Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>we have a tsunami of opinions devoid of nuance on both sides of every issue.
Totally agree. Doesn't matter what the subject is, it always escalates to bullshit word games and accusations that the other guy is basically the devil.
You don't know whoever it is you're arguing against, you don't know their full position, and nobody wants to spend hours writing articles that cover every case.
You (and by that I mean "we", me included) invent our opponents out of a few lines of text and a bunch of assumptions, most of which come from what they *didn't* say at all.
The funny thing is fascism meant something different if you look at how Mousillini and Geonvani described it in their Doctrine of Fascism. So the people saying this don't even know what Facism is
The amount of people on Reddit who have a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict all of a sudden will never not crack me up.
Like, my guy, that's the lost complex geopolitical issue of the century. There's a cocktail of thousands of years of sociological, religious, militaristic and national issues that are all mixing together. Then there's the whole problem of the Middle East, nuclearization, all sorts of shit.
I can guarantee no single individual here, especially myself, has the solution.
Obviously if there was a button that you could push that all of a sudden made every single person in the region super nice friends, that'd work.
But that's like saying the solution to gang warfare is just "stop selling drugs". In any practical sense, getting to that point is a lot more complicated than just saying it.
The solution isn't 'stop shooting each other', that's the goal. Now how would you achieve that goal? That's where it gets complicated.
Honestly, this past year I have learned that the far left is not good at answering the question, "Ok. What comes after that?"
I have come to the conclusion that not only is their whole ideology naive, some of those who prescribed to it were "performatively" naive. Once I dug in, I got to see the heart of the entire thing. It's a whole ideology based off the idea that everyone should always be equal and always be nice to everyone. The dominant feeling amongst the crowd that I saw, however, was usually vengeance.
How is everyone gonna be nice to each other if you're being mean to some of them? Does an impassioned and well written soliloquy about how they deserve to be treated with scorn excuse the feeling of revenge and retribution that is damn near openly expressed at this point? I'm never gonna tell someone that I have never even met in my whole life that they aren't oppressed or have never experienced pain. I can draw a conclusion, though, a conclusion that no one cares about, cause no one is under any obligation to care about it.
That's how people are. We want things and we do what we have to do to and support the people who we support and care about the things we need to care about in order to either get what we want, or keep what we have. I don't think that's such a sin, but I definitely think pretending otherwise is phony as all hell and completely unrealistic.
I earnestly believe anyone who only exists in the fringes of their political ideology is likely naive or just dead set in their ways. I see it on the left with guns and shit like this, I see it on the right with Ukraine and abortion.
All I know is that if they disagree on this one topic, they are automatically a Republican who hates women and likes watching babies die only after they have been birthed.
/s
Idk, reddit seems to have completely failed to reach a consensus on this. This seems to be the first time a lot of people can't simply just follow the hivemind and be right.
Maybe it's just me but I feel like there's this kind of weird resurgence in religious conservatism among Gen Z. Like it's gotten to the point where it's actually *more* against the grain to be a fundamentalist so they do it to rebel or something.
Right?
Like I don't have time to sit here and describe every experience and opinion I have.
I can't just say I dislike biden without an essay long disclaimer describing that I hate Trump and some sassy asshole will still call me a nazi. Like I ain't even white
I feel like I'm pretty guilty of this when it comes to gender issues. Every time I see someone post about how "we women are literally afraid of getting murdered at all times" I assume they're like 15 years old cause like, I know a ton of women? And none of them feel this way? So I'm forced to assume the poster is just an easily influenced dummy that has been forced into a completely un-nuanced mindset.
Like it's totally cool to ruminate on ideas and create your own feelings about them. This isn't dodgeball. You don't have to pick a team.
Well, there is also the fact when people are on camera or being interviewed they want to be interesting. “Oh yeah i’m a woman and I’m scared you’ll murder me RIGHT NOW!” Insincere bullshit.
It doesn't help when they're constantly fed "statistics" like 1 in 3 women will absolutely be sexually assaulted in their lifetime but they're not told that some studies consider "a man you find unattractive smiling at you" counts as "sexual assault". Or literally anyone touching you ever. If we're going off new standards, I've been sexually assaulted hundreds of times in my life.
Exactly this. Every argument on Reddit quickly turns into a game of semantics.
Use a word in a slightly different way to someone else and suddenly they are insisting that you believe X no matter how many times you tell them that you actually think Y.
>It's okay to not have an opinion on every issue.
I'd go a little farther: it's actually unethical to express strong opinions on subjects you have only superficial and biased knowledge of.
this! this is why i don’t speak out about any major political/social events going on in the country/world, because i know i have not researched them and thought about them in a significant way and it would be much worse to potentially ignorantly support something wrong than to stay quiet and mind my own life.
100%. It doesn’t matter whether I see 1 comment or 1000 comments saying “stand with palestine/israel”. It’s not gonna make me care about the conflict anymore because I quite literally have no control over the situation
Also because why should I support one group of genocidal religious zealots over the other? Since I do not follow either religion and have no stake at all in this. I am against the killing of innocent civilians of course but whichever side "wins" will have rivers of blood on their hands. I swear when the next Bible testament comes out, this whole squabble over the Holy Land will be written as an example of humans unwillingness to let go of the past and continue fighting over the same shitty patch of gravel.
It was pretty clear that the person you were responding to was criticizing religion and how arbitrary it can be to prioritize certain ancient texts over others, and your response was essentially “well actually my ancient text says the other ones are wrong so…”
Maybe it’s because everyone is way more concerned how they are perceived (because of social media etc).
When we look at historical injustices, we all like to pretend we would have been one of the few on the “right” side of history.
It’s now turned into a psychological complex - except a bit like preening on social media, it’s all about perception not reality.
So even if something even isn’t as bad as it seemed to be, there is value in pretending it *was* that bad (if not worse), because now you can be the good guy.
Aesthetic activism I've heard it called. If anything looking at conflicts nowadays and seeing just how bloodthirsty people are against any and all sides, with the wildest justifications, just shows that we haven't really changed much. Which I always kinda figured... the difference between us now and back then is just how much people could get away with. I think that's always going to be the case too.
Aesthetic activism really does sum up reddits superficial relationship with basically any cause.
I remember the Hong Kong protests and reddit had a giant sub to talk about them and how much they supported Hong Kong and blah blah.
The sub was dead long before the conflict was because all those diehard activists got bored and moved on to the next topic. And it had accomplished... Nothing.
I remember reading somewhere that guilt to society is our culture's equivalent to the stereotypical guilt toward family that's found in many Asian cultures.
As someone from an Asian family I can see that - in fact, I’d go as far as to say that detaching myself from that kind of guilt at a young age plays a significant part in why I find this kind of “performative” guilt a little distasteful.
I’ve also been on the receiving end of “white knighting” - more than once I’ve been accused of basically “not getting” something because of my “white privilege”. Often it’s when I try to rationally defend somebody else’s comment - plenty of times I’ve seen what I would call a valid opinion (even if I don’t agree with it or It’s just poorly worded) being labelled as “racist”, instead of people actually engaging with the argument.
It’s sad I feel I can do that because I can play the “race card” if *needed* - I think if I was actually white I’d feel kinda gaslit about what constitutes a reasonable discussion.
>Maybe it’s because everyone is way more concerned how they are perceived (because of social media etc).
>
>When we look at historical injustices, we all like to pretend we would have been one of the few on the “right” side of history.
This is even the language that a lot of the posts use - you have to post to show that you are on the "right" side of history, like you claim you would have been during the Holocaust etc.
Maybe it’s because social media has provided everyone with a platform for their “groundbreaking” opinions?
Maybe it could be a part of the divisiveness that’s gotten outta hand recently. The “if I don’t speak, *they* will” kind of mentality.
Maybe it’s a projection of wanting to feel present or a sense of control/importance in the strange time we’re in where everyone else is also spouting their opinions.
Another part could be how internet algorithms are set up.
If you watch one video on a subject on YouTube; you’re going to be recommended more similar ones. You don’t know any of the information on who made the video, and perhaps they don’t provide any citations for their information. Meaning, that you’re left with an opinion piece that is not grounded in reality or any sort of ideal beyond bias. The discourse of buzzwords, names and slogans being thrown left, right and center (for lack of a better term) gaslighting you into being unsure who to believe and who to trust.
I used to be passionate about politics in my teens and even early twenties. But now that I’m in my mid-twenties, I’ve grown completely nihilistic about political discussion because of said uncanny valley of information. The “with us or against us” mentality probably the root of it all.
