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.
I was comparing you to demagogues. The fact that they became dictators is testament to the effectiveness of that style of demagoguery, which is my reason for speaking out against it.
I never refused to learn more about the subject, I just refuse to accept anonymous, tendentious anecdotes and ideological dogma as sufficient information. As far as I can estimate, sexism is indeed a "massively systemic" problem in American culture. But it's a complicated problem and one that is probably ill-suited to ideological solutions, especially those that emphasize the notion that it is chiefly women who suffer from sexism. I've personally witnessed sexism going both ways, and when appropriate I've spoken out about it. In my profession? Not much to report, it turns out. Maybe I'm lucky.
But see, you never asked those questions, you just gave me a shit-test over whether or not I'm a feminist, and applied the "with us or against us" response to it. The notion of a more complicated, sophisticated, nuanced view that you very well might have large areas of agreement with is alien to you. But this is how rational adults in the real world should address each other--with careful consideration, not with bullying and condemnation and polarization.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question. Speak plainly: what action is there in silence?
I haven't said anything about responsibility, I was just poking at your contradictions. Inaction is not action. It's failure to act. By even using that word you've conceded the point.
Speak plainly. If you think there's a positive duty to speak out, make a case for that. Don't equivocate and say inaction is action. You can't build your case on contradictions and be taken seriously among rational folk. Nor does it work to get huffy and antagonistic whenever you are questioned.
I think you're completely missing the point of the article, which is saying (as I've been trying to explain here as well) that the silence, or inaction, still has a negative effect. It still causes harm. It's completely irrelevant whether you want to classify it as an action or not; it has a result, and the result is negative.
edit: and I fully acknowledge that I let myself get dragged into a side discussion on it, which I shouldn't have.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
I was comparing you to demagogues. The fact that they became dictators is testament to the effectiveness of that style of demagoguery, which is my reason for speaking out against it.
I never refused to learn more about the subject, I just refuse to accept anonymous, tendentious anecdotes and ideological dogma as sufficient information. As far as I can estimate, sexism is indeed a "massively systemic" problem in American culture. But it's a complicated problem and one that is probably ill-suited to ideological solutions, especially those that emphasize the notion that it is chiefly women who suffer from sexism. I've personally witnessed sexism going both ways, and when appropriate I've spoken out about it. In my profession? Not much to report, it turns out. Maybe I'm lucky.
But see, you never asked those questions, you just gave me a shit-test over whether or not I'm a feminist, and applied the "with us or against us" response to it. The notion of a more complicated, sophisticated, nuanced view that you very well might have large areas of agreement with is alien to you. But this is how rational adults in the real world should address each other--with careful consideration, not with bullying and condemnation and polarization.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question. Speak plainly: what action is there in silence?
You mean “How is silence an action rather than a non-action?”? Which I already answered before you even asked it?
When people ask you for help and you don't give it, that inaction is telling these people you won't give them help.
Inaction can make you be criminally accountable, so stop having this weird belief that inaction automatically clears you of all responsibility.
I haven't said anything about responsibility, I was just poking at your contradictions. Inaction is not action. It's failure to act. By even using that word you've conceded the point.
Speak plainly. If you think there's a positive duty to speak out, make a case for that. Don't equivocate and say inaction is action. You can't build your case on contradictions and be taken seriously among rational folk. Nor does it work to get huffy and antagonistic whenever you are questioned.
I think you're completely missing the point of the article, which is saying (as I've been trying to explain here as well) that the silence, or inaction, still has a negative effect. It still causes harm. It's completely irrelevant whether you want to classify it as an action or not; it has a result, and the result is negative.
edit: and I fully acknowledge that I let myself get dragged into a side discussion on it, which I shouldn't have.
My point is that you're being incoherent and doing disservice to whatever point you have to make.
By that logic, should you not be speaking out just as fervently about every other problem in the world?
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.
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.
“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 )
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.
I’m glad to see you're taking all this so seriously.