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.
Comments
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.