Current Events > Is being neutral just as bad as being on the "wrong" side of an issue?

(+) Yeah! (+)

"Silence is violence!"

I grew up with mentally ill/delusional family members. EVERY DAY was a crisis. They desperately tried to convince me to be as upset as they were.

This is how I view the world. There's always some new crisis. Both sides are desperate for attention. I just live my life and don't participate -- you can't smooth out the waves of the ocean.

---

I guess it depends on the issue

---

Depends personally on if it effects me negatively or not in some way, shape or form, otherwise I couldnt care less.

Which can trigger people particularly in regards to politics and moral dilemmas.

---

nah its just histrionic crazy people taking "you're either with us or against us" to a new level. being neutral is perfectly acceptable and no amount of screeching on twitter will change that

---

NOM posted...

I guess it depends on the issue

Was Switzerland bad for not siding with the Allies in WW2? Where does it end? I don't think there's any issue in our lifetimes that being neutral is bad

---

NOM posted...

I guess it depends on the issue

this. but if you are talking about the current protests with BLM, I think people who call themselves neutral on that, are in the wrong.

"evil succeeds when good people do nothing"

black people (and other minorities) have been treated like shit for far too long. we should have had true equality decades ago. hell it should have been the thing from the very beginning when this nation was founded. we claimed "all men are created equal" but it was bullshit

Colorahdo posted...

Was Switzerland bad for not siding with the Allies in WW2?

yes. they should have fought Hitler

Might be safer to be neutral in some cases. If you cite black or police on white crime for example, you are an automatic racist on the interwebz.
---

I'm selfish and I'm okay with that. If it's not going to effect me or the handful of people I care about, then I don't care that much. I'll fight for what I really want and you do the same. If you get in my way then we'll fight eachother. If neither of us are in eachothers way then we'll be fine.

---

Zikten posted...

yes. they should have fought Hitler

with what

---

Zikten posted...

"evil succeeds when good people do nothing"

I think this assumes you're watching evil be done and you turn away

neutral people aren't even playing the game. They're not looking at both sides and deciding "eh I won't have a strong opinion." There are no sides, they're choosing to ignore the entire argument.


---

---

In most cases no.
---

there's no such thing as neutrality. if people think they're neutral, then they just don't recognize their oen biases.

---

"Silence is violence!"

Only a community with no internal problems has a right to say this. Of which, none truly exist.

---

No, obviously not.

I hate the idea that "doing nothing is just as bad or worse than doing the bad thing".

It's not. The whole reason the bad thing is the bad thing is because it's worse than doing nothing.

---

Colorahdo posted...

I think this assumes you're watching evil be done and you turn away

neutral people aren't even playing the game. They're not looking at both sides and deciding "eh I won't have a strong opinion." There are no sides, they're choosing to ignore the entire argument.

That's exactly what you're doing though?

Just because you phrase it in a kinder way doesn't change that they are ignoring an evil being done under the guise of "I don't want to get involved"

---

averagejoel posted...

there's no such thing as neutrality. if people think they're neutral, then they just don't recognize their oen biases.

why do I have to have an opinion on everything in life? Is purple better than red?

---

Colorahdo posted...

I think this assumes you're watching evil be done and you turn away

neutral people aren't even playing the game. They're not looking at both sides and deciding "eh I won't have a strong opinion." There are no sides, they're choosing to ignore the entire argument.

for me it's like you have someone who is getting smacked in the face, and the person who is smacking them in the face. the person getting smacked is like stop smacking me and the person smacking keeps saying i'm not hitting you. if you decide not to take a side one of them is still getting slapped in the face. if you step in and say hey you are smacking them stop it, it becomes a lot harder for one side to still keep saying they aren't hitting them. now instead of smacking them in the face you have full on murder and beatings and a person who cannot just walk away from the person slapping them. it's why it's fine to be neutral on whether or not you're going to agree with your one friend to get mexican food instead of chinese food like your other friend wants.

and since this is obviously about the protests and whats going on, if there is at least one thing you should be noticing as an abservant person is that it's becoming more and more apparent each day that this isn't even an issue of police vs black people but an issue of police vs not police. it's gone well past just black people being attacked by police during these protests.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

---

chocolatemuffin posted...

for me it's like you have someone who is getting smacked in the face, and the person who is smacking them in the face. the person getting smacked is like stop smacking me and the person smacking keeps saying i'm not hitting you. if you decide not to take a side one of them is still getting slapped in the face. if you step in and say hey you are smacking them stop it, it becomes a lot harder for one side to still keep saying they aren't hitting them

You have a good point but that's not the way it ever plays out -- a crowd forms and some people cheer on the abuser, and some people shout at him to stop. And I look out my window and think "oh jeez another fight, I'm just gonna go back inside" , then some people from the crowd shout at me for not joining their side.

I've seen a lot of "here are the celebrities that are SILENT on this issue! They're awful!" social media posts lately. No one has a duty to join the crowd, imo

---

Colorahdo posted...

why do I have to have an opinion on everything in life? Is purple better than red?

don't pull this shit. that's clearly not what I was talking about

---

Colorahdo posted...

I've seen a lot of "here are the celebrities that are SILENT on this issue! They're awful!" social media posts lately. No one has a duty to join the crowd, imo

Sure, but people are in their right to call out people who opt to just shrug and stay silent on abuse when they can speak out.

Be "neutral" if you want, but no one is obliged to accept or tolerate it. By not standing up and calling for abuse to stop, you are allowing it to continue and part of the problem.

---

Funkydog posted...

Sure, but people are in their right to call out people who opt to just shrug and stay silent on abuse when they can speak out.

