Is Neutrality the same as Complicity?

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
It seems that every other company is coming out with a solemn black .jpeg expressing their support. For example:


Is Sony right? That 'silence' is complicity?
If I say "I condemn murder", am I no longer complicit? If I don't say that, does that make me complicit?

Is a Buddhist monk who strives to detach himself from the world complicit?
Was Switzerland complicit during both world wars?

Are cops who stand by and watch other cops do illegal things complicit?
If your country is involved in a violent uprising to fight against an oppressive government (for example the 2014 Ukrainian rebellion), are the people who didn't take up arms complicit to the government's oppressive acts?

Did YOU attend a protest recently? Are you complicit?

I think that one can only be considered to be complicit, only if they share some degree of involvement.

Personally, I'd like to think of myself as neutral. I want no part in this current mess. Does that mean that I'm complicit?

Discuss.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where
I think it depends on what the issue is.
Not seeing a movie is a form of protest of that movie, so technically you're being silent with your dollars, so that's not complicit, that's direct silent protest.

On the same token you could argue not objecting to something is a form of complicit behavior. You could have someone doing something you don't like, and by not objecting people can say well sure you didn't like it, but not enough to do something about it.

As for if I've attended the current protests, no. But I was at the Ferguson ones back during the Michael Brown shootings(for all the good it did), and the police have gotten even more militarized since. I was talking my pup at the park just yesterday and two weeks ago park rangers were on horseback being polite and respectful. Yesterday they were in full riot gear, in a patrol car, on the walking paths. And they honked at everyone not getting out of their way. In a park around a pond.
Here in St Louis there's an unofficial rule that no one trusts the police at all, and they're basically an occupying army and the hope is today is not the day a bullet finds you.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
Yes. And I place that standard upon myself also.
I haven't seen any statement of solidarity from The Escapist. Does that mean The Escapist is complicit? If so, then are you okay with posting on a "complicit" site?
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,216
3,354
118
The escapist isn't a person. Though if you looked hard enough, you would find your answer.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
The escapist isn't a person.
Sony isn't a person either.

So what I understand from your three sentences is that
A) Yes, silence is complicity
B) Only persons can be complicit

So that means that Sony didn't really need to come out with their statement of solidarity, as they couldn't have been complicit anyway?

Ignoring Sony for a moment, what about the example of the Buddhist monk? Is he complicit too, despite living all the way on the other side of the world? I'm attempting to discern if there's a line where "complicity" ends, and where that line is drawn. Thank you for BEARing with me.
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,564
139
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
Think it depends on opportunity and how pressing the issue is, how much one benefits from it etc. Case by case sort of thing.

Sony in this case has the power to... well try to do something I guess. Can see the reason to feel compelled to do something. Dunno that I'd have called them complicit, it's so far out of what Sony does usually, I think I'd normally say a burden exists more on the owners and individuals than the company itself? But I suppose having the company do this is a reflection of the responsibility the individuals in charge feel, perhaps?

On a personal individual level, people often have less opportunity. But to stay neutral and be fine with it, to be alright with leaving the status quo as it is, that speaks to being complicit in my mind.
 

Palindromemordnilap

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
211
95
33
Country
United Kingdom
I mean Switzerland being neutral in WWII meant they funded the Nazis by buying their gold, who knows how sooner that particular war might have ended and how many of the millions killed might not have been if that hadn't happened. So I'd argue that this neutrality did in fact make them complicit and that wasn't the best example to bring up
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
1,118
1,442
118
Country
United States
A kid is in a playground. He's cornered by bullies. Then the first punch lands. Followed by another. And another.

The child is on the floor screaming for help. He can not fight back. The numbers aren't on his side. He is slight. And the bullies are just having a great time. Each cry out seems to spurn them on to more violence.

There are other children witnessing this.

Their actions determine the fate of this child.

If they are brave, they can run in to aid this boy.

If they realize they don't have any way to fight back, they can run off and find an adult.

If they don't do anything, this child will continued to be pummeled.

If they laugh, the bullies might appreciate the audience and go to deeper levels of barbarity.

If they join in, the bullies will feel embolden.

