It could also mean "I don't know enough about this topic to form an educated opinion so I'd rather not wade in". I'm not afraid to admit that I often find myself in this position when it comes to these contentious political issues. It doesn't mean I don't care and I'm usually happy to be educated.

This.

Expecting everyone to comment on everything is how you get Twitter. People in general should be cautious about wading into contentious debates and more eager to just listen and hear what's what's being said.

Yes, this has a side effect of reducing the number of people who are actively challenging the status quo, and yes, there is an element of privilege in being able to say that. But artificially increasing the number of people in a debate can lead to fracturing and a lower quality of conversation. The negative side-effects outweigh the positives -- you risk drowning out the people that you're trying to support and adding misinformation that makes it easier to dismiss your side.

People also overestimate the amount of influence that places like Twitter have on policy. My strategy for a while now has been that when I see someone doing something hateful online, I try to avoid getting into an argument, and instead just donate $1-5 to a cause that opposes them. I think that's more helpful, and it comes with fewer negative side-effects. Obviously there's some privilege there as well; not everyone can afford to do that.

If that means I'm supporting structural racism... then :shrug:. I don't think telling people to be on 100% of the time is actually helping these movements in any appreciable way. We know from pretty much every other area that specialization and division of labor is more efficient and produces better results than having everyone try to do everything at once. It's not clear to me why social movements are different -- it seems completely obvious to me that specialization is necessary for progress.

Of course I'm willing to learn if there's a dimension to this I'm not seeing. My views on that have evolved in the past, and I expect they'll evolve in the future.

> Of course it is; it's merely an ambiguous one. It either means "I am happy with the status quo" or "I am too afraid to express opposition to the status quo."

No, silence often means “I’m not informed enough about this and don’t want to sound like a fool.” Heavens forbid people actually think before talking and not talk if they feel like they can’t say anything meaningful.

That's "I'm wither uninterested or unable to speak up to ask for information." It's still a political statement.

Even if we asked for more information, you are assuming, or mandating, that we process it in real time, which is really difficult for those of normal intelligence. Also, being told something is completely different from having the life experience as context. Eg I could guess what it’s like to be a Uighur living in Guangzhou, I could even ask some questions, but really I still wouldn’t know enough to talk meaningfully about it.

I would disagree with that. There are thousands of significant issues facing the US, and the world in general, you can't be vocal about them all. Just because I don't talk with people about what is happening in Hong Kong, or Yemen, or about gun control in the US, doesn't mean I think the status quo is OK. It just means there are other issues I am more focused on.

Or "I am focused on other things and not giving this topic my consideration."

That falls under "I am happy with the status quo." There are people who are not fortunate enough to be able to ignore these things.

If I checked your comment history, would I see you fighting for fixing the outsized amount of suicides committed by men in the USA? If not, do you think it'd be reasonable to assume you're happy with the current state of affairs in that arena?

There are many more issues to be solved than there are seconds in a day. Being unable to focus on everything does not mean you are happy with it.

At the very least it signals that your ranking of importance for a given issue may be lower than someone else's.

Which is totally expected. No two people align 100% on priorities.

Or, they're passionate about change and doing what they can to push back against the status quo, but don't think that every battle needs to be fought in every arena. And in fact, doing so can be counterproductive.

Or "this is a workplace, you're my coworker and not my friend. My stance on this matter is none of your business. Moving on."

I'm confused- in this specific case the team had an opinion on everything except for one issue. I think in that case silence says a lot.

You are indeed confused. I was simply replying to the very generic statement "silence on a matter means either "I am happy with the status quo" or "I am too afraid to express opposition to the status quo.""

This is simply not true. I never talk politics at work, simply because it's nobody's business. My silence is not motivated by fear, and I'm often not happy with the status quo. I just don't want to talk about these topics at work.

Right, but we're talking in the context of a specific action to be silent, in which the specific action of silence occurs when someone is willing to talk about any other seemingly sensitive matter.

I'm confused when we started to generalize to all silences. Sometimes I'm silent because I'm drinking water, or I'm asleep...