Re:A Year of Tech Solidarity
by jakebasile on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @11:06PM
(#15701373)
I'm disagreeing with the premise that because someone doesn't speak up, they must agree with the status quo. These things don't follow. They simply don't disagree enough to risk whatever they would be risking by speaking up.
>I'm disagreeing with the premise that because someone doesn't speak up, they must agree with the status quo
What do you think about the notion of "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept?"
>They simply don't disagree enough to risk whatever they would be risking by speaking up.
That would make sense under some fantastical rule that exlcuded speech (or silence) from being political whenever "risk" is involved; but deciding to speak or be silent based on a risk/reward tradeoff is still a political decision.
Re:A Year of Tech Solidarity
by aaronbrethorst on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @11:13PM
(#15701411)
Perhaps ‘implicitly support’ is the better phrase to use than support. But: “Qui tacet consentiret”
Morally, ethically, fill-in-the-blank, there is a variety of spectrums I am happy to hold my tongue on until my personal limit is reached. Yes, it varies on any given range. I'm not sure it's fair. No, it's not consistent because I'm Human; don't sue me.
> "Not being political" in the workplace is a political stance in itself
I agree. I don't know why this is necessarily wrong. Maybe I like the current political stance, whatever that is. If any one of us thinks it's wrong, we can act and speak and accept accordingly.