4 ms·
Inaction is an action in itself, they are right in this. IDK where you see a deep obsession in a recognition of this obvious fact.
by lstodd 1y ago
Inaction is an action in itself, they are right in this. IDK where you see a deep obsession in a recognition of this obvious fact.
- bakugo 1y agoNo, inaction is inaction. Claiming otherwise is just a roundabout way of saying "you must actively support my agenda at all times, otherwise I will consider you my enemy, even if you take a neutral stance" that political activists love to use to pressure normal people into supporting them.
- beachy 1y agoAlso consider that many people are not in the US and are not obliged to wade into US politics.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rexpop 1y agoThere is no "neutral stance," only ignorance of bias. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937
- tremon 1y agoAll rhetorical dichotomies are false.
- rexpop 1y agoSince when does the PDP-6 implement only dichotomous state?
- ranger_danger 1y ago> Only my opinion can be valid
- lstodd 1y agoInaction is a manifestation of one of two things: ignorance, or conscious decision to not act. I agree that strictly only the latter can be considered an act, while the former .. well. Not an act, but a then the question arises if an unconscious person can even be considered a person _in_relation_to_having_a_conversation_with_them_. That last point I must even more press. I think this is what we are discussing. Please share your viewpoint on this.
- derefr 1y ago> Inaction is a manifestation of one of two things: ignorance, or conscious decision to not act. Under which of these categories would you classify the following assertion: > As much as I've learned about subject X, I still feel that neither I — nor most people who are already acting, for that matter — truly have enough information to take an informed stance here, as the waters are being actively clouded by propaganda campaigns, censorship, and false-flag operations by one or both sides; and I believe that acting without true knowledge can only play into someone's hand in a way that may damage what turns out to be an innocent party I would highly regret damaging, when this all shakes out a decade down the line. I find myself too knowingly ignorant to conscientiously act... yet I also do not highly prioritize gaining any more information about the situation, as I have seemingly passed the threshold where acquiring additional verifiable and objective information on the conflict is cheap enough to be worth it; gaining any further knowledge to inform my stance is too costly for someone like me, who is neither an investigative journalist, nor a historiographer, nor enmeshed in the conflict myself. So I fear I must opt out of the conflict altogether. I find myself increasingly arriving at exactly this stance on so many subjects that other people seem to readily take stances (and allow themselves to be spurred to action) on. I suppose I may differ from the average person in at least one way — that being that, if I were tricked into harming innocent parties, I would hold myself to account for allowing myself to be tricked, rather than externalizing blame to the party responsible for tricking me. After all, only by my learning a lesson in avoiding being manipulated, do I actually lessen the likelihood of the next innocent party coming to harm. Which is a lot more important to me, in a rule-utilitarian sense, than is avoiding social approbation for not taking a stance.
- 1y ago
- ranger_danger 1y agoI think it depends on why there is inaction.