3 ms·

Silence is not a non-contribution. You're not getting it, but then, you already told us you don't wish to spend even a second learning more about this issue, so

Silence is not a non-contribution. You're not getting it, but then, you already told us you don't wish to spend even a second learning more about this issue, so I guess this won't help you either: http://tommorris.org/posts/8084 http://tommorris.org/posts/8084

philwelch 14y ago
I've "learned" plenty about this issue, and the main thing I've gained is a greater appreciation for the power of ideology to obstruct rational thought. The symptoms of ideology include disproportionate emotional reaction to disagreement and accusing people of "ignorance" when they disagree with you. Let's disengage from that, if we can, and try to answer my question. How is silence an action rather than a non-action? All you've asserted (well, you've let bloggers assert it for you, which doesn't add any more weight than saying it yourself) is that speaking out would be appreciated. I'll grant that. But just because action is appreciated doesn't turn non-action into action. It simply doesn't follow. The purpose of this "with us or against us" tactic is to bully sympathetic people into radicalism, which is why radical bullies like Lenin and Mussolini were so fond of it. It is a self-replication mechanism for ideology. Which is why you become so angry when someone merely says "I have nothing to speak out about". Apparently one is supposed to go looking for outrage that motivates them to join your side when none is apparent, rather than simply acting on the evidence they have at hand. I reject your bullying, reject the implication that I should speak out about things I have never witnessed just to further your agenda, and reserve the right to speak out about and solve the problems I do see in a calm and reasoned fashion.
- Zikes 14y ago
  That's the most clearly I've heard this argument stated thus far. Kudos, and thank you.
- KuraFire 14y ago
  When people tell you they are in need of help, doing nothing is the action of not giving help. There's no bullying or anything like that going on, here, and you're being disingenuous by presenting it as such (and also, you're being an asshole by comparing me to dictators). You've stated your refusal to learn more about this subject, it's disingenuous to try and turn that around claiming you already know “plenty” when you clearly don't, because you're arguing that this isn't a massively systemic problem, when all evidence clearly points out that it is. Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean it isn't there.
  - Zikes 14y ago
    By that logic, should you not be speaking out just as fervently about every other problem in the world?
    - KuraFire 14y ago
      This is a deflection fallacy. For one, I do speak out about other problems (and frequently, too), but when it comes to addressing the bigger problems, you should focus on the ones you can be most effective in. Speaking out against sexism is extremely effective in changing the culture in our industry. Silence is not effective at all, in fact, it's causing harm at this point.
      - Zikes 14y ago
        It is as obviously a deflection fallacy as your "with us or against us" argument is a false choice fallacy. That is the point I was trying to make. Regardless, I'll not be demonized just because I happen to be a man in an industry that is heavily male dominated. I am a good person, I should not have to argue that point, and I certainly do not need to write another aimless anecdotal editorial on an issue I have no personal experience with.
        KuraFire 14y ago
        “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” — Desmond Tutu (via https://twitter.com/cerebralideas/status/298524707806916608 https://twitter.com/cerebralideas/status/298524707806916608 )
        Zikes 14y ago
        Ah, I forgot about the rule that just because a famous person makes a fallacial argument, it is forevermore held as truth and above refute. Alright, let's play your game. I concede that point, and I admit that due to my inaction on this social rights issue in the face of your radical argumentation, I am in fact a monster. I shall therefore quit my job, give away all of my belongings, and travel the world. I will be a slave to any cause that will have me, forfeiting my freedom and my livelihood to further any cause, until there is no more injustice in the world. But remember, if you do not do the same you will not only be a monster like me, but a hypocrite, as well.
- flaviusb 14y ago
  No, it is about power. The reasoning goes as follows: 1) When there are two sides, and one side will clearly win by default, choosing to stay neutral becomes de facto support for the 'default' winner. 2) In this case, the 'default' winner is evil. 3) So, in this case neutrality is evil. Does that make more sense?
  - philwelch 14y ago
    It's not really clear to me that without my help, the forces of evil patriarchy will prevail and women will be sexually harassed in the workplace forever. I know these kinds of narratives are popular because of some kind of siege mentality, but it simply doesn't match the reality that I can apprehend.
    - flaviusb 14y ago
      It isn't popular because of 'some kind of siege mentality'. It is popular because there is an observed structural power imbalance, which means that 'not joining a side' does not have 'no effect', as the 'silent' are assumed (by all involved, not just some actors acting in bad faith) to agree with 'the majority'. Okay, think of it like this: you are not the only 'neutral' person out there. There are four sides. Side A, side B, side neutral, and side not-actually-involved. Side A will clearly win against side B, but clearly lose against side B plus some large (but not total) percentage of side neutral. Side not-actually-involved can have some influence on the outcome, but generally not much. That is the kind of situation which I would claim things like the 'evil patriarchy' vs 'the not evil not patriarchy' are. So, there are several possibilities; if you are already a part of side a or side b, then you have already chosen a side. Whether you are part of side neutral or side not-actually-involved is pretty easy to determine: are you in the industry at all? If yes, then you are involved. So, even assuming that you are involved, your unique help is in fact not necessary to the victory of the not evil side. Merely the help of many of the people in your reference class. In which case, if you choose not to help side b, you have indicated that you prefer side a winning over helping side b; this is not quite the same as preferring that side a win, but it is enough that 'neutrality' is usually taken by everyone involved (including other neutrals, except for you for some reason) as 'weak support for the structurally powerful/status quo/clear majority position'. Does that clear things up at all?

