zlacker

> I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics

Literally everything a corporation does is politics. Every hiring decision, every office they open or close, every client they take on, every vendor they ditch, every ad they publish. It literally all has political implications and messaging. Why is there an expectation on companies to "not be political" whenever one of those inherently political decisions intersects with something that happens to be a hot-button issue? Like wtf does that even mean?

>>moolco+(OP)
So "You're either with us or against us"? Is that the message?

>>koheri+d1
There's obviously grey area, but a lot of comments in this thread come really close to the definition of complacency

>>moolco+f2
I think many of the commenters would openly embrace the label of complacency. That's part of living in a country with a diversity of views; sometimes, when you see people doing something terrible, you have to accept that they don't see it that way rather than going on a warpath to exclude them from polite society.

>>SpicyL+X8
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

>>moolco+f2
You should know that the most notable politicians to use that phrase were Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini, and George W Bush.

It is the hallmark of extremism.

>>moolco+be
"You either with us or against us" is the hallmark call of extremists.

It was first used politically by Vladimir Lenin, then Benito Mussolini, and more recently by George W Bush after 9/11.

It's not surprising that modern liberals are so keen on its use.

>>koheri+pK
> You should know that the most notable politicians to use that phrase were Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini, and George W Bush.

I dunno, I think Cicero is at least as notable as Bush, if not Mussolini or Lenin. Orwell—who used it to describe a fundamental fact of the nature of war, always and everywhere—wasn’t a politician, but certainly a notable figure. The uses of perhaps the greatest significance are in the Bible, both in Joshua and by Christ in the Gospels.

But perhaps the most relevant to the immediate situation are figures like:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”

Elie Wiesel: “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented,”

John Stuart Mill, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”.

Or the form written as confessiom from the side complicit by complacency, Rev. Martin Niemöller:

---

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist

Then 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 out for me

---

> It is the hallmark of extremism.

The recognition that inaction is a choice with consequences, and that complacency is acquiescence is very much not limited to those espousing extremism.

>>koheri+JK
Non-complacency is totally different from "with us or against us" mentality. Like the Bush example, you can simultaneously stand in opposition to terror and extremism, and also be in opposition to the invasion of Iraq. You don't have to agree with 100% of the principle of someone who you share _some_ principles with.