Not doing anything is the neutral action. It doesn't warn the bullies away, it doesn't add new fist to the situation... but it allows the beating to go on.

People will continue to do things until it brings trouble to their doorstep. Organizations, even more so. It's as simple as that. That's not even talking about how being neutral to a horrific event in and of itself is mindblowing. I can't help everyone who comes my way. Even if I want to, I can't. But I have empathy. I want to do what I can, even if it's just spreading my view with those around me. To be neutral in the face of horrors is to be complicit. Even just adding your voice to the cacophony makes it that much louder.

There are things to be neutral on. How you feel about Seinfield. How you feel about Lox and Bagels. How you feel about the color red. That has no implications on others and it's virtually meaningless. But as humans are social creatures, society is something we all share and are apart of. Members of your society are being hurt, mistreated, and marginalized. That causes them to act out, because they feel cornered and don't know what else to do. If you can not be bothered to care about how they are being treated, then you can not have an opinion about how they react due to their treatment.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Hard to make a sweeping generalisation, but the decision to do nothing is a decision. There may or may not be good reasons for do some.

I mean Switzerland being neutral in WWII meant they funded the Nazis by buying their gold, who knows how sooner that particular war might have ended and how many of the millions killed might not have been if that hadn't happened. So I'd argue that this neutrality did in fact make them complicit and that wasn't the best example to bring up
A quibble, Switzeland was reliant of imports to not starve or freeze. It found itself totally surrounded by the Third Reich. So some amount of trade was necessary.
 

Palindromemordnilap

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
211
95
33
Country
United Kingdom
A quibble, Switzeland was reliant of imports to not starve or freeze. It found itself totally surrounded by the Third Reich. So some amount of trade was necessary.
Oh sure, the Swiss were in a bit of a precarious position with Nazis all around them, but my point still stands. Their neutrality didnā€™t mean nothing happened there, it didnā€™t remove them from the equation. Just saying ā€œI want no part in thisā€ like the OP suggests doesnā€™t actually guarantee you no part in that
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Oh sure, the Swiss were in a bit of a precarious position with Nazis all around them, but my point still stands. Their neutrality didnā€™t mean nothing happened there, it didnā€™t remove them from the equation. Just saying ā€œI want no part in thisā€ like the OP suggests doesnā€™t actually guarantee you no part in that
Fair enough.
 

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
Of course this would be situational, however, if someone is being harmed, injured or in need of your assistance and you remain silent and fail to respond, yes, it very will could be considered being complicit for failing to help them, you are allowing this to happen to them.
 

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
Sony isn't a person either.

So what I understand from your three sentences is that
A) Yes, silence is complicity
B) Only persons can be complicit

So that means that Sony didn't really need to come out with their statement of solidarity, as they couldn't have been complicit anyway?

Ignoring Sony for a moment, what about the example of the Buddhist monk? Is he complicit too, despite living all the way on the other side of the world? I'm attempting to discern if there's a line where "complicity" ends, and where that line is drawn. Thank you for BEARing with me.
The people who work for Sony chose to express their support for ending racism by putting out this message. The people who work for the Escapist chose to show their support to end racism by entrenching anti hate speech in the rules of their site and refusing to host racist material, speech or content. Simply because the people working for the different businesses expressed their support in different ways does not mean that either remained silent. The people working for the Escapist had made their position crystal clear from the get go. Claiming they were silent is provably false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avnger

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
It really depends on the situation.

If I see a bunch of kids beating up another kid, and I do nothing, I'm arguably complicit. There's a clear power dynamic, and it's pretty certain that the kid being beaten up doesn't deserve it.

But lets get to the scale of nations. Taken Yemen. We have a civil war being fought in the country, with the Saudis and Iranians backing their respective factions, plus terrorist factions. If I, as an individual or world leader do nothing, am I complicit? Maybe. But if I ask ten different people who the "oppressor" is in this scenario, I'm likely going to get ten different answers.