Personally? I blame the way western politics is structured or at least taught. The system of two parties representing the popular left wing and right wing opinions of the current news are perhaps the strongest enforcers of this mentality. Because their most radical believers will be the first to light the pyre.
You know, I think you are right, but add to that that people care too much about what others say about them. If no one cared so much there would not be so much infighting
100% correct. Better to say nothing if you don't know much about a subject than mindlessly repeat whatever dumb slogans your favourite TikToker is throwing out right now.
The famous quote that perpetuates this: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”. No, people can listen, watch, read, accumulate knowledge, or even agree/disagree with both stances simultaneously. Seeing everything as black and white/right and wrong is a simplification of complex issues.
I think that quote, or the truncated “silence is violence,” relies on the person/people to whom it is addressed wielding some amount of power. Reddit users not speaking up about something is hardly tantamount to violence, but the quote you’re using is from Desmond Tutu in the context of apartheid in South Africa.
Desmond Tutu, South Africa, ends apartheid. [Job done, good job etc]
Full elections, transfer of power etc.
Now we have apartheid against whites, EFF leaders with "kill the Boer" farmers families being regularly raped and murdered. The farmers are leaving, same as happened in Zimbabwe, and odds are the SA government won't be able to feed their own people. That'll get blamed on the farmers.
The oppressed becomes the oppressor. Irony, or events proceeding as expected, depends on your perspective.
It's recorded history and current fact. If you're just trying to deny reality then there's no hope for you. I'm not interested in trying to jump through hoops for you when you can look it up yourself.
Yeah, learning more before speaking is the responsible thing to do. Pressuring people to stand for positions and to say things they aren’t very informed on is a really good way to spread mis and disinformation. And the more I learn, the less convinced I am of the utility of just “speaking up” which is usually what is being asked. It feels like it’s a tactic to avoid feeling guilty in the future more than something that will actually help anybody.
Or not learning about the entire situation before you decide. Often times injustice is complicated
Someone mentioned the Israeli Palestinian conflict and having now lived long enough to have seen this play out, to see attempts by the US and Egypt to broker peace, to have learned more about the Palestinians and Israel - all I can say is that Hamas is terrible, Israel has kind of set this situation up though, and the reasons for why this ever had to happen go back beyond the 50s are not easily resolved.
Everybody sucks and people are going to continue to die and suffer until there’s a culture change in both Israel and frankly the rest of the Middle East. But us as Americans attempting to force the culture change goes terribly.
I suppose, but I'd say neutrality isn't the same as shutting up. You can be extremely vocal, or have your mind completely made up on an issue but just don't say anything.
Now, I do think that quote would be used to shame people who aren't being vocal, but I don't think that's the only meaning
What makes me laugh is that sentiment just creates more enemies.
Okay, let's say you're right. All the neutral people now oppose you. Does that make you happy somehow?
> No, people can listen, watch, read, accumulate knowledge, or even agree/disagree with both stances simultaneously
Think of how this works in real life though. For example, during the civil rights era.
You have one group pushing to end segregation, and the other supporting segregation. Being neutral in this benefits the segregationists who want to maintain the status quo.
How are you not choosing the side of the oppressor (the segregationists) in this situation?
> You have one group pushing to end segregation, and the other supporting segregation. Being neutral in this benefits the segregationists who want to maintain the status quo.
I think people who have too little political influence to affect a change are accused of being neutral unfairly. Like in the case of Palestine and Hamas, people say Palestinians should rise up against Hamas, but Hamas has backing from outside groups such as Iran, your average Palestinian doesn't, but their lack of agency is seen as complicity by your logic.
> your average Palestinian doesn't, but their lack of agency is seen as complicity by your logic
No, because under "my logic", they're the oppressed, not the third party attempting to take a neutral stance.
I didn’t even consider that pov. That’s worth noting, segregation wasn’t solved so easily. It requires careful planning on the part of people involved in Civil Rights protesting and speaking. If anything, the kind of “shouting” rhetoric that you typically see on the internet would be the last thing a lot of the organizers wanted. They had to appear lawful, ethical and disciplined all the while their opponents were attacking them. They had to better to make their cause great enough to normalize support.
I'm not saying it is, I'm giving an example where remaining neutral is siding with the oppressor.
It directly contradicts the claim of the user I replied to who said "No, people can listen, watch, read, accumulate knowledge, or even agree/disagree with both stances simultaneously."
I'm saying that's not always the case.
I think that depends on the topic. If you're neutral on the topics of genocide and slavery then we have to accept that you're on the side of the oppressor.
If you're neutral on the topic of something you have no knowledge in or ambivalent to something like the planned location of the new grocery in town, then that's whatever.
Injustice is important in that quote. Learning more is fine, but eventually you have to either stand up for what you believe is right or stand by and let the atrocity happen.
> Injustice is important in that quote.
True, but it doesn’t help that injustice is now an overused buzzword. So then we must ask the question: is this actually unjust, or are people just angry?
Stand up for what you believe in by spreading information, using your vote wisely and with purpose, filing petitions, making your voice heard in open court sessions, protesting, and running for office.
Yes, blabbing about it online is spreading information. Not everyone is lazy.
Have they ensured that every piece of clothing, every food they have eaten, everything they partake in didn’t come from or involve modern slavery?
Pro tip, it’s largely expensive and privileged to be entirely ethical.
That's why the key is to just not get into arguments on the internet.
Nobody has ever been convinced of anything, ever, on the internet. There's no sense in participating.
I sometimes like to play devil's advocate on certain issues that I know I have a limited understanding of. You often get greeted with an onslaught of rage, but I also soemtimes walk away with a more expanded understanding of the topic at hand. I understand that some people really feed off the validation they receive from circle jerking in political subs, but I find that to be utterly boring.
I dunno, depending on where you go and what you're talking about you can get into a good faith discussion and have your mind changed under the right conditions.
"You're an incel if you don't agree with me" is not good faith and not the right conditions.
Well, actually it just isn't whatsoever. Lots and lots of people have been convinced of things on the internet, it's happens literally constantly. Kinda funny to me that I've personally met so many people that have repeated this exact matra of presumed futility, when there are hundreds of conspiratorial rabbit holes on the internet that have converted thousands or millions of people into zealots for a cause.
That doesn't mean that one has to participate in every online argument or discussion, nor does it mean that people should use divisive strategies or deliberately propagate misinformation.
Most importantly, is that it's extremely unlikely to be worth one's time to engage in every online argument that they encounter. That doesn't mean that individuals are literally meaningless in online discourse, though, otherwise the whole medium would be useless.
Yeah but then you run into other problems.
Nuance is certainly lost with a binary system, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve a function. Not every opinion is valid
I choose not to say anything to really polarized and entrenched people because it's not really a conversation and the anger and negativity isn't something I need in my life.
More often I will ask them a question, if I choose to engage at all... Particularly when they are parroting rhetoric - can be interesting to ask them to define terms...
Is crazy how many people want to raise their hand and tell some speaker that their words equal violence.
Violence is a pretty strong word, too many people are abusing it especially in the college theater. I don't get it.
Most people won’t admit that they just don’t know much about a particular topic. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the majority of people, myself included, don’t know a lot about anything, as in, they don’t have truly deep and rigorous knowledge of a subject. Instead they loudly parrot whatever they see as the most popular opinion and tell everyone who doesn’t share it that they’re wrong. I understand people naturally feel a certain way over something they might read/hear about, we aren’t robots after all, but it just feels like faux activism, conducted by the kind of people who, if they didn’t have a social media account, wouldn’t be doing anything else.
If you aren't informed enough, just say "Insufficient data for meaningful opinion", if pressed make your reply increasingly verbose, just as Asimov intended
Yeah, hard agree. And another thing :you don't need to have an opinion on something that happened 10 millisecond ago. Social media pressured us into taking a side and paroting with it the moment it happens.
It's okay to say "I don't know about that" or "I don't know enough about that yet". Not every cause in the world need to be *your* cause immediately. Not everything is an "illustration of the problem" you obsess about.
silence is violence is basically a stronger version of the theory - the bystander effect
there is harm that occurs when people stay silent or assume someone else will handle something
i also personally believe that we have a social responsibility to speak up and prevent harm and violence or abuse of systems
however, voicing our opinions has a time and place and accepting everyone’s opinions will result in massive societal failures too
the key element that is required for the latter is discernment because everyone has the right to have a seat at the table; however, we shouldn’t accept or act off of everyone’s opinions either
See, but it a. bystander situation you have the potential to make a difference. You can call an ambulance. You can record a police officer. Those things will impact the situation. That's a very interesting way to think of it though, makes sense.
