle. No people use the term "everything is political" because they want to make everything political because it benefits them and their political agenda to make something that is apolitical, political.

braythwayt 7y ago

Let's say I make hats. If I'm selling a hat with a Swastika, and I get a lot of sales for it, can I really say, "I'm not tacitly approving racism and neo-nazis, I just make hats. What I actually approve of, is making money without taking any responsibility for the social consequences of the choices I make to make money?" Or if I sell cigarettes, can I say, "I'm not tacitly approving of cancer, What I actually approve of, is making money without taking any responsibility for the health consequences of the choices I make to make money?" I think that when you do a thing to make money, and it has consequences, you are tacitly saying that you approve of the consequences.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
uk_programmer 7y ago
> Let's say I make hats. If I'm selling a hat with a Swastika, and I get a lot of sales for it, can I really say, "I'm not tacitly approving racism and neo-nazis, I just make hats. What I actually approve of, is making money without taking any responsibility for the social consequences of the choices I make to make money?" Who are you making the hats for? If you are making replica SS uniforms that are used in films and TV then probably not. In Thailand there isn't the historical baggage of the Swastika. When I was over there I saw "HFC" literally "Hitler Fried Chicken", I don't think they were neo-nazis. I think something got lost in translation. > Or if I sell cigarettes, can I say, "I'm not tacitly approving of cancer, What I actually approve of, is making money without taking any responsibility for the health consequences of the choices I make to make money?" The smoker is quite capable of making his own choices. I smoke a cigar from time and time but I don't chain smoke cigarettes. Lets take a less extreme example, when you are selling a pint of beer at the bar are you "tacitly" approving of alcoholism. Obviously not. > I think that when you do a thing to make money, and it has consequences, you are tacitly saying that you approve of the consequences. Not necessarily as we have seen.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  > The smoker is quite capable of making his own choices. I smoke a cigar from time and time but I don't chain smoke cigarettes. The fact that smokers are capable of making their own choices is irrelevant. I also smoke cigars, and if I decide to sell cigarettes or cigars, I am tacitly approving of some portion of my customers getting lung cancer, throat cancer, whatever. That's literally what the word "tacit" means: Implied by or inferred from actions or statements. I sell cigarettes, you can infer quite reasonably that I approve of a world in which some of the people ho give me money wind up with cancer. Period, full stop. Why are we working so hard to give people wiggle room on this? When it comes to firearm sales, pro-gun people will tell us that it's a shame about all those dead kids, but the greater good is served by having the freedom to own firearms with few restrictions or impediments. Those people have no problem understanding that we make choices, and some of those choices lead to unpleasant outcomes, but we tacitly approve of those unpleasant outcomes as part of approving of some other outcome we value more. That's simple responsibility.