Silence = Acceptance

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Has everyone who commented here and and agreed with the basic premise of this thread, say hand on heart that they have never failed to take action or speak up when they saw something happening where could have (or felt should - in context) take action?
That's simply the definition of an honorable man - one who does what he believes to be the right thing, in all situations.

Nobody said it was easy.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I have a problem with this reasoning because it leaves no-one morally neutral - you're either saint or sinner. Thus it becomes one's duty to be a hero, kind of devaluing the concept of heroism if you ask me.
"Heroism" is simply rising to the demands of the occasion, despite the obvious immediate costs. One does, or one doesn't. Heroism can be very modest, or titanic. It depends on the situation and, secondarily, on the presence of the potential hero.

Situations in which "moral neutrality" is an appropriate response are rarer than some suppose. But it's a popular fiction; much easier than heroism, certainly.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
<...>
people tend to keep their heads down. It's an aspect of human nature to protect oneself and avoid conflict - "Someone else will say something". And while it may be wrong I don't think it's fair to unconditionally condemn them for doing so, I'm speaking in general terms here, not aimed at you DC.

To me that's what Silence=Acceptance means - it has great merit and very often true, but taken at face value it's an over simplication.
I agree with all that except the part in bold. I do understand remaining silent, if speaking out threatens your safety. I do not understand remaining silent if your only risk is embarrassment or exertion. It may be human nature to assume that it's someone else's problem, but I still believe it is a human nature worthy of condemnation.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I agree with all that except the part in bold. I do understand remaining silent, if speaking out threatens your safety. I do not understand remaining silent if your only risk is embarrassment or exertion. It may be human nature to assume that it's someone else's problem, but I still believe it is a human nature worthy of condemnation.

dong20 said:
"And while it may be wrong I don't think it's fair to unconditionally condemn them for doing so, I'm speaking in general terms here, not aimed at you DC. "

Yes though I think you took the "keep their head down" a little out of context or too literally or I was unclear. The red was not addressing the preceeding statement in isolation - it was encompassing the overall post. That's why I said unconditional condemnation is unreasonable i.e. because there may be conditions or circumstances where silence is advisable, such as the one you mentioned, I'm sure there's others.

In terms of saving embarrassment alone, I don't disagree there.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Thanks for this post, it made me want to clarify my thoughts a little.

Let me briefly pursue a slight tangent:

Often my grandmother tells me stories about her experiences during WWII (she has nothing else to talk about apparently), and occasionally we end up discussing war and the morality of soldiering in fairly unenlightened terms. Her view is that conscientious objectors were no better than cowards and deserving of prison time, whereas those who went to war (whether or not they excelled while there) should be recognised as heroes.

There's really too much to comment on here, but morally, the conversation could go on for days. Deciding what is "morally right" can't happen until a person's morals are mapped out to begin with. I have come to the conclusion that my own basic morals are too divergent from the norm to really be of much use to the average person, but they do work for me.

Your point about heroes and enemies is well taken though, there really aren't any absolutes.

I have a problem with this reasoning because it leaves no-one morally neutral - you're either saint or sinner. Thus it becomes one's duty to be a hero, kind of devaluing the concept of heroism if you ask me.

Hmm, this made me think. I don't know if I've considered the concept of "moral neutrality" before. Do you think this is what most people hope to achieve? If it is, then I understand better why I don't fit in at all. I don't like the saint/sinner model because I think that there are varying degrees of each in all of us, at different times. We are all some of each, in our own ways. To ME (whether this be true or not), it seems like "moral neutrality" is simply a desire to absolve oneself of responsibility. I don't see it as possible most of the time. It's not that I'm saying there's always a clear right and wrong- far from it. But I do think there's usually a choice that's better- more right than wrong.

Personally I take a more morally minimalistic standpoint: I have never been to war, and truthfully I don't know if I would have the guts to. So I'm not willing to condemn someone who is afraid of death and/or dismemberment as a coward, and I think this is a reasonably enlightened and modern standard. Consequently those who DID go to war would be feted, while those who did not would only suffer in relative terms.

I could never risk my life for someone else's cause. A politician is NOT a god, nor should his word be taken as having come from the mouth of God. Of course, I don't believe in gods, but even if I did, a politician in this country, in this time, is not a figure of respect to me, so no- I would never die for one.