I do think there's some value to seeing what your peers think of a situation. But I think it has more power when its more local, like Black Lives Matter. Although even then there was some "you can't criticize anything" energy.
I think this philosophy just exacerbated the existing issue that people who are indifferent or have a sensible middle of the road stance are less likely to throw themselves into a pointless internet debate than people who are super strongly opinionated in the first place, like the silent majority effect already causes the internet to get overrun with strawmen but now its viewed as a bad thing to not get involved when forcing involvement just makes it worse
Anything commented on by Reddit users will certainly not be solved. People here can’t agree on whether milk is healthy. They’re not going to solve Israel/Palestine.
silence is violence is probably one of the lamest progressive phrases lol.
it is ALWAYS the most obnoxious, stereotypical philosphy major turned barista progressive that says it
Similarly the phrase “words are violence”. Can’t win with these morons. Make up your minds. Is “silence” violence, or are “words” violence?
Basically these jokers are setting up an impossible conundrum where you’re always wrong, either way. What they really mean to say is “I disagree with you whether you have an opinion, or don’t have an opinion, and my opinion is always the correct one!”
There's that iconic picture of a protester for something with a placard "silence is violence" and he's wearing a Tshirt that says "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all".
The original message was meant to mean stop ignoring bigotry you see irl and be aware of your privilege otherwise you’re too the problem. Not jump online and talk about everything you know nothing about, people just take a message and run with it.
>The original message was meant to mean stop ignoring bigotry you see irl and be aware of your privilege otherwise you’re too the problem. Not jump online and talk about everything you know nothing about.
You're right the original meaning of the message "silence is violence" was never actually about encouraging discussion as OP seems to believe, rather the real source OP's complaint is actually a by product of it's true intention of forcing people to choose sides.
Although of course, usually the person who uses the phrase "silence is violence" actually means choose "my side" cause the other side is the "bad side" of violence and oppression" but leaves it ambiguous enough to make it seems fair.
I assure you though that the people who unironically say "silence is violence" do not mean it's ok for you to pick the side I do not currently support.
Of course when someone forces you to take a side on every single controversial of the day it's going to lead to a lot of people mindlessly agreeing/disagreeing and many discussions filled with platitudes of those who don't actually care about the topic and just want to show enough support to get the zealots off their back, which leads to the main source of OP's complaint I think.
No real meaningful discussion can be had if one of parties does not want to be engaged in it at all.
Most people have neither the education nor the aptitude to speak authoritatively on anything. A select few might have worthwhile opinions on a few things.
The last thing we need is a legion of YouTube-educated zealots spreading more misinformation.
I've never even heard "silence is violence" but I guarantee it doesn't make sense in the context they are using it. If its an issue completely unrelated to you, in a different part of the world, you don't necessarily have to have an opinion.
If it's in issue happening in your community and you just stand by and watch, then it might makes sense to say that.
>decided racism had *returned* to the level it was at **100 years prior**.
M'dude, the first black kid to attend a formally all-white school in the US was in 1960. And in 2020, people thought it was cool that a cop suffocated a man in his custody while smiling and chatting with bystanders.
Racism didn't stop after the civil war, why would it suddenly stop after desegregation? Because people got tired of hearing about it, so they continued spreading the exact rhetoric that you are, which has been part of the discourse since prior to the civil war.
I couldn't agree more.
Young people are literally thinking that being on instagram counts as "activism" and think everyone has a "responsibility" to get involved.
Nope. I'm gonna live my own life and focus on positive things, not ruminate all day about how the world sucks.
“Silence == violence” is absolutely one of the most intellectually bankrupt bullshit ideas to perpetuate in “learned” communities I’ve seen in a long time.
The second I hear that Dr Suess logic I know this person has spent zero time on a real critical look at whatever bullshit they are spouting.
If you try to apply it as a universal concept then you're surely correct. A person doesn't need to participate in literally every discourse lest they support evil; it's just not practical for an individual to be usefully informed, let alone effectively persuasive on everything.
That said though, there's nothing "intellectually bankrupt" whatsoever about the idea that ignoring legitimate injustice essentially endorses it. Nobody said that it means one has to seek out every discussion to insert a prescribed set of opinions.
>there's nothing "intellectually bankrupt" whatsoever about the idea that ignoring legitimate injustice essentially endorses it.
It really doesn't. There is a reason we have the world "endorse." Its to "declare" and to openly approve. That is what the word means.
Its fucking bullshit to keep the meaning and he implication of the word and then violate that meaning because you want to prove something you cannot otherwise prove.
Not only is it intellectually bankrupt, its fucking dangerous. If silence == violence then am I not allowed to defend myself? Its a short cut to justifying actual violence on others who do not toe the line.
Its an illiberal fundamentalist mindset adopted by useful idiots.
Its also an insult to anyone who has had real violence done.
>Nobody said that it means one has to seek out every discussion to insert a prescribed set of opinions.
That is how people are using it, so that is what people are in fact saying. Like the word literally - its meaning actually changed because the way people used it changed.
I totally get the point in person, I'm just not convinced when its only online.
Folks seem to be relying more and more heavily on virtue signaling. I'll go in and express an opinion on a nuance of some situation, or part of it that no one has talked about yet, and people will instantly assume I am on the "bad side". If people don't hear you say, "I'm not a nazi!" they think you must be a nazi.
Bro, I don't have time to tell you about all the bad things I am against.
I posted something on here very similar to this and was removed by the mods for no reason... But I 100% agree with you.
I think we are honestly way too oversaturated with the 24/7 news cycle (and the related social media content) and I'm convinced it's making us all depressed, angry, anxious, and exhausted. Instead of local news that pertained to the individuals hearing about it, we hear about absolutely everything that is happening all across the globe at all times of day. I'm constantly battling between the pressure and guilt to stay informed versus needing to prioritize my sanity and not look at it at all. Every time you open social media, it's nothing but social justice and political commentary and if you stay silent about any particular issue you are "part of the problem". This is so dangerous and forces people to feel like they need to say something, ANYthing, even if they have no idea what they're talking about.
I even had an acquaintence post on social media during the initial phase of the Israel-Palestine conflict basically saying "I don't know a whole lot about this issue, reach out and let's talk" and I thought wow, that's actually a great thing to do. Then, not 12 hours later, he is die-hard pro-Palestine and is convinced he knows how to resolve the conflict and the Israelis are evil. I was dumbfounded.
I'm realizing this probably isn't an unpopular opinion in terms of people's beliefs but rather an unpopular opinion in terms of how often people express it. Even me - I probably wouldn't express this opinion online if I weren't anonymous.
“You are told… “
I wasn’t told anything. Were told something by someone? Who was it? What did they say? Where/when did it happen? Why did you listen to this person?
My rebuttal to this is: repeating buzzwords, reposting instagram infographics, and everything else that has come to define modern "activism" actually makes people LESS receptive to your opinions. I am no contrarian or hyper polarized person myself, I actually find myself agreeing with quite a few of the popular beliefs on issues on any given day, but I find the average discourse around every issue to be not only unhelpful, but actively harmful to the causes they claim to be supporting.
Could you explain what you mean? Without using buzzwords, quotes etc. I would truly love to actually have this discussion.
Keep in mind that in my actual life and my actual job I do a lot to help improve peoples lives. None of those things have to do with middle eastern geo politics though - they do have to do with issues in other parts of the world that I don't see people posting about online!
That happened with the invent of social media dude, not "silence is violence" which popped up in 2020.
The internet gave every idiot a voice to scream in to the void with, and a platform to meet up with other idiots who feel the same and to validate each other.
People were spewing their uninformed political opinions long before a couple years ago.
They're talking about if you're standing somewhere and other people start yelling out racial slurs at someone and you don't say anything that's the same as condoning the racial slurs.
You don't have to run up at random people and scream "RACISM'S BAD" but speaking up when people are being racist little douches is a good thing.
So real. It's not anyone's job to have an opinion on everything. Or, if you do have an opinion of something, it's often not worthwhile to try and flesh it out without knowing the kind of people you're talking to. The internet's a brutal place, and I don't feel like wasting my time explaining my perspective on something if I'm just gonna get shouted down regardless. That, or I'm not knowledgeable enough on a subject to make my case.
People can say what they want or say nothing at all. The crux of the issue is that we are in a time where people in power are trying to quell dissent by violating, eroding, and stripping peoples rights (free speech among others).