Be "neutral" if you want, but no one is obliged to accept or tolerate it. By not standing up and calling for abuse to stop, you are allowing it to continue and part of the problem.

but there's ALWAYS some bully and always some crisis. We're to spend our lives speaking out against evil?

---

averagejoel posted...

there's no such thing as neutrality. if people think they're neutral, then they just don't recognize their oen biases.

This is how you force someone into taking a side they may not really support. This happened with the kneeling in the NFL several years ago. People with neutral opinions were pressured to take a side without all of the facts and the knowledge to make an appropriate decision. That worked out well didn't it. I think encouraging people to actually care and learn about the issue is more important then to hastily pick a side because of this if you don't your against me mentality

Colorahdo posted...

but there's ALWAYS some bully and always some crisis. We're to spend our lives speaking out against evil?

Unless you want to be part of the problem, yes?

It's not hard to say "This is bad" mate.

---

Wasssup Now posted...

This is how you force someone into taking a side they may not really support. This happened with the kneeling in the NFL several years ago. People with neutral opinions were pressured to take a side without all of the facts and the knowledge to make an appropriate decision. That worked out well didn't it. I think encouraging people to actually care and learn about the issue is more important then to hastily pick a side because of this if you don't your against me mentality

abolitionists also did it leading up to the civil war. they would go into "neutral" churches, interrupt their mass, and refuse to leave until the church had chosen a side. how'd it go for them?

---

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
---

Well if you force people from their neutral stance. You are most likely making another obstacle for yourself.

CommunismFTW posted...

with what

their military. they would have had the other Ally nations backing them up. Hitler was the enemy of all free people. you don't just let him do what he was doing. Switzerland would have regretted their inaction had Hitler won the war. no way he would have left them alone. he wanted to conquer the planet

and also, the entire reason black people still suffer is because we white people have been staying neutral and not helping them

Abiz_ posted...

Well if you force people from their neutral stance. You are most likely making another obstacle for yourself.

They were already an obstacle.

---

Funkydog posted...

They were already an obstacle.

No, they were to the side. Now they will be in front of you pushing back.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

this is used for every mini-crisis. Where does it stop? I decide my ice cream was too expensive and this quote gets thrown out

---

Funkydog posted...

They were already an obstacle.

---

No

---

A lot of times, being "neutral" is the lazy man's way of avoiding something that may threaten their status quo. Is it as bad? Eh, not exactly, but you're still a weak person and really need to reevaluate things

TC I get your family upbringing may have skewed your views, but that's honestly not a good excuse to ignore legitimate problems. It's like you're drawing a line that everyone else is crazy except you, and that's not really a way to live.

Is your neutrality a stance, or your unwillingness to engage?

---

Colorahdo posted...

this is used for every mini-crisis. Where does it stop? I decide my ice cream was too expensive and this quote gets thrown out

Sorry bro we'll keep to using it for the "regular-sized" crisis like what's happening right now.

---

Abiz_ posted...

No, they were to the side. Now they will be in front of you pushing back.

I like the way youre explaining neutral.

---

Abiz_ posted...

Well if you force people from their neutral stance. You are most likely making another obstacle for yourself.

do you think the results of abolitionists' tactics leading up to the civil war were good or bad?

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

A lot of times, being "neutral" is the lazy man's way of avoiding something that may threaten their status quo. Is it as bad? Eh, not exactly, but you're still a weak person and really need to reevaluate things

TC I get your family upbringing may have skewed your views, but that's honestly not a good excuse to ignore legitimate problems. It's like you're drawing a line that everyone else is crazy except you, and that's not really a way to live.

Is your neutrality a stance, or your unwillingness to engage?

People can't be expected to engage everything all the time. And honestly I think people who are aware of their own ignorance on an issue should take themselves out of the game rather than just being sheep for whatever side is loudest.

It's a big reason I don't agree with the "everybody should vote" crowd. If you have 0 idea what's going on, don't vote, don't take a side. Sit out of it and let those who know what's going on be involved.

---

No it is just a bullying tactic. We only get history on those they chose to show: Muhammad Ali may be the most famous but he isnt the only person who consciously objected military service

---

averagejoel posted...

abolitionists also did it leading up to the civil war. they would go into "neutral" churches, interrupt their mass, and refuse to leave until the church had chosen a side. how'd it go for them?

What the abolitionists did worked out great. You're just portraying them badly. They preached to get their view across.

No. In any event horrific enough to justify the "you're a shitty person for being neutral" fallacious attack, obviously doing the horrific thing is always worse than not caring. No matter what. The only way to be "as bad" is to actively help in the act.

---

ThePrinceFish posted...

No. In any event horrific enough to justify the "you're a shitty person for being neutral" fallacious attack, obviously doing the horrific thing is always worse than not caring. No matter what. The only way to be "as bad" is to actively help in the act.

I think even then doing the bad thing has to be worse than helping do the bad thing.

---

I admit that I can't comprehend someone not having an opinion on something, unless they are completely oblivious to it.

---

NOM posted...

I guess it depends on the issue

This. Some issues, despite the thoughts of many an enlightened centrist, are purely binary: you're right or you're wrong. You are not ambivalent about systemic bigotry, for example; if you don't care about it, you're letting it perpetuate and continue to be a problem, and therefore are part of the problem. Equality is not an issue you should be going "eh, whatever" about.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I admit that I can't comprehend someone not having an opinion on something, unless they are completely oblivious to it.

You can have an opinion and also recognize your are probably not informed enough to have a well informed opinion.

---

Wasssup Now posted...

What the abolitionists did worked out great. You're just portraying them badly. They preached to get their view across.

they did it with the explicit intent of forcing the churches to choose a side.

---

nope, the idea of starving people in Africa wont stop you from eating food

---

from a machiavellian standpoint, it's arguably worse

---