I'm also not daft enough to believe that bush gives a fuck about my country- not the way I do. He doesn't care about the principles on which it was founded, he doesn't understand the dream of freedom and enterprise, freedom from persecution that draws people from all over the world to want a bit of what we've got here- HE didn't create it and he's been a fucking lousy steward. No, I wouldn't die for him, nor do I heap tons of respect on those who have. I respect that they've served their conscience, but not mine. There is a huge difference. This is a volunteer army, they've done what they've chosen to do.

I wonder if I could extend this logic to the case of a right-minded individual living in Germany in November 1938. I can't tell you now that I would be brave enough to stand up against a detatchment of brownshirts with clubs and pistols, so I think it would be rather rich to denigrate someone else for the same lack of courage. We should of course celebrate the bravery of MLK Jr, Ghandi et al., but to equate silence with complicity is neither logically nor morally correct.

Okay, I see what you're getting at, and I can agree up to a point. Here's where I draw the line- what if your SAFETY is not being threatened, just your embarassment? Yes, I can easily understand a German being too weak on his own to stand up to the Nazis, but not a white American allowing others to call blacks "nigger" in front of them without telling them to shut the fuck up.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to explore my own feelings more explicitly. We may still disagree on this, and that's fine. To me, silence still equals acceptantce. I can understand it if you or your family is being threatened, but since that's rarely the case anymore, it's usually just out of unwillingness to make yourself uncomfortable, even to do the right thing. Being too lazy to be decent is repulsive to me. I guess I don't believe in moral neutrality.


Of course by my logic the Levite was quite justified in leaving the robbed man to die by the road, so you have to apply a bit of common sense. We can't all be Samaritans, though, can we?

Haha, the eternal question, what really IS right? The Golden Rule is a load of fresh crap, because there are two parts to the equation, and it only addresses one part. It says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Of course, this is NOT Biblical, but people quote it as if it is!:rolleyes:

Also, it does NOT address what the other person wants! What horseshit!

No, the only intellectually honest thing you can say is "Do unto others exactly as you wish to do unto them". Help them if you want, ignore them if you want, hurt them when they're weak, if you want. See, our choices mainly affect US. While we see ourselves as some incredible force in the lives of others, what we're really doing is defining ourselves. We are only a sum of our actions, not our words or beliefs.

I agree with you, apply a bit of common sense, in all things. Look at the whole picture, not just one fragment. We're not all Samaritans for a reason- what is it? We each have different tasks to accomplish while we're here.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Yes though I think you took the "keep their head down" a little out of context or too literally or I was unclear. The red was not addressing the preceeding statement in isolation - it was encompassing the overall post. That's why I said unconditional condemnation is unreasonable i.e. because there may be conditions or circumstances where silence is advisable, such as the one you mentioned, I'm sure there's others.

In terms of saving embarrassment alone, I don't disagree there.
We are agreeing.:biggrin1: I was not taking that phrase out of context, nor too literally. I think the misunderstanding may be in what we are considering to be "unconditional." See below:

Okay, I see what you're getting at, and I can agree up to a point. Here's where I draw the line- what if your SAFETY is not being threatened, just your embarassment? Yes, I can easily understand a German being too weak on his own to stand up to the Nazis, but not a white American allowing others to call blacks "nigger" in front of them without telling them to shut the fuck up.
Thank you for making a better analogy than I was able to. Here's a little anecdote from my distant past.

When I was a 17-year-old high school senior, I had gone to a party with some friends. I overheard a conversation which included the following statement: "I just can't believe they elected that nigger to the homecoming court, let alone as homecoming queen." I happened to know Donna, and I knew she was a fine young woman. I confronted the person, told them I didn't think that was an appropriate thing to say (I wasn't that nice, actually...)

Two others defended him, saying that they didn't think niggers belonged on the homecoming court at all... basketball court maybe, but not homecoming.

I was furious, and I left. Being a poor high school student, I couldn't call a taxi. That was a very long (approximately) 4 mile walk home. One of my friends saw me at school the next week, and said "I really hated what they were saying, too, but I didn't want them to call me a nigger-lover." I was so stunned that I couldn't respond. I never spoke to that person again, either. I have very low tolerance for moral cowardice. It was not a life-threatening situation, it was just that several in attendance didn't want to become "unpopular." I didn't give a shit what people like that thought of me. I could not have looked at myself in the mirror had I said nothing. Even worse, I could not have looked Donna in the eye the next time she spoke to me. I never told her of that incident, but I just chalked it up to the ignorance of the masses.
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
I'm a self-preservationist apathist with militant pacifistic tendencies!