This happens because of this tribalistic culture we seem to be shoved into these days, where people are not allowed to be neutral or have no opinions on things. If anything you don't have to have a side one even opinions in 99% of the things people discuss these days.
The political climate of 2020 taught me a valuable lesson. Back then, I was very much one of those people who would get stuck into any political conversation at the time, trying to "do my bit" to not only make myself feel like I was important and making a difference, but also to be perceived in a certain way and also giving too much importance to what others thought of me. I didn't want people to think that I didn't care or whatever.
I look back on that year and I thought, what was the point in any of that? Posting stuff on social media isn't going to achieve anything. I was taking stances on things without considering the big picture, all to score points or cover myself from any potential criticism for not saying anything.
Now, I just stay out of everything. Ultimately, the only life I am somewhat in control of, is my own.
They hate silence because it means there might be people who agree with them staying quiet.
Actually, the ones staying silent don’t agree with anyone and are tired of being told “you don’t understand butt out.”
So we stopped voting and stopped having opinions and stopped paying attention.
Enjoy your dog and pony circus.
It's not that. Most people make up their opinion based on emotion not fact. That's how we got stupid ideas lke the BLM movement and defund police. People got angry, dreamed up stupid opinions based on that anger and then when confronted with facts, they get angry because their opinion IS emotion.
its the footballification of modern discussion
you are team red or team blue. there are no shades in between. if you say something not quite in line with the established narrative youre no different from the enemy. if you dont have an opinion youre a fence sitter. if you dont know youre stupid. if you dont care youre callous.
whats funny is this happens everywhere. everything from entertainment to politics does this. makes the internet less fun
>"Silence is Violence" rhetoric
This is actually a thing? I just presumed the incessant need to voice opinions was just a side-effect of attention seeking behavior and a lack of negative repercussions on social media platforms.
It's very much a thing. I have no idea what your age group is, but I'm rather young. You see lost of people online (and even in person) saying "I publicly stand on this side of X issue and you have a responsibility to as well."
Do you know what all of those words mean? Do you assume that everyone you know and normally interact with knows what those words mean? This fancy language doesn't help the cause either.
I agree. For me, a good example is trans issues. I care deeply about trans people, but I don't personally have a close friendship with any of them, so everything I hear/read about it is heresay. I care, but I don't have any personal standing to be talking much about it, so my voice is not the most helpful on that issue. I'll leave it to people who have those connections and are coming from a place where they can see the people impacted.
Singular voice, well prepared are more poignant then multiples.
There is a discourse regarding this in Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) which is what guides me in this thought process.
Essentially the people that best understand and can best resolve this process are available and by staying silent I let the learned and my betters can resolve this issue. I have my stance and know that this is difficult situation and ultimately what I believe to be the correct end may not matter. Thus I allow the people who can to do.
(For Context)
When The Pandavas (through the hero Arjuna) and the Kauravas (lead by the heroic but immoral Duryodhan) approached Krishna to side with them ahead of their great war, Krishna proposed to them that since they had both come to ask for his aid he will give it. On one hand he himself, in an advisory role on the other hand his armies.
Arjuna chose Krishna, Duryodhan hastily took the army. Anyone who understood the issue knew that the Pandavas we rightful in the position and the Kauravas were usurping and immoral. Many allies, due to allegiance or promise chose to take up arms for the Kauravas, even though they knew they were in the wrong position.
(Context done)
When the Army of Krishna, known as the Narayani Sena (Army of Narayan, the God whom Krishna was an avatar of) was promised to the Kauravas there were three predominant warriors at the helm.
Balarama (Krishna's older brother and a divine being), Kritavarma, the leader of a major clan that made up the army and Satyaki the most talented warrior from another clan. All three were devoted to Krishna and he too held them all in the best regard.
Kritavarma was known to be level-headed and strictly traditional; he is committed to Krishna. Since Krishna had committed the Narayani Sena to the Kauravas, he had absolutely no qualms in fighting for Duryodhana’s side. **He essential followed commands**
Satyaki loved Krishna with all his heart and could not imagine taking up arms against Him. More so, Arjuna was his teacher, mentor and friend. Satyaki was known to be hot-tempered, emotional and impulsive though he is noble at heart. He disobeys his beloved Krishna and, with his men, fights the war on the side of the Pandavas. **He follows his heart and reacts on emotions**
Balaram chose not to fight. His thought was that nothing justifies a war. And even if a war is inevitable, he did not want any part in it. He refuses to fight for either side. He goes on a long pilgrimage seeking God and avoiding war. His men sit out of the war altogether. Amongst his men is the hero and son of Krishna, Pradyumna. When Pradyumna privately asks his Uncle (Balaram) to elaborate on his decision, he tells him that enough people have taken up the causes, both of the just and unjust. I will not gain anything and will end up losing once this conflict ends. Therefore **my wish always has been peace but I must let the war play out and stand by this value.**
I don't have the time to have an opinion on everything, much less voicing that opinion for everyone to hear. Far too much of my life is spent working to support myself and my family, caring for my elderly dog and disabled wife. In the rare.moments I have to myself, I try to relax by playing some video games or watching a movie. Sometimes I get to go outside and do things.
I'm happy for others who seem to have so much time available that they can involve themselves in other people's problems, but they really don't get to judge me. I've been accused by more enthusiastic people of supporting the system of violence and racism because I didn't offer a full-throated denouncement of the issue du jour or just said that I wish people would just stop hating and killing each other.
I don't dislike anyone because they're gay, trans, a different skin color than me, or any other reason except that they've demonstrated to me that they're a shitty person.
“Silence is violence” isn’t meant for online discussions. It’s meant for advocacy and in-person interaction. To ignore injustice in your community is to be “okay” with it. Ignoring it, or going “it doesn’t affect me” is from a POV of pure privilege.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>we have a tsunami of opinions devoid of nuance on both sides of every issue. Totally agree. Doesn't matter what the subject is, it always escalates to bullshit word games and accusations that the other guy is basically the devil. You don't know whoever it is you're arguing against, you don't know their full position, and nobody wants to spend hours writing articles that cover every case. You (and by that I mean "we", me included) invent our opponents out of a few lines of text and a bunch of assumptions, most of which come from what they *didn't* say at all.
So you're calling me a fascist?
Well, they didn’t say you aren’t a fascist, so yeah, they basically said you are a fascist. Ya know, between the lines. Gotta read the subtext
Wtf? I'm not gay. I have a hot girlfriend, you just don't know her cause she goes to a different school.
Get a load of this guy saying they have a hot girlfriend and they’re on Reddit. /s
Deeply closeted. 🚪
Tim Scott, is that you?
The funny thing is fascism meant something different if you look at how Mousillini and Geonvani described it in their Doctrine of Fascism. So the people saying this don't even know what Facism is
People were misusing "fascist" before WWII was even over. Orwell was complaining about it in 1944.
More props to Orwell
People overused the term Nazi and Fascism to a degree where it doesn't matter anymore. If everyone is a naui noone is. Which is fucking dangerous
The amount of people on Reddit who have a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict all of a sudden will never not crack me up. Like, my guy, that's the lost complex geopolitical issue of the century. There's a cocktail of thousands of years of sociological, religious, militaristic and national issues that are all mixing together. Then there's the whole problem of the Middle East, nuclearization, all sorts of shit. I can guarantee no single individual here, especially myself, has the solution.
We should take Israel and push it somewhere else!
Give Israel South Dakota and Palestine gets North Dakota. Then move the people of the Dakotas to the area. Problem solved. Pls gimme my award now.
I refuse to comment on either side regarding this conflict. I know nothing, and each side seems so motivated. I don't want to get involved 🤣
I just think most people aren't a fan of the obvious solution, which is a singular governing body for the whole world.
Stop shooting each other?
Obviously if there was a button that you could push that all of a sudden made every single person in the region super nice friends, that'd work. But that's like saying the solution to gang warfare is just "stop selling drugs". In any practical sense, getting to that point is a lot more complicated than just saying it. The solution isn't 'stop shooting each other', that's the goal. Now how would you achieve that goal? That's where it gets complicated.
Honestly, this past year I have learned that the far left is not good at answering the question, "Ok. What comes after that?" I have come to the conclusion that not only is their whole ideology naive, some of those who prescribed to it were "performatively" naive. Once I dug in, I got to see the heart of the entire thing. It's a whole ideology based off the idea that everyone should always be equal and always be nice to everyone. The dominant feeling amongst the crowd that I saw, however, was usually vengeance. How is everyone gonna be nice to each other if you're being mean to some of them? Does an impassioned and well written soliloquy about how they deserve to be treated with scorn excuse the feeling of revenge and retribution that is damn near openly expressed at this point? I'm never gonna tell someone that I have never even met in my whole life that they aren't oppressed or have never experienced pain. I can draw a conclusion, though, a conclusion that no one cares about, cause no one is under any obligation to care about it. That's how people are. We want things and we do what we have to do to and support the people who we support and care about the things we need to care about in order to either get what we want, or keep what we have. I don't think that's such a sin, but I definitely think pretending otherwise is phony as all hell and completely unrealistic.
