zlacker

Assuming no mitigating circumstances for not speaking out, it literally is acceptance and tacit perpetuation of the status quo which is most certainly political.

I'm not saying there were no mitigating circumstances nor condoning the person's behavior but they are clearly correct on that specific point.

"It's not the violence of the few that scares me, it's the silence of the many." Martin Luther King, Jr.

>>guerri+(OP)
The mitigating circumstances are the un-nessicary stress and responsibilities of dealing with anyone who doesn't 100% agree with what you're saying. Unfortunately these are pervasive on pretty much any platform you are on, so there's no good way around it.

>>chippe+T2
It's pretty necessary to deal with racism. It's life and death, in fact. The fewer who speak out, the more stress for everyone who abrogates their responsibility.

>>guerri+g4
You completly ignored everything that I said

>>chippe+i5
That's a baseless accusation. I specifically refuted what you said with an argument that even used the words of your own response. To be even more clear, there are no known mitigating circumstances here and your excuses are not mitigating circumstances. See previous comment for argument.

>>guerri+(OP)
I want to be free to choose whether a political issue deserves my action or inaction in a work setting.

So please respect (not you but people who make such statements) individuals who rightfully choose not to get involved.

There isn’t just the “right” way of thinking. Which is what exactly is happening right now. “Either you think and act as we do or you are an ass*ole.”

Pluralism of thought shouldn’t even be in question in the 21st century.

>>hidieg+qS
They are involed, specifically in presrving the status quo. There is unfortunately no abstaining in the same way you can't abstain when you know a child is being abused.

Thinking, saying and acting how one does does not exempt them from being the consequences of doing so, specifically, being judged for it.