Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

That example is a crowd intimidating people with the intent to compel speech, of course, and they’re using the slogan “silence is violence.” But those are two different things. You could pick any slogan you want and have a mob recite it while intimidating people into agreeing. That’s not an indictment of the slogan.

View on HN

That slogan specifically promotes this:

https://twitter.com/KunkleFredrick/status/129834428507983872...

and this

https://twitter.com/rawsmedia/status/1298055028213678082

It's not just a slogan. That is the actual end result of such an ideology.

Silence is not Violence. Silence is the opposite of violence. Silences is stopping, thinking, looking at all the evidence, carefully evaluating and coming up with a sound decision.

This slogan says: "Be outraged immediately without knowing any real facts about the situation"

It's literally DoubleSpeak. You are literally, right now, using DoubleThink.

Silence is not the opposite of violence. Peace is the opposite of violence.

I interpret the quote "silence is violence" to mean by not speaking out against violence, you implicitly support or contribute to it. People may disagree if this is true, but it certainly doesn't feel Orwellian.

In Germany instead of the "silence is violence" slogan people often use the famous Niemöller quote/poem but I have always understand the slogan to express the same sentiment.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

That would start the discussion of "when does an example become the standard" which I don't really want to go into. Suffice it to say I do not watch the news, I very rarely visit Twitter and do not follow anyone, and that is the only way I have ever seen that expression used - in the news, on Medium, on FB, on anywhere, when I've come across it. "Agree with us or you are violent."

I don't think there's a generous way to interpret that expression. Silence is de facto not violence. Violence requires physical action.

> Suffice it to say I do not watch the news, I very rarely visit Twitter and do not follow anyone, and that is the only way I have ever seen that expression used - in the news, on Medium, on FB, on anywhere, when I've come across it. "Agree with us or you are violent."

Have you Googled the term? Apart from the first page or so being dominated by that very recent event of the crowd intimidating people and many other people conflating that event with that slogan, you'll find plenty of articles about what it means: that choosing to not speak out about an issue helps support the status quo. In fact, I've generally seen it used to try to persuade people who don't want to support the status quo that staying quiet or trying to "not be political" is in fact supporting the status quo.

> that choosing to not speak out about an issue helps support the status quo

I mean that's just fine, and a perfectly fine point to make - and one with which in fact I agree; I have railed against police and prosecutors' offices for years, having been on the ass-end of their horror myself.

But if that's what one means to say, then say that; because the word 'violence' has a specific meaning not captured by "don't support the status quo".

This is a long way of saying I generally don't like slogans :/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com