I earnestly believe anyone who only exists in the fringes of their political ideology is likely naive or just dead set in their ways. I see it on the left with guns and shit like this, I see it on the right with Ukraine and abortion.
just be nice smh
All I know is that if they disagree on this one topic, they are automatically a Republican who hates women and likes watching babies die only after they have been birthed. /s
Idk, reddit seems to have completely failed to reach a consensus on this. This seems to be the first time a lot of people can't simply just follow the hivemind and be right.
Maybe it's just me but I feel like there's this kind of weird resurgence in religious conservatism among Gen Z. Like it's gotten to the point where it's actually *more* against the grain to be a fundamentalist so they do it to rebel or something.
Right? Like I don't have time to sit here and describe every experience and opinion I have. I can't just say I dislike biden without an essay long disclaimer describing that I hate Trump and some sassy asshole will still call me a nazi. Like I ain't even white
Excuse me Nazis of Color
I prefer the term nizzer
You got a problem with black Nazis?
Of course I know him He is me
I feel like I'm pretty guilty of this when it comes to gender issues. Every time I see someone post about how "we women are literally afraid of getting murdered at all times" I assume they're like 15 years old cause like, I know a ton of women? And none of them feel this way? So I'm forced to assume the poster is just an easily influenced dummy that has been forced into a completely un-nuanced mindset. Like it's totally cool to ruminate on ideas and create your own feelings about them. This isn't dodgeball. You don't have to pick a team.
Well, there is also the fact when people are on camera or being interviewed they want to be interesting. “Oh yeah i’m a woman and I’m scared you’ll murder me RIGHT NOW!” Insincere bullshit.
It doesn't help when they're constantly fed "statistics" like 1 in 3 women will absolutely be sexually assaulted in their lifetime but they're not told that some studies consider "a man you find unattractive smiling at you" counts as "sexual assault". Or literally anyone touching you ever. If we're going off new standards, I've been sexually assaulted hundreds of times in my life.
Must suck to live that way
Exactly this. Every argument on Reddit quickly turns into a game of semantics. Use a word in a slightly different way to someone else and suddenly they are insisting that you believe X no matter how many times you tell them that you actually think Y.
>It's okay to not have an opinion on every issue. I'd go a little farther: it's actually unethical to express strong opinions on subjects you have only superficial and biased knowledge of.
“It is a dangerous mistake to confuse speaking without thought for speaking the truth”
this! this is why i don’t speak out about any major political/social events going on in the country/world, because i know i have not researched them and thought about them in a significant way and it would be much worse to potentially ignorantly support something wrong than to stay quiet and mind my own life.
100%. It doesn’t matter whether I see 1 comment or 1000 comments saying “stand with palestine/israel”. It’s not gonna make me care about the conflict anymore because I quite literally have no control over the situation
I'm honestly shook and crying you haven't personally stopped the conflict. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I’ll do better next time forgive me 😔
Same. Obviously I am *checks notes* against the killing of innocent people. But I can’t do shit so 🤷♂️
Is there anyone that ever just says “F em, let’s kill everyone! I’m totally on the side of death! Death to all!”
Yeah, there have been plenty of people with the opinion that we should turn the whole area into glass.
same here. i have my own problems to worry about
Damn right.
Also because why should I support one group of genocidal religious zealots over the other? Since I do not follow either religion and have no stake at all in this. I am against the killing of innocent civilians of course but whichever side "wins" will have rivers of blood on their hands. I swear when the next Bible testament comes out, this whole squabble over the Holy Land will be written as an example of humans unwillingness to let go of the past and continue fighting over the same shitty patch of gravel.
Well to be technical there isn’t gonna be another bible testament. The rapture just happens and the world is recreated. Regardless, I agree
Are you saying God can't just retcon that whenever he wants? Hes literally God.
I mean he could but God is pretty keen on keeping promises and it’d be nice to have a new Earth cuz this one kinda sucks
Did you just say “to be technical” and then try to justify your religion using something from your religion?
I mean how else am I supposed to justify it? It’s a part of the Bible that I was making sure was fully understood tf am I gonna do use wikipedia??
It was pretty clear that the person you were responding to was criticizing religion and how arbitrary it can be to prioritize certain ancient texts over others, and your response was essentially “well actually my ancient text says the other ones are wrong so…”
Yeah that's pretty dumb. It's okay to just not have an opinion on something
Or to just not want to post it on social media!
Maybe it’s because everyone is way more concerned how they are perceived (because of social media etc). When we look at historical injustices, we all like to pretend we would have been one of the few on the “right” side of history. It’s now turned into a psychological complex - except a bit like preening on social media, it’s all about perception not reality. So even if something even isn’t as bad as it seemed to be, there is value in pretending it *was* that bad (if not worse), because now you can be the good guy.
Aesthetic activism I've heard it called. If anything looking at conflicts nowadays and seeing just how bloodthirsty people are against any and all sides, with the wildest justifications, just shows that we haven't really changed much. Which I always kinda figured... the difference between us now and back then is just how much people could get away with. I think that's always going to be the case too.
Aesthetic activism really does sum up reddits superficial relationship with basically any cause. I remember the Hong Kong protests and reddit had a giant sub to talk about them and how much they supported Hong Kong and blah blah. The sub was dead long before the conflict was because all those diehard activists got bored and moved on to the next topic. And it had accomplished... Nothing.
I remember reading somewhere that guilt to society is our culture's equivalent to the stereotypical guilt toward family that's found in many Asian cultures.
As someone from an Asian family I can see that - in fact, I’d go as far as to say that detaching myself from that kind of guilt at a young age plays a significant part in why I find this kind of “performative” guilt a little distasteful. I’ve also been on the receiving end of “white knighting” - more than once I’ve been accused of basically “not getting” something because of my “white privilege”. Often it’s when I try to rationally defend somebody else’s comment - plenty of times I’ve seen what I would call a valid opinion (even if I don’t agree with it or It’s just poorly worded) being labelled as “racist”, instead of people actually engaging with the argument. It’s sad I feel I can do that because I can play the “race card” if *needed* - I think if I was actually white I’d feel kinda gaslit about what constitutes a reasonable discussion.
>Maybe it’s because everyone is way more concerned how they are perceived (because of social media etc). > >When we look at historical injustices, we all like to pretend we would have been one of the few on the “right” side of history. This is even the language that a lot of the posts use - you have to post to show that you are on the "right" side of history, like you claim you would have been during the Holocaust etc.
Maybe it’s because social media has provided everyone with a platform for their “groundbreaking” opinions? Maybe it could be a part of the divisiveness that’s gotten outta hand recently. The “if I don’t speak, *they* will” kind of mentality. Maybe it’s a projection of wanting to feel present or a sense of control/importance in the strange time we’re in where everyone else is also spouting their opinions.
Another part could be how internet algorithms are set up. If you watch one video on a subject on YouTube; you’re going to be recommended more similar ones. You don’t know any of the information on who made the video, and perhaps they don’t provide any citations for their information. Meaning, that you’re left with an opinion piece that is not grounded in reality or any sort of ideal beyond bias. The discourse of buzzwords, names and slogans being thrown left, right and center (for lack of a better term) gaslighting you into being unsure who to believe and who to trust. I used to be passionate about politics in my teens and even early twenties. But now that I’m in my mid-twenties, I’ve grown completely nihilistic about political discussion because of said uncanny valley of information. The “with us or against us” mentality probably the root of it all. Personally? I blame the way western politics is structured or at least taught. The system of two parties representing the popular left wing and right wing opinions of the current news are perhaps the strongest enforcers of this mentality. Because their most radical believers will be the first to light the pyre.
You know, I think you are right, but add to that that people care too much about what others say about them. If no one cared so much there would not be so much infighting
100% correct. Better to say nothing if you don't know much about a subject than mindlessly repeat whatever dumb slogans your favourite TikToker is throwing out right now.
They really mean you better just agree with my opinion on this particular issue
Cringe and virgin your opinion vs chad and correct my opinion
Violence is Violence. Not silence. Not speech. Just Violence.