philwelch 14y ago

I've "learned" plenty about this issue, and the main thing I've gained is a greater appreciation for the power of ideology to obstruct rational thought. The symptoms of ideology include disproportionate emotional reaction to disagreement and accusing people of "ignorance" when they disagree with you. Let's disengage from that, if we can, and try to answer my question. How is silence an action rather than a non-action? All you've asserted (well, you've let bloggers assert it for you, which doesn't add any more weight than saying it yourself) is that speaking out would be appreciated. I'll grant that. But just because action is appreciated doesn't turn non-action into action. It simply doesn't follow. The purpose of this "with us or against us" tactic is to bully sympathetic people into radicalism, which is why radical bullies like Lenin and Mussolini were so fond of it. It is a self-replication mechanism for ideology. Which is why you become so angry when someone merely says "I have nothing to speak out about". Apparently one is supposed to go looking for outrage that motivates them to join your side when none is apparent, rather than simply acting on the evidence they have at hand. I reject your bullying, reject the implication that I should speak out about things I have never witnessed just to further your agenda, and reserve the right to speak out about and solve the problems I do see in a calm and reasoned fashion.

Zikes 14y ago
That's the most clearly I've heard this argument stated thus far. Kudos, and thank you.
KuraFire 14y ago
When people tell you they are in need of help, doing nothing is the action of not giving help. There's no bullying or anything like that going on, here, and you're being disingenuous by presenting it as such (and also, you're being an asshole by comparing me to dictators). You've stated your refusal to learn more about this subject, it's disingenuous to try and turn that around claiming you already know “plenty” when you clearly don't, because you're arguing that this isn't a massively systemic problem, when all evidence clearly points out that it is. Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean it isn't there.
- Zikes 14y ago
  By that logic, should you not be speaking out just as fervently about every other problem in the world?
  - KuraFire 14y ago
    This is a deflection fallacy. For one, I do speak out about other problems (and frequently, too), but when it comes to addressing the bigger problems, you should focus on the ones you can be most effective in. Speaking out against sexism is extremely effective in changing the culture in our industry. Silence is not effective at all, in fact, it's causing harm at this point.
    - Zikes 14y ago
      It is as obviously a deflection fallacy as your "with us or against us" argument is a false choice fallacy. That is the point I was trying to make. Regardless, I'll not be demonized just because I happen to be a man in an industry that is heavily male dominated. I am a good person, I should not have to argue that point, and I certainly do not need to write another aimless anecdotal editorial on an issue I have no personal experience with.
      - KuraFire 14y ago
        “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” — Desmond Tutu (via https://twitter.com/cerebralideas/status/298524707806916608 https://twitter.com/cerebralideas/status/298524707806916608 )
        Zikes 14y ago
        Ah, I forgot about the rule that just because a famous person makes a fallacial argument, it is forevermore held as truth and above refute. Alright, let's play your game. I concede that point, and I admit that due to my inaction on this social rights issue in the face of your radical argumentation, I am in fact a monster. I shall therefore quit my job, give away all of my belongings, and travel the world. I will be a slave to any cause that will have me, forfeiting my freedom and my livelihood to further any cause, until there is no more injustice in the world. But remember, if you do not do the same you will not only be a monster like me, but a hypocrite, as well.
flaviusb 14y ago
No, it is about power. The reasoning goes as follows: 1) When there are two sides, and one side will clearly win by default, choosing to stay neutral becomes de facto support for the 'default' winner. 2) In this case, the 'default' winner is evil. 3) So, in this case neutrality is evil. Does that make more sense?
- philwelch 14y ago
  It's not really clear to me that without my help, the forces of evil patriarchy will prevail and women will be sexually harassed in the workplace forever. I know these kinds of narratives are popular because of some kind of siege mentality, but it simply doesn't match the reality that I can apprehend.
  - flaviusb 14y ago
    It isn't popular because of 'some kind of siege mentality'. It is popular because there is an observed structural power imbalance, which means that 'not joining a side' does not have 'no effect', as the 'silent' are assumed (by all involved, not just some actors acting in bad faith) to agree with 'the majority'. Okay, think of it like this: you are not the only 'neutral' person out there. There are four sides. Side A, side B, side neutral, and side not-actually-involved. Side A will clearly win against side B, but clearly lose against side B plus some large (but not total) percentage of side neutral. Side not-actually-involved can have some influence on the outcome, but generally not much. That is the kind of situation which I would claim things like the 'evil patriarchy' vs 'the not evil not patriarchy' are. So, there are several possibilities; if you are already a part of side a or side b, then you have already chosen a side. Whether you are part of side neutral or side not-actually-involved is pretty easy to determine: are you in the industry at all? If yes, then you are involved. So, even assuming that you are involved, your unique help is in fact not necessary to the victory of the not evil side. Merely the help of many of the people in your reference class. In which case, if you choose not to help side b, you have indicated that you prefer side a winning over helping side b; this is not quite the same as preferring that side a win, but it is enough that 'neutrality' is usually taken by everyone involved (including other neutrals, except for you for some reason) as 'weak support for the structurally powerful/status quo/clear majority position'. Does that clear things up at all?