3 ms·

This assumes the uncharitable interpretation of "silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support" really means "[people who maintain] silen

This assumes the uncharitable interpretation of "silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support" really means "[people who maintain] silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support [by those people intentionally and inexcusably]". I choose to read it as "inaction is the same as a supporting action" which in this case may be true and is a statement about the effect of inaction rather than a judgement on the persons or whether their inaction is excusable.

coeneedell 6y ago
Even under that reading, you're making the claim that someone is somehow a cause of the harm by being a bystander. What I fail to understand is why someone would try to shift the blame from the perpetrator to a bystander. The only reason I can think of is that the bystander is an easy target. On the more metaphysical side, how can inaction be the same as a supporting action? Are you really trying to say that being a bystander is just as bad as being the bully's sidekick? Imagine this schoolyard bully scenario where a child is threatened and extorted by a bully. During the incident, the bully is actively supported by a friend, cheering them on, and perhaps even restraining the victim. There are three bystanders just watching in shock at the situation, but do not have the courage to act. After the incident, the victim decides to take this route, and begins to lash out and claim that by doing nothing, the bystanders are just as responsible as the kid who was holding him down. Does this accusation really make sense? Does this accusation help the victim resolve the situation? Does this accusation make the bystanders want to help the victim?