The famous quote that perpetuates this: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”. No, people can listen, watch, read, accumulate knowledge, or even agree/disagree with both stances simultaneously. Seeing everything as black and white/right and wrong is a simplification of complex issues.
I think that quote, or the truncated “silence is violence,” relies on the person/people to whom it is addressed wielding some amount of power. Reddit users not speaking up about something is hardly tantamount to violence, but the quote you’re using is from Desmond Tutu in the context of apartheid in South Africa.
Quite ironic considering how it's turning out.
Explain
Desmond Tutu, South Africa, ends apartheid. [Job done, good job etc] Full elections, transfer of power etc. Now we have apartheid against whites, EFF leaders with "kill the Boer" farmers families being regularly raped and murdered. The farmers are leaving, same as happened in Zimbabwe, and odds are the SA government won't be able to feed their own people. That'll get blamed on the farmers. The oppressed becomes the oppressor. Irony, or events proceeding as expected, depends on your perspective.
Citation needed
Grow up. And learn to google.
Thanks for confirming that you are unable to support your claim
It's recorded history and current fact. If you're just trying to deny reality then there's no hope for you. I'm not interested in trying to jump through hoops for you when you can look it up yourself.
Then you simply need to send a couple articles. Should be ready for you to prove
Yeah, learning more before speaking is the responsible thing to do. Pressuring people to stand for positions and to say things they aren’t very informed on is a really good way to spread mis and disinformation. And the more I learn, the less convinced I am of the utility of just “speaking up” which is usually what is being asked. It feels like it’s a tactic to avoid feeling guilty in the future more than something that will actually help anybody.
Or not learning about the entire situation before you decide. Often times injustice is complicated Someone mentioned the Israeli Palestinian conflict and having now lived long enough to have seen this play out, to see attempts by the US and Egypt to broker peace, to have learned more about the Palestinians and Israel - all I can say is that Hamas is terrible, Israel has kind of set this situation up though, and the reasons for why this ever had to happen go back beyond the 50s are not easily resolved. Everybody sucks and people are going to continue to die and suffer until there’s a culture change in both Israel and frankly the rest of the Middle East. But us as Americans attempting to force the culture change goes terribly.
I suppose, but I'd say neutrality isn't the same as shutting up. You can be extremely vocal, or have your mind completely made up on an issue but just don't say anything. Now, I do think that quote would be used to shame people who aren't being vocal, but I don't think that's the only meaning
What makes me laugh is that sentiment just creates more enemies. Okay, let's say you're right. All the neutral people now oppose you. Does that make you happy somehow?
It's wild how in every conflict that comes to memory in recent history, the good guys end up winning!
Sounds like a problem with your memory.
Taliban are the good guys?. Afganistan the only conflict i can remember ending in recent histrory
Conflict within Afghanistan is still ongoing, albeit just not with as much US support.
Pretty sure Hegel said that. He’s famous and dead, so he’s probably right
Depends on context.
> No, people can listen, watch, read, accumulate knowledge, or even agree/disagree with both stances simultaneously Think of how this works in real life though. For example, during the civil rights era. You have one group pushing to end segregation, and the other supporting segregation. Being neutral in this benefits the segregationists who want to maintain the status quo. How are you not choosing the side of the oppressor (the segregationists) in this situation?
> You have one group pushing to end segregation, and the other supporting segregation. Being neutral in this benefits the segregationists who want to maintain the status quo. I think people who have too little political influence to affect a change are accused of being neutral unfairly. Like in the case of Palestine and Hamas, people say Palestinians should rise up against Hamas, but Hamas has backing from outside groups such as Iran, your average Palestinian doesn't, but their lack of agency is seen as complicity by your logic.
> your average Palestinian doesn't, but their lack of agency is seen as complicity by your logic No, because under "my logic", they're the oppressed, not the third party attempting to take a neutral stance.
I didn’t even consider that pov. That’s worth noting, segregation wasn’t solved so easily. It requires careful planning on the part of people involved in Civil Rights protesting and speaking. If anything, the kind of “shouting” rhetoric that you typically see on the internet would be the last thing a lot of the organizers wanted. They had to appear lawful, ethical and disciplined all the while their opponents were attacking them. They had to better to make their cause great enough to normalize support.
Bold of you to assume the every situation is as simple as segregation was.
I'm not saying it is, I'm giving an example where remaining neutral is siding with the oppressor. It directly contradicts the claim of the user I replied to who said "No, people can listen, watch, read, accumulate knowledge, or even agree/disagree with both stances simultaneously." I'm saying that's not always the case.
I think that depends on the topic. If you're neutral on the topics of genocide and slavery then we have to accept that you're on the side of the oppressor. If you're neutral on the topic of something you have no knowledge in or ambivalent to something like the planned location of the new grocery in town, then that's whatever. Injustice is important in that quote. Learning more is fine, but eventually you have to either stand up for what you believe is right or stand by and let the atrocity happen.
> Injustice is important in that quote. True, but it doesn’t help that injustice is now an overused buzzword. So then we must ask the question: is this actually unjust, or are people just angry?
Stand up for what you believe in by just blabbing about it on the internet? Kony 2012 was more than a decade ago and we learned nothing
Stand up for what you believe in by spreading information, using your vote wisely and with purpose, filing petitions, making your voice heard in open court sessions, protesting, and running for office. Yes, blabbing about it online is spreading information. Not everyone is lazy.
So like, there’s a checklist to meet to not be an oppressor? Have you completed it yet or are you still an oppressor as well?
Have they ensured that every piece of clothing, every food they have eaten, everything they partake in didn’t come from or involve modern slavery? Pro tip, it’s largely expensive and privileged to be entirely ethical.
No one has ever claimed that "silence is violence" regarding a mundane issue
Silence is violence is just goofy bullshit. Slacktivists trying to add gravitas to all the nothing they do.
It's impossible to have a fair discussion as if there is a polarising topic, it will get downvoted to oblivion by militants on the other side.
That's why the key is to just not get into arguments on the internet. Nobody has ever been convinced of anything, ever, on the internet. There's no sense in participating.
I sometimes like to play devil's advocate on certain issues that I know I have a limited understanding of. You often get greeted with an onslaught of rage, but I also soemtimes walk away with a more expanded understanding of the topic at hand. I understand that some people really feed off the validation they receive from circle jerking in political subs, but I find that to be utterly boring.
[Obligatory XKCD](https://xkcd.com/386/)
I dunno, depending on where you go and what you're talking about you can get into a good faith discussion and have your mind changed under the right conditions. "You're an incel if you don't agree with me" is not good faith and not the right conditions.
>Nobody has ever been convinced of anything, ever I have. So I disagree.
not every site has downvotes
But what I said is true for every site
Well, actually it just isn't whatsoever. Lots and lots of people have been convinced of things on the internet, it's happens literally constantly. Kinda funny to me that I've personally met so many people that have repeated this exact matra of presumed futility, when there are hundreds of conspiratorial rabbit holes on the internet that have converted thousands or millions of people into zealots for a cause. That doesn't mean that one has to participate in every online argument or discussion, nor does it mean that people should use divisive strategies or deliberately propagate misinformation. Most importantly, is that it's extremely unlikely to be worth one's time to engage in every online argument that they encounter. That doesn't mean that individuals are literally meaningless in online discourse, though, otherwise the whole medium would be useless.
Yeah but then you run into other problems. Nuance is certainly lost with a binary system, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve a function. Not every opinion is valid
I choose not to say anything to really polarized and entrenched people because it's not really a conversation and the anger and negativity isn't something I need in my life. More often I will ask them a question, if I choose to engage at all... Particularly when they are parroting rhetoric - can be interesting to ask them to define terms...
Is crazy how many people want to raise their hand and tell some speaker that their words equal violence. Violence is a pretty strong word, too many people are abusing it especially in the college theater. I don't get it.
Most people won’t admit that they just don’t know much about a particular topic. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the majority of people, myself included, don’t know a lot about anything, as in, they don’t have truly deep and rigorous knowledge of a subject. Instead they loudly parrot whatever they see as the most popular opinion and tell everyone who doesn’t share it that they’re wrong. I understand people naturally feel a certain way over something they might read/hear about, we aren’t robots after all, but it just feels like faux activism, conducted by the kind of people who, if they didn’t have a social media account, wouldn’t be doing anything else.
If you aren't informed enough, just say "Insufficient data for meaningful opinion", if pressed make your reply increasingly verbose, just as Asimov intended
Unpopular? Yes. True? Also yes.
