Comment by prepend | Hacker News Reader

Comment by prepend | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think we disagree on this. I have worked with and for many great leaders who never “acknowledged white supremacy” so it is definitely possible for me, and others to trust such people.

I’m not arguing semantics as my point is that there are many things more important than acknowledging white supremacy exists. This may not be true for others as it seems it’s super important for some.

But if I’m in the business of counting to 100 (or anything) I can be quite successful without including taking about eliminating white supremacy.

Note, I think that systematic racial inequity is bad and must be eliminated. But I don’t think the most effective way to do that is by talking about it all the time. And I think that I can not have any portion of my workday talking about it. This doesn’t mean I am for white supremacy.

I think, at it’s most basic, I don’t think silence is the same as endorsement. The world isn’t black and white (no pun intended) and everyone isn’t forced to choose sides. And it’s certainly not important to state one’s position over and over and over.

There are certain issues (like this one) where silence has historically been used as a form of endorsement. It is certainly not irrational to perceive it as being an endorsement.

Perhaps not irrational, but incorrect. I’d like to see whatever evidence means silence is a form of endorsement.

It’s hard to know, but I have one data point in my own self in that I really don’t talk much about anything and certainly don’t endorse white supremacy and I actively live my life fighting inequity. Someone saying that I endorse something because I don’t speak about it is incorrect as I know myself better than others do.

Following this logic leads to absurdity. Should people spend their days speaking for or against everything? What about people’s right to privacy?

I mean there’s so many example of how silence=support is illogical, I’m not sure how people can hold this opinion. This assumes that there’s a single set of priorities and white supremacy is near the top for everyone.

It’s also fairly odd in that it assumes that the whole world is in America so that even people in remote countries must make statements against white supremacy lest they endorse it. That’s just silly.

On any topic, only a few thousand or perhaps millions express a position. Does that mean everyone else is against or for? Does silence always equal endorsement? Does it mean opposition?

You haven’t stopped this conversation to call out how you recognize murder is evil and are against it. Does that mean you endorse murder? Isn’t murder important enough to speak out against? I certainly think murder is terrible and am shocked that someone would endorse murder through their silence.

Etc etc etc, there’s a million of these. Not everything has to be a conflict and not everyone owes me an answer. Sometimes I just don’t know and don’t get to know. I should only assume when necessary and using some evidence to support my assumption

I am not talking about silence at all times, but specifically silence at times when someone is given the opportunity to speak up about an issue and chooses not to.

Perhaps the increasing prevalence of "opportunities" to denounce things and endorse political beliefs had something to do with the decision to move away from politics in the office. If Thea opportunities can be freely presented at any time and demand a positive response or invite condemnation, surely you can see how this might be considered wasteful from a business point of view.

Arguments from silence are, by definition, illogical fallacies. There could be any number of reasons why someone might choose to remain silent. It's possible they are endorsing it, but you don't really know without additional statements or context.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argumen...

If someone asks you “do you denounce white supremacy?”, and you stay silent… many people (myself included) would see that as a form of endorsement. I don’t need any additional context, and I don’t see it as being any kind of logical fallacy.

There could be many reasons for silence, such as not wanting to be bullied into saying something, no matter how true it is. In some situations, that might be the nobler option and could take a lot of courage.

All civilized people condemn ethnic/racial supremacists so frankly if someone asks me if I denounce white supremacy I'm going to ignore it.

My choice not to dignify that question with a response is not an indication that I endorse white supremacists any more than my choice not to dignify a question like "do you believe the earth is round" indicates my belief that the planet is flat.

The word “civilized” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you there.

White supremacy is still very real in America and throughout the rest of the world. The idea that you’d brush off someone asking about white supremacy in the same way as a flat earth denier is absurd, and says more about your own position of priviledge.

And there it is: because I refuse to repeat the words that the woke orthodoxy demands on command you accuse me of "privilege" despite knowing nothing about me or my belief system.

Oh please, now you see yourself as persecuted by the “woke orthodoxy”.

Do you really deny that you have privilege? You’re both white and male, aren’t you? The way you talk actually says a lot more about you than you’re aware of.

We can't have a productive discussion if you're going to immediately assume who and what I am based on two comments on an internet forum.

Have a pleasant evening.

So, do you denounce white supremacy? If you said yes, what if they followed up with the following questions:

- What have you done to fight it? - Have you donated to XYZ org? - How much? Why not more? Surely you could afford it? - How much time have spent volunteering for causes that fight it? - How much? Why not more? Surely you could afford it?

If you anticipated this line of questioning would follow, where the person asking the question's intent is to test you, and shame you if you were to fail it, would you still engage with that question?

Allow me to introduce "Fallacy Fallacy", the fact that someone might have arrived at a conclusion via a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com