If I say, "Mr_Portiero_Head is a bigot and the most socially irresponsible person alive," and you don't post something defending him...does that signify tacit agreement?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It could signify a lot of things - tacit agreement, you didn't see it, you are worn out, it is so ridiculous that it doesn't dignify a response, the person who said it is a troll that thrives on any attention, even the negative kind - any of that.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I've always thought I should speak my mind in situations like those, but it really makes people unhappy, and no one seems to want the opinion/thought (IRL I'm talking about) anyhow. So, I think I am going to instead practice disassociation, and pretend I hear absolutely nothing, see absolutely nothing, and then that way I won't be tempted to speak of the evil I see or hear, thereby pissing off the majority of the people I live and work with.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
For an individual, I'd say that the answer is absolutely not.
For a group, however, it's more difficult to answer. I think the answer should be no, but it's terribly easy to assume it's yes.
For example, if you said that, and Dagonee didn't say anything, I wouldn't think anything of it.
But if you said it and nobody called you on it, I probably would make some conclusions about Hatrack.
I think I'd probably be in error, but I'm not sure.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There are certain individuals who I (try to) ignore on certain topics-- I usually don't even read what they say, because I feel I can't trust them to discuss those certain things in good faith.
There are certain topics I try to ignore, because I know that discussing those things in ANY way will disrupt my apathy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are entire sheaths of individuals whose posts I dismiss offhand. They are generally the same people who would say something like that.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I can ignore the occasional deliberate nastiness. I don't always think it's my place to jump in to defend people who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. However, if something begins to look like an undeserved dogpile I'll speak up. Or if there's a growing misunderstanding leading to people jumping to the wrong conclusion about someone I'll try to point out the ambiguity and encourage people to give the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"sheaths of individuals"?? There are sheaths posting now?
[Edit: might you have meant "sheaves"? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think it's largely dependent on context. I can think of examples where I would consider silence tacit agreement, but in most cases I wouldn't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*amused* I could make an argument that posting like that is posting as a cover instead of as a real person since attacks like that aren't worthy of real people, but the truth is I meant something like that but I am not actually sure of the right word right now. Sheaves? What am I thinking of?
Added: Yes, probably sheaves. Hmm...that sounds weird, though. The "v" sound is entirely too harsh - I was thinking of more of a quiet word, something rendered silent because of the nonsense. A sheave of individuals sounds like something to pay attention to, but a sheath is a bundle of individual indistinctly tumbled together.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: *amused* I could make an argument that posting like that is posting as a cover instead of as a real person since attacks like that aren't worthy of real people, but the truth is I meant something like that but I am not actually sure of the right word right now. Sheaves? What am I thinking of?
Didn't mean to offend. The image struck me as funny. It wasn't meant to be a 'cover' for anything but just a silly correction of your phrasing. It was in no way an attack.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I didn't think it was. I know I do that sometimes - change a word that has the meaning I want so it stays close but will also have the sound I want. I did it a few weeks ago, too - I think it was "bokum." It's only a problem when I change it into a word that has a meaning already.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Swathes, maybe?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe. Hmm...that makes sense. The open "ah" sound in the middle sounds like something large, though, something spread out. I don't think there's an acrage of people - more of a quiet, smallish bundle. So, I think I was going for a combination of sheave and swath, only the word it formed already meant something else.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
It might signify that I'm gagged.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think it's largely dependent on context. I can think of examples where I would consider silence tacit agreement, but in most cases I wouldn't.
Raja, would you mind elaborating? This is something I've struggled with recently, and I haven't arrived at a conclusion. I'd appreciate some ideas to chew on.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Silence can also signify apathy and indifference, even among groups.
This is doubly true in the presence of known trolls and antagonists.
EDIT: If you're allowed to edit your's, I'm allowed to edit mine. Revisionist histories will prevail!
[ October 31, 2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Architraz Warden ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Are you sure you don't mean antagonists? What's with this thread and the slaughtering of innocent words? I feel I must speak out!
[Edited in humility and as pennance for my sins.]
[ October 31, 2006, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think it's largely dependent on context. I can think of examples where I would consider silence tacit agreement, but in most cases I wouldn't.
Raja, would you mind elaborating? This is something I've struggled with recently, and I haven't arrived at a conclusion. I'd appreciate some ideas to chew on.
I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but here's a quick example of a circumstance where I would consider silence functionally equivalent to agreement:
Let's say X has a group of friends, and they go out on the town together one evening. For whatever reason, his friends decide that it would be fun to rob a convenience store. X is not comfortable with the idea of robbery, but likes his friends and so he keeps quiet. He doesn't go home, but he also doesn't assist in the robbery, waiting outside while his friends go in and stick the place up.
The basic idea is that if the consequences of silence are sufficiently immediate and dire, and if you can speak up without fear for your life, then I think you are morally obligated to do so. The catch is that everyone has to make the immediacy, severity, and risk determinations themselves. It's a fuzzy standard, but I only started fleshing my thinking out for this thread, so it's early days yet. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What's with this thread and the slaughtering of innocent words.
Thou hypocrite! For thou hast decried the defamation of words, even whilst with thine other hand, yea, with thine left hand swathed in darkness, hast thou plucked asunder the righteous punctuation.
Thou, even thou, hath neglected in thine own sentence the proper, and the just, and the true way of holiness. For thou hast asked a question and ended thy question not with a question mark, as is holy, but with a period.