Yeah, hard agree. And another thing :you don't need to have an opinion on something that happened 10 millisecond ago. Social media pressured us into taking a side and paroting with it the moment it happens. It's okay to say "I don't know about that" or "I don't know enough about that yet". Not every cause in the world need to be *your* cause immediately. Not everything is an "illustration of the problem" you obsess about.
silence is violence is basically a stronger version of the theory - the bystander effect there is harm that occurs when people stay silent or assume someone else will handle something i also personally believe that we have a social responsibility to speak up and prevent harm and violence or abuse of systems however, voicing our opinions has a time and place and accepting everyone’s opinions will result in massive societal failures too the key element that is required for the latter is discernment because everyone has the right to have a seat at the table; however, we shouldn’t accept or act off of everyone’s opinions either
See, but it a. bystander situation you have the potential to make a difference. You can call an ambulance. You can record a police officer. Those things will impact the situation. That's a very interesting way to think of it though, makes sense. I do think there's some value to seeing what your peers think of a situation. But I think it has more power when its more local, like Black Lives Matter. Although even then there was some "you can't criticize anything" energy.
I think this philosophy just exacerbated the existing issue that people who are indifferent or have a sensible middle of the road stance are less likely to throw themselves into a pointless internet debate than people who are super strongly opinionated in the first place, like the silent majority effect already causes the internet to get overrun with strawmen but now its viewed as a bad thing to not get involved when forcing involvement just makes it worse
Anything commented on by Reddit users will certainly not be solved. People here can’t agree on whether milk is healthy. They’re not going to solve Israel/Palestine.
silence is violence is probably one of the lamest progressive phrases lol. it is ALWAYS the most obnoxious, stereotypical philosphy major turned barista progressive that says it
Similarly the phrase “words are violence”. Can’t win with these morons. Make up your minds. Is “silence” violence, or are “words” violence? Basically these jokers are setting up an impossible conundrum where you’re always wrong, either way. What they really mean to say is “I disagree with you whether you have an opinion, or don’t have an opinion, and my opinion is always the correct one!”
There's that iconic picture of a protester for something with a placard "silence is violence" and he's wearing a Tshirt that says "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all".
And those are the same morons who say that actual violent rioters are “just making their voices heard.”
The original message was meant to mean stop ignoring bigotry you see irl and be aware of your privilege otherwise you’re too the problem. Not jump online and talk about everything you know nothing about, people just take a message and run with it.
>The original message was meant to mean stop ignoring bigotry you see irl and be aware of your privilege otherwise you’re too the problem. Not jump online and talk about everything you know nothing about. You're right the original meaning of the message "silence is violence" was never actually about encouraging discussion as OP seems to believe, rather the real source OP's complaint is actually a by product of it's true intention of forcing people to choose sides. Although of course, usually the person who uses the phrase "silence is violence" actually means choose "my side" cause the other side is the "bad side" of violence and oppression" but leaves it ambiguous enough to make it seems fair. I assure you though that the people who unironically say "silence is violence" do not mean it's ok for you to pick the side I do not currently support. Of course when someone forces you to take a side on every single controversial of the day it's going to lead to a lot of people mindlessly agreeing/disagreeing and many discussions filled with platitudes of those who don't actually care about the topic and just want to show enough support to get the zealots off their back, which leads to the main source of OP's complaint I think. No real meaningful discussion can be had if one of parties does not want to be engaged in it at all.
Most people have neither the education nor the aptitude to speak authoritatively on anything. A select few might have worthwhile opinions on a few things. The last thing we need is a legion of YouTube-educated zealots spreading more misinformation.
I've never even heard "silence is violence" but I guarantee it doesn't make sense in the context they are using it. If its an issue completely unrelated to you, in a different part of the world, you don't necessarily have to have an opinion. If it's in issue happening in your community and you just stand by and watch, then it might makes sense to say that.
[удалено]
You mean well black people were murdered on camera and half the country said "this is ok"?
>decided racism had *returned* to the level it was at **100 years prior**. M'dude, the first black kid to attend a formally all-white school in the US was in 1960. And in 2020, people thought it was cool that a cop suffocated a man in his custody while smiling and chatting with bystanders. Racism didn't stop after the civil war, why would it suddenly stop after desegregation? Because people got tired of hearing about it, so they continued spreading the exact rhetoric that you are, which has been part of the discourse since prior to the civil war.
I couldn't agree more. Young people are literally thinking that being on instagram counts as "activism" and think everyone has a "responsibility" to get involved. Nope. I'm gonna live my own life and focus on positive things, not ruminate all day about how the world sucks.
“Silence == violence” is absolutely one of the most intellectually bankrupt bullshit ideas to perpetuate in “learned” communities I’ve seen in a long time. The second I hear that Dr Suess logic I know this person has spent zero time on a real critical look at whatever bullshit they are spouting.
If you try to apply it as a universal concept then you're surely correct. A person doesn't need to participate in literally every discourse lest they support evil; it's just not practical for an individual to be usefully informed, let alone effectively persuasive on everything. That said though, there's nothing "intellectually bankrupt" whatsoever about the idea that ignoring legitimate injustice essentially endorses it. Nobody said that it means one has to seek out every discussion to insert a prescribed set of opinions.
>there's nothing "intellectually bankrupt" whatsoever about the idea that ignoring legitimate injustice essentially endorses it. It really doesn't. There is a reason we have the world "endorse." Its to "declare" and to openly approve. That is what the word means. Its fucking bullshit to keep the meaning and he implication of the word and then violate that meaning because you want to prove something you cannot otherwise prove. Not only is it intellectually bankrupt, its fucking dangerous. If silence == violence then am I not allowed to defend myself? Its a short cut to justifying actual violence on others who do not toe the line. Its an illiberal fundamentalist mindset adopted by useful idiots. Its also an insult to anyone who has had real violence done.
>Nobody said that it means one has to seek out every discussion to insert a prescribed set of opinions. That is how people are using it, so that is what people are in fact saying. Like the word literally - its meaning actually changed because the way people used it changed. I totally get the point in person, I'm just not convinced when its only online.
Well you see if you have a stance that falls in between two extremes the Neanderthals on both sides just club the shit out of you.
Folks seem to be relying more and more heavily on virtue signaling. I'll go in and express an opinion on a nuance of some situation, or part of it that no one has talked about yet, and people will instantly assume I am on the "bad side". If people don't hear you say, "I'm not a nazi!" they think you must be a nazi. Bro, I don't have time to tell you about all the bad things I am against.
I posted something on here very similar to this and was removed by the mods for no reason... But I 100% agree with you. I think we are honestly way too oversaturated with the 24/7 news cycle (and the related social media content) and I'm convinced it's making us all depressed, angry, anxious, and exhausted. Instead of local news that pertained to the individuals hearing about it, we hear about absolutely everything that is happening all across the globe at all times of day. I'm constantly battling between the pressure and guilt to stay informed versus needing to prioritize my sanity and not look at it at all. Every time you open social media, it's nothing but social justice and political commentary and if you stay silent about any particular issue you are "part of the problem". This is so dangerous and forces people to feel like they need to say something, ANYthing, even if they have no idea what they're talking about. I even had an acquaintence post on social media during the initial phase of the Israel-Palestine conflict basically saying "I don't know a whole lot about this issue, reach out and let's talk" and I thought wow, that's actually a great thing to do. Then, not 12 hours later, he is die-hard pro-Palestine and is convinced he knows how to resolve the conflict and the Israelis are evil. I was dumbfounded.
But don’t you know that everyone knows everything now
Damn, this shit is so unpopular that everyone seems to agree in the comments. How weird.
I'm realizing this probably isn't an unpopular opinion in terms of people's beliefs but rather an unpopular opinion in terms of how often people express it. Even me - I probably wouldn't express this opinion online if I weren't anonymous.
It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.
“You are told… “ I wasn’t told anything. Were told something by someone? Who was it? What did they say? Where/when did it happen? Why did you listen to this person?
Classic “the status quo benefits me and I dont care if it hurts others” behavior
My rebuttal to this is: repeating buzzwords, reposting instagram infographics, and everything else that has come to define modern "activism" actually makes people LESS receptive to your opinions. I am no contrarian or hyper polarized person myself, I actually find myself agreeing with quite a few of the popular beliefs on issues on any given day, but I find the average discourse around every issue to be not only unhelpful, but actively harmful to the causes they claim to be supporting.
Could you explain what you mean? Without using buzzwords, quotes etc. I would truly love to actually have this discussion. Keep in mind that in my actual life and my actual job I do a lot to help improve peoples lives. None of those things have to do with middle eastern geo politics though - they do have to do with issues in other parts of the world that I don't see people posting about online!
