I don’t think it’s morally wrong — it’s just human nature to want to survive. Not everyone has the same level of safety or privilege to speak out. Sometimes staying quiet is the only realistic option.
No, it’s okay to keep your head down.
No. This is simply self-preservation.
You should know that in many countries, and now also the U.S., the government will revoke the visa of “political irritants”. In other words, your question is actually a historical one, and it is equivalent to, “Is it immoral to immigrate?”
If I broke into your house holding a knife would it be morally wrong for you to hide in the wardrobe?
No. It is never morally wrong to ensure your own safety.
“But those who allowed nazis to come to power were doing just that!”
…no. Most of those weren’t ensuring their safety. They were ensuring their own comfort (in the beginning, at least)
If a regime is targeting you or your loved ones: Lay low. If the regime is targeting someone else: Resist, especially if at worst you’re gonna get a slap on the wrist.
Yup, this is why allies are so important. It’s the ally’s job to be angry and belligerent when the targeted group can’t. When the targeted group needs to keep their head down, that’s when allies should be the loudest. The ally’s largest point is that they’re beyond reprisal, because they don’t belong to the targeted group.
If someone throws a slur at your friend, that friend may not be able to speak up out of fear of further harassment and/or retaliation. Also, any anger they show will be DARVO’ed around and used to paint them as the aggressor. It will be used to confirm any stereotypes that the bigot already holds; fascists and bigots regularly weaponize decorum, by saying/doing awful things to marginalized groups while pretending to be civil. Then when those people get angry, the fascist turns it around and makes the targeted group look unreasonable. When the victim needs to maintain decorum, that’s when the ally should step up.
A great example of this in action can be found here. Rep Sarah McBride is openly transgender, and Keith Self intentionally misgenders her during her introduction. Sarah throws back a quick “thank you Madam Chair” (misgendering Self) joke in response, but then leaves it at that. Rep William Keating quickly recognizes what is going on, and asks Self to repeat the introduction using McBride’s chosen pronouns. At this point, McBride steps back and doesn’t say anything else; Any anger or belligerence she shows will be used by Self to justify further marginalizing trans people. Self tries to come up with a loose explanation, but quickly flees the situation when it becomes obvious that Keating isn’t going to let the flimsy reasoning stand. Self immediately adjourns the meeting, but he only does this because Keating is the one pushing back; If McBride had been the one to push back, Self would have dug his heels in and used it to grab anti-trans soundbites for later campaigns.
i agree in principle, but that clip leaves a lot of nuance out. if taken to the small scale, pretend you’re trying to get into a bar with a trans friend and someone says some transphobic remark… yes, you have more power to make a scene than your friend, but being in a minority group can feel like a constant fight… they might not want to make a scene, to fight; they might just want to drop it and get on with their night in that moment
going above and beyond like keating did is admirable if they know it’s what mcbride wanted, but it could also have been more upsetting to a lot of people than just replying with the quick quip and getting on with their day
point absolutely stands though that allies are hugely important because they have the ability to say and do things in ways that get both more attention and less retribution
Sure, there’s always the “time and place” consideration to be made. If you tried to start a fight every time someone disagreed with you, you’d never get anywhere in life. But that’s really a different discussion.
Do you blame the Jews for hiding from the Nazis and even trying to look as non Jewish as possible? No? Exactly.
No. Let the white people (like me) who were born here (like me) continue to speak out on behalf of people being brutalized. Keep your head down. Stay safe.
Regardless of whether you’re in a part of the country where the effects of you speaking up won’t have as much consequence, I don’t think it’s morally wrong to try and keep yourself, friends, family, and loved ones safe by not speaking out.
Are you asking if it’s morally wrong for someone to save their own arse from an opressive government?
Because I’ve read a lot of comments online, especially Lemmy, saying that (paraphrased) “they are gonna come for you eventually, so you might as well start resisting now” and “if you don’t take up arms against your oppressors, you deserve whatever happens”
It’s important to support those in your community that have the target on them before the target gets placed on you. Once the target is on you and the community has failed you keep yourself safe.
These are short sighted reactionary takes from people who think resisting is nothing more than voting and protesting, they say to take up arms but never talk about organizing together with arms, so what they’re really asking for is a mass shooting to make them feel good. Resistance isnt a monolith and requires more than just physically showing up to protests and town halls. Beyond that the same people accusing of others of not speaking up would have likely been just as shitty to the people in ww2 who kept quiet because they hid jews in their houses. I tell this type of person all the time, you don’t know someones situatuon, don’t do ICEs job for them simply because you don’t think someone is being loud enough.
Fair enough. No, it’s not morally wrong. Also you said to keep a low profile. That doesn’t mean you don’t do anything if your identity is protected.
It’s morally wrong to make them feel the need to hide. What someone decides to do with their free speech is up to them.
Correct.
Free speech encloses the right to say nothing.
No, it’s morally wrong to contribute to the circumstances in which that would be a logical action
TLDR: Depends on a person’s personal situation but generally the more power someone has the more of an obligation they have to speak up and do something. —————- I think it’s dependent on the individual’s situation. Most people don’t have the platform or personal power to move the needle on nativism. If we use the recent unrest in LA as an example someone would need to consider the weight their presence would contribute to the cause against the likelihood of their being singled out and targeted by the government. What are the ramifications of their staying silent versus having that attention on them, their families and their community.
If you’re talking about those with platform and power then we can add an argument about the responsibility of those with privilege. We have a lot of pretty famous arguments for that example in favor of them being morally obligated to use it. The old school take is noblesse oblige, or noble obligation, while a modern version of the same sentiment would be “with great power comes great responsibility” from spider man.
its the “attackers” that are morally wrong
for the communities it would be very valuable if everyone would work together but someone keeping a low profile can also be quite valuableNo.