Anyway, it's easy to be the man when the enemy doesn't fight back. TBH as a rule of thumb, I would never get involved unless my own well being was in danger.

If the eviliest thing to do is do nothing, then I'm the evilest motherfucker the world will ever see and I am proud of it. Why should I help those who can't help themselves, why should I take lashes for people who can't share their own? Heck, it's a criminal offence in the UK to even harm a man beating his g/f in public (or as I call it, "time to make a detour") and I see so many women being abused it's becoming disgustingly funny.

If I didn't like the heat, then I'd leave the kitchen.

I'm a freak and almost a social outcast, I don't need to hang with people I don't like, or hang with gangs, or clubs, whatever. I am free to do almost as I wish and those that block my immediate actions are the people who deserve a kicking, and they're the stupid sub-human animals that find it amusing to attempt to pick on someone twice their biomass.

As for public protest or actions to benefit others: You want an assist, pay up.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I was furious, and I left. Being a poor high school student, I couldn't call a taxi. That was a very long (approximately) 4 mile walk home. One of my friends saw me at school the next week, and said "I really hated what they were saying, too, but I didn't want them to call me a nigger-lover."

In certain circles, being a nigger-lover is worse than being a nigger, and that's really, really BAD! How can you expect someone to stand up to someone calling them a BAD name???!!!

I was so stunned that I couldn't respond.

This is why you and I are rarely confused about what each other are saying, we think alike.

I never spoke to that person again, either. I have very low tolerance for moral cowardice.

I also have a very short list of real friends. Comes from the reason you cited.

It was not a life-threatening situation, it was just that several in attendance didn't want to become "unpopular." I didn't give a shit what people like that thought of me. I could not have looked at myself in the mirror had I said nothing. Even worse, I could not have looked Donna in the eye the next time she spoke to me. I never told her of that incident, but I just chalked it up to the ignorance of the masses.

You shouldn't have to announce your deeds with trumpets. If your desire was to not have Donna feel bad, why tell her about the guys' stupid comments? You kept them from being spread any further, so the appropriate follow up is to just enjoy your day, right?

Who gives a fuck about being popular, if it's at the expense of being decent? If this is really how people think, I'll keep my short list AND my prejudices, TYVM.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I have very low tolerance for moral cowardice. It was not a life-threatening situation, it was just that several in attendance didn't want to become "unpopular."

Same here. The older I get the less and less tolerance I find I have for moral cowardice in those types of circumstances.

What really riled me up was how often I saw moral cowardice displayed by so-called leaders in several organizations I've worked for. When opportunities arose for those managers to take clear moral stands they instead scurried around covering their asses while uttering excuses like:

* I have to do this because its agency policy.

or

* Well, we all have to put up with some things we don't like,

or some other similar sell out phrases.

It eventually became clear to me that my superiors in particular (and, by extension, superiors in general) did not hold positions of authority because they were better leaders. Rather, it was because they were simply more effective ass-kissers. They'd throw anyone under the bus to protect their career prospects.

I didn't give a shit what people like that thought of me..

I often didn't either, but I have to admit I was made to pay for it. Oh yes. I carry the emotional and physical scars to this day.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
*BUMP*







Martin Niemoeller was a pacifist who spoke out against nuclear weapons. He is best known for his powerful statement about the failure of Germans to speak out against the Nazis:

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

He died in Wiesbaden on March 6, 1984.

I first read this quote in an Ann Landers column in the New York Daily News when I was about 8 years old. I guess you could say it resonated with me because I never forgot it.

So when people like woodward, stud21, conanobrien, jameswales, etc. enter chat and start spewing vitriolic hate against gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, people with HIV or AIDS, women, and blacks I can’t ignore them.

It pisses me off when otherwise sensible people tell me to use the ignore function when a sexist, racist, homophobic troll enters chat. History shows us these people don’t leave never to be seen again. In cyberland they just change names and keep coming back like onion.

In real life they do not retreat quietly into the night never to be seen or heard from again. They go home and start armies and churches like Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, and Adolf Hitler.

As long as I have breath in my asthmatic lungs I will shout them down, I will jump on their case; and I will get up in their grill.


I Will Not Be Silenced!


 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
any particular reason you chose to bump this nj?

If I spoke up every time I saw something I didn't agree with I'd never shut up.

It seemed appropriate given the number of people who have either left the site or complained about the amount of hate mongering going on here lately.