And the JonBoy, yea even he who stands at the gate with OED in his hands, yea, with the works of holiness and truth before his blazing eyes all the day long, yea, even JonBoy shall smite you with terrible smitings unless you do speedily repent!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I really think smiting is far more my style than Jonathon's.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thou wast busy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh. Well, in that case, carry onth.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Can I avoid the smiting now or is it too late?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:huffy:
I suppose. But don't let it happen again.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, cool bike, Scott!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:If I say, "Mr_Portiero_Head is a bigot and the most socially irresponsible person alive," and you don't post something defending him...does that signify tacit agreement?
On the internet? No. You are not "in the room" until you post. If you respond and deliberately do not respond to this then yes, you could be seen as tacitly agreeing, especially if you do not contend anything being said that goes along with the insult. In meatspace, I think so unless the person has a good reason not to, I think it's a lot more obvious. If you're taking insults and someone's just standing watching, it comes across as agreement even if it was no intended that way.
Obviously, there are often extenuating circumstances. If the charge is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, for example, or the person making the charge is generally not taken seriously.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:If I say, "Mr_Portiero_Head is a bigot and the most socially irresponsible person alive," and you don't post something defending him...does that signify tacit agreement?
On the internet? No. You are not "in the room" until you post. If you respond and deliberately do not respond to this then yes, you could be seen as tacitly agreeing, especially if you do not contend anything being said that goes along with the insult.
Oooh, I like this!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
What if someone else has already spoken up? Is it necessary for everyone to post their agreement or outrage at every perceived slight?
I often see something that offends me on behalf of someone else, but the offender has already been called on it so I don't see why I need to too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: If you respond and deliberately do not respond to this then yes, you could be seen as tacitly agreeing, especially if you do not contend anything being said that goes along with the insult.
But is that fair? Do you have to respond to every single point everybody's made to avoid being seen as agreeing?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: What if someone else has already spoken up? Is it necessary for everyone to post their agreement or outrage at every perceived slight?
I often see something that offends me on behalf of someone else, but the offender has already been called on it so I don't see why I need to too.
Good point. I do this too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: If you respond and deliberately do not respond to this then yes, you could be seen as tacitly agreeing, especially if you do not contend anything being said that goes along with the insult.
But is that fair? Do you have to respond to every single point everybody's made to avoid being seen as agreeing?
Also a good point.
*tears out hair* Right, so I believe we are back at square one?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
It's just information. We could put it at the top of our posts. One of our data boys could come up with some brilliant codes to indicate things like: agreement with original poster, rolling eyes at KoM's comment, a shame-shame for the troll-baiters, etc.
So before our posts we could refer to the code table and type in something like A1LL2CxY, which we would then all be able to check to see what every poster's position is. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If I had to respond to everything on hatrack I disagreed with I'd need 6 clones and I'd never sleep.
Silence is *not* tacit agreement.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:*tears out hair*
*picks it up*
*sneaks out of thread*
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I think a very appropriate quote in this context would be "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " A penny to the person who can guess who that was.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:*tears out hair*
*picks it up*
*sneaks out of thread*
Aren't you in a 12-step program yet?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think it's largely dependent on context. I can think of examples where I would consider silence tacit agreement, but in most cases I wouldn't.
Raja, would you mind elaborating? This is something I've struggled with recently, and I haven't arrived at a conclusion. I'd appreciate some ideas to chew on.
I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but here's a quick example of a circumstance where I would consider silence functionally equivalent to agreement:
Let's say X has a group of friends, and they go out on the town together one evening. For whatever reason, his friends decide that it would be fun to rob a convenience store. X is not comfortable with the idea of robbery, but likes his friends and so he keeps quiet. He doesn't go home, but he also doesn't assist in the robbery, waiting outside while his friends go in and stick the place up.
The basic idea is that if the consequences of silence are sufficiently immediate and dire, and if you can speak up without fear for your life, then I think you are morally obligated to do so. The catch is that everyone has to make the immediacy, severity, and risk determinations themselves. It's a fuzzy standard, but I only started fleshing my thinking out for this thread, so it's early days yet.
Disagree. By not participating you are physically "voicing" your disapproval. If you participated but said nothing to the contrary, I think that could be construed as tactic agreement, but by refusing to participate you're telling them in actions, not words, that you disapprove.
The thing about tacit agreement, is that it has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with the perceptions of others. It has to do with assumptions they make about you. If five people are all sitting around talking about how much they hate black people, but only four of them are actually saying it, and the fifth says nothing, I can either assume that he is condoning their actions by not speaking against them, or that he disapproves by his choosing not to join in. Either way, I'm never going to know unless I ask him directly.
Silence goes both ways. You can either assume that by not speaking out against it, that you agree, or that by not joining in, you are opposed to it, and all the grey areas in between. But I think assuming anything based on silence is foolish, and say absolutely nothing about the person in question, and absolutely everything about the people assuming.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I think a very appropriate quote in this context would be "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " A penny to the person who can guess who that was.
If I'm not mistaken, it was Martin Luther King.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Disagree. By not participating you are physically "voicing" your disapproval.
Yes, but you're very likely to still go to jail. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Disagree. By not participating you are physically "voicing" your disapproval. If you participated but said nothing to the contrary, I think that could be construed as tactic agreement, but by refusing to participate you're telling them in actions, not words, that you disapprove.
I wouldn't call it "refusal," since in my hypothetical example he wasn't even asked if he wanted to participate. For all his buddies -- or law enforcement, as Dagonee notes -- knew, he was keeping watch for the cops outside. He did nothing to make his opinion clear to anyone involved.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Hmm...that makes sense. The open "ah" sound in the middle sounds like something large, though, something spread out. I don't think there's an acrage of people - more of a quiet, smallish bundle. So, I think I was going for a combination of sheave and swath, only the word it formed already meant something else.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)