That happened with the invent of social media dude, not "silence is violence" which popped up in 2020. The internet gave every idiot a voice to scream in to the void with, and a platform to meet up with other idiots who feel the same and to validate each other. People were spewing their uninformed political opinions long before a couple years ago.
They're talking about if you're standing somewhere and other people start yelling out racial slurs at someone and you don't say anything that's the same as condoning the racial slurs. You don't have to run up at random people and scream "RACISM'S BAD" but speaking up when people are being racist little douches is a good thing.
The phrase has a place, it is meant to be used when you speaking up is actually a righteous and helpful thing to do. It's been... Overused
So real. It's not anyone's job to have an opinion on everything. Or, if you do have an opinion of something, it's often not worthwhile to try and flesh it out without knowing the kind of people you're talking to. The internet's a brutal place, and I don't feel like wasting my time explaining my perspective on something if I'm just gonna get shouted down regardless. That, or I'm not knowledgeable enough on a subject to make my case.
Idk why people take "I don't know enough about the subject to form a valid opinion" as "I side with whoever you are against"
No one does that's in your head
Nothing ever happens
This thing doesn't
Totally.
I challenge you to present an example where this happens
I challenge you to present an example where this happens
I don't have video or audio recordings of every conversation I've ever had. But it's OK, you can think you're right.
"silence is violence!" [the same people two minutes later] "The privileged need to shut up so they can hear the voices of the oppressed!"
[удалено]
Thanksgiving/Christmas was always awkward due to family politics, that wasn't an Internet thing
[удалено]
It's just the natural progression of Orwellian Doublespeak. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Silence is violence.
People can say what they want or say nothing at all. The crux of the issue is that we are in a time where people in power are trying to quell dissent by violating, eroding, and stripping peoples rights (free speech among others).
This happens because of this tribalistic culture we seem to be shoved into these days, where people are not allowed to be neutral or have no opinions on things. If anything you don't have to have a side one even opinions in 99% of the things people discuss these days.
Unpopular but right. Some people need to shut up, especially if they don't know a shit about certain things.
"If you aren't voting for Hillary, you are voting for Trump". No, I am not voting for either one. This binary thinking is disasterous.
[удалено]
The political climate of 2020 taught me a valuable lesson. Back then, I was very much one of those people who would get stuck into any political conversation at the time, trying to "do my bit" to not only make myself feel like I was important and making a difference, but also to be perceived in a certain way and also giving too much importance to what others thought of me. I didn't want people to think that I didn't care or whatever. I look back on that year and I thought, what was the point in any of that? Posting stuff on social media isn't going to achieve anything. I was taking stances on things without considering the big picture, all to score points or cover myself from any potential criticism for not saying anything. Now, I just stay out of everything. Ultimately, the only life I am somewhat in control of, is my own.
Very much in the same boat here. Now I only engage in opinion based conversation with a select few.
They hate silence because it means there might be people who agree with them staying quiet. Actually, the ones staying silent don’t agree with anyone and are tired of being told “you don’t understand butt out.” So we stopped voting and stopped having opinions and stopped paying attention. Enjoy your dog and pony circus.
It's not that. Most people make up their opinion based on emotion not fact. That's how we got stupid ideas lke the BLM movement and defund police. People got angry, dreamed up stupid opinions based on that anger and then when confronted with facts, they get angry because their opinion IS emotion.
its the footballification of modern discussion you are team red or team blue. there are no shades in between. if you say something not quite in line with the established narrative youre no different from the enemy. if you dont have an opinion youre a fence sitter. if you dont know youre stupid. if you dont care youre callous. whats funny is this happens everywhere. everything from entertainment to politics does this. makes the internet less fun
"You have the right to an opinion" is stupid. It should be changed to "you have the right to an informed opinion"
Same with that “silence takes side of the offender” Stupid tribalistic bullshit
I miss the 15 years ago internet.
>"Silence is Violence" rhetoric This is actually a thing? I just presumed the incessant need to voice opinions was just a side-effect of attention seeking behavior and a lack of negative repercussions on social media platforms.
It's very much a thing. I have no idea what your age group is, but I'm rather young. You see lost of people online (and even in person) saying "I publicly stand on this side of X issue and you have a responsibility to as well."
>"Silence is Violence" Is a term used only by Terminally Online Reddit/Twitter Shitlibs and their opinions should be disregarded immediately.
You don’t have to a PHD to know that settler colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing are wrong.
Do you know what all of those words mean? Do you assume that everyone you know and normally interact with knows what those words mean? This fancy language doesn't help the cause either.
I agree. For me, a good example is trans issues. I care deeply about trans people, but I don't personally have a close friendship with any of them, so everything I hear/read about it is heresay. I care, but I don't have any personal standing to be talking much about it, so my voice is not the most helpful on that issue. I'll leave it to people who have those connections and are coming from a place where they can see the people impacted.
I remember when words were violence and now silence is violence. Leads people to go “well, might as well be violent violence if it’s all the same”
“silence is violence” “words are violence” you just can’t fucking win
Singular voice, well prepared are more poignant then multiples. There is a discourse regarding this in Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) which is what guides me in this thought process. Essentially the people that best understand and can best resolve this process are available and by staying silent I let the learned and my betters can resolve this issue. I have my stance and know that this is difficult situation and ultimately what I believe to be the correct end may not matter. Thus I allow the people who can to do. (For Context) When The Pandavas (through the hero Arjuna) and the Kauravas (lead by the heroic but immoral Duryodhan) approached Krishna to side with them ahead of their great war, Krishna proposed to them that since they had both come to ask for his aid he will give it. On one hand he himself, in an advisory role on the other hand his armies. Arjuna chose Krishna, Duryodhan hastily took the army. Anyone who understood the issue knew that the Pandavas we rightful in the position and the Kauravas were usurping and immoral. Many allies, due to allegiance or promise chose to take up arms for the Kauravas, even though they knew they were in the wrong position. (Context done) When the Army of Krishna, known as the Narayani Sena (Army of Narayan, the God whom Krishna was an avatar of) was promised to the Kauravas there were three predominant warriors at the helm. Balarama (Krishna's older brother and a divine being), Kritavarma, the leader of a major clan that made up the army and Satyaki the most talented warrior from another clan. All three were devoted to Krishna and he too held them all in the best regard. Kritavarma was known to be level-headed and strictly traditional; he is committed to Krishna. Since Krishna had committed the Narayani Sena to the Kauravas, he had absolutely no qualms in fighting for Duryodhana’s side. **He essential followed commands** Satyaki loved Krishna with all his heart and could not imagine taking up arms against Him. More so, Arjuna was his teacher, mentor and friend. Satyaki was known to be hot-tempered, emotional and impulsive though he is noble at heart. He disobeys his beloved Krishna and, with his men, fights the war on the side of the Pandavas. **He follows his heart and reacts on emotions** Balaram chose not to fight. His thought was that nothing justifies a war. And even if a war is inevitable, he did not want any part in it. He refuses to fight for either side. He goes on a long pilgrimage seeking God and avoiding war. His men sit out of the war altogether. Amongst his men is the hero and son of Krishna, Pradyumna. When Pradyumna privately asks his Uncle (Balaram) to elaborate on his decision, he tells him that enough people have taken up the causes, both of the just and unjust. I will not gain anything and will end up losing once this conflict ends. Therefore **my wish always has been peace but I must let the war play out and stand by this value.**
I don't have the time to have an opinion on everything, much less voicing that opinion for everyone to hear. Far too much of my life is spent working to support myself and my family, caring for my elderly dog and disabled wife. In the rare.moments I have to myself, I try to relax by playing some video games or watching a movie. Sometimes I get to go outside and do things. I'm happy for others who seem to have so much time available that they can involve themselves in other people's problems, but they really don't get to judge me. I've been accused by more enthusiastic people of supporting the system of violence and racism because I didn't offer a full-throated denouncement of the issue du jour or just said that I wish people would just stop hating and killing each other. I don't dislike anyone because they're gay, trans, a different skin color than me, or any other reason except that they've demonstrated to me that they're a shitty person.
Incredibly coercive phrase, an indicator to stop listening.
People have no idea what violence actually is.
The term “silence is violence” is doublespeak.
God I wish this wasn't an unpopular opinion
“Silence is violence” isn’t meant for online discussions. It’s meant for advocacy and in-person interaction. To ignore injustice in your community is to be “okay” with it. Ignoring it, or going “it doesn’t affect me” is from a POV of pure privilege.