Desmond Tutu said that "if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." And while that's a fine quote in theory, there's plenty of situations where there's no clear oppressor. And even in the case of George Floyd, I have no compunction against calling out the police officer who killed him, or the other officers who let it happen, but beyond that? At least four people have died last I heard over the last week, with people expressing legitimate grievances, while also making innocent people suffer. People who are hunkering down trying to defend their businesses are arguably neutral, that doesn't make them bad people.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
In Common Law, there was no duty to aid. 2 pieces of land are separated by a river. Guy on land A sees guy on land B fall into the river and does absolutely nothing. Guy A drowns and dies while Guy B looks on. Under the law, he is within his rights.
Makes me wonder about an alternative where he has obligations to aid.
Kinda a conundrum presented in movies like this:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Novgorod

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
In Common Law, there was no duty to aid. 2 pieces of land are separated by a river. Guy on land A sees guy on land B fall into the river and does absolutely nothing. Guy A drowns and dies while Guy B looks on. Under the law, he is within his rights.
Makes me wonder about an alternative where he has obligations to aid.
Kinda a conundrum presented in movies like this:
Yea, that is why stop and render aid laws are a thing now. They can be a felony in Texas if you just look on and do not do anything to help. This primary applies to traffic accidents, however, they have used them for other areas as well in the past, as there was a man in our community when I was growing up who was charged for failing to get help or assist a child who had fallen in the drainage ditch and just stood there and watched her bleed down there without doing anything. The only way you can avoid charges for something like that here is if you have some sort of psychological condition that would prevent you from doing so.

I have no idea why anyone would think not having rendering aid laws would be a good thing at all. That sounds terrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
Yea, that is why stop and render aid laws are a thing now. They can be a felony in Texas if you just look on and do not do anything to help. This primary applies to traffic accidents, however, they have used them for other areas as well in the past, as there was a man in our community when I was growing up who was charged for failing to get help or assist a child who had fallen in the drainage ditch and just stood there and watched her bleed down there without doing anything. The only way you can avoid charges for something like that here is if you have some sort of psychological condition that would prevent you from doing so.

I have no idea why anyone would think not having rendering aid laws would be a good thing at all. That sounds terrible.
Yeah, I think the Seinfeld gang end up in jail for not doing anything. The motif of the show!
How far do you take it? In the movie I reference, a rich woman expects a poor working class man to serve her on their island as she needs his help as they are ship wrecked. Otherwise he is guilty of "denying aid". His response is the rich do that to the poor internationally all the time. A college ethicist, Pete Singer... something like that... similar name to the old folk singer. He published an article the long and short of it is, ethically, no US family of four should have more than about $35K a year. Any excess should be distributed to the poor throughout the world. Otherwise, you are denying aid. EDIT: Might be this guy https://petersinger.info/

Dunno if these "render aid" laws are feel good measures? Are they ethical in a world where there are rich and poor? Impossible to apply fairly running counter to common law?
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Oct 25, 2009
3,301
982
118
UK
Gender
He/Him
I suppose it depends on the situation, but in this specific instance of Black Lives Matter, i'd say so.

A policeman killed an unarmed black man in custody. If you just stay silent on the matter, by not opposing this, you are indicating that this behaviour is okay. Sure, you aren't directly saying "Yes, I support this", but your inaction may as well do.

I guess as a society, as a default, we just kind of accept what is going on around us, unless we speak out.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
The people who work for the Escapist chose to show their support to end racism by entrenching anti hate speech in the rules of their site and refusing to host racist material, speech or content. The people working for the Escapist had made their position crystal clear from the get go. Claiming they were silent is provably false.
If The Escapist can say "within the bounds of our site, racism is not allowed", and not be considered to be 'silent' or 'complicit', then can an individual say "within my house racism is not allowed" and be similarly let off the hook? Is that all it takes?


But as humans are social creatures, society is something we all share and are apart of. Members of your society are being hurt, mistreated, and marginalized. That causes them to act out, because they feel cornered and don't know what else to do. If you can not be bothered to care about how they are being treated, then you can not have an opinion about how they react due to their treatment.
What is "society" defined as? Is a monk, living in Japan, the part of the same society that killed Flynn? What about a Canadian? An Alaskan? Is there just one "human society", or does this refer to the United States and their territories?
 
Last edited: