• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Silence v Endorsement

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thought: In today's world, more often than not, if one is silent on something that is considered tactic approval, or tactic endorsement of <insert whatever here>.

I believe this to be true of today's world. I do not agree with it, but that is the sense that I get. I see it when YouTube is hollered at for allowing certain video's to have ads on them. I see it when people demand companies to withdraw their ads from X shows or X radio station because Y said something offensive. It doesn't matter if the companies that advertise agree with, don't agree with, or simply don't care because they wish to remain apolitical, with what is said by Y show/person. I see it when someone gets fired because they happened to say something that someone, somewhere found offensive and that company does not want the blowback by these people that think they would endorse what was said just because they didn't fire that person. Even though that person was on their own time and not representing that company in the slightest.

What do you think? Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
52,651
Reaction score
39,830
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The OP is too general in terms, imo.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
103,345
Reaction score
82,697
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Thought: In today's world, more often than not, if one is silent on something that is considered tactic approval, or tactic endorsement of <insert whatever here>.

I believe this to be true of today's world. I do not agree with it, but that is the sense that I get. I see it when YouTube is hollered at for allowing certain video's to have ads on them. I see it when people demand companies to withdraw their ads from X shows or X radio station because Y said something offensive. It doesn't matter if the companies that advertise agree with, don't agree with, or simply don't care because they wish to remain apolitical, with what is said by Y show/person. I see it when someone gets fired because they happened to say something that someone, somewhere found offensive and that company does not want the blowback by these people that think they would endorse what was said just because they didn't fire that person. Even though that person was on their own time and not representing that company in the slightest.

What do you think? Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?

I think this is an interesting discussion to have. But I have to ask - would you mind being more specific? I don't mean to debate/discuss that particular instance. I mean so I understand it better.
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,767
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?

Too many people in this country, particularly on the right-wing, seem to operate under the premise that it is better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission. They do horrible things and let horrible things slide until someone forcibly calls them out on it. So long as that is the case we have no choice, but to watch them like halks and demand every mea culpa we can get. They want to play dumb and pretend they just didn't realize it was wrong, but in reality, they should know better from the start.

I hear from the right all the time that we didn't need the civil rights movement because the free market would solve everything. If businesses discriminated they would be punished by consumers who vote with their feet. It's a load of bull****, but unfortunately, sometimes it's the best weapon we have and we must hold companies feet to the fire when they don't do the right thing.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think this is an interesting discussion to have. But I have to ask - would you mind being more specific? I don't mean to debate/discuss that particular instance. I mean so I understand it better.

As I just told Rex (I know you didn't see it as of your posting ;) ) the specifics don't actually matter as the concept would be the same and while YOU might not mean to debate/discuss that particular specific others will use a specific to bog down the discussion. I want to try and avoid that if possible. :)
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Too many people in this country, particularly on the right-wing, seem to operate under the premise that it is better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission. They do horrible things and let horrible things slide until someone forcibly calls them out on it. So long as that is the case we have no choice, but to watch them like halks and demand every mea culpa we can get. They want to play dumb and pretend they just didn't realize it was wrong, but in reality, the should know better from the start.

So you agree with the premise that silence is tactic approval?
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
103,345
Reaction score
82,697
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
As I just told Rex (I know you didn't see it as of your posting ;) ) the specifics don't actually matter as the concept would be the same and while YOU might not mean to debate/discuss that particular specific others will use a specific to bog down the discussion. I want to try and avoid that if possible. :)

I actually really think your question has merit. I hope you understand I'm struggling to really answer it, because I don't know what you may be asking about. Is it something that directly impacts the company (like animal testing in China, for instance). Or is it what an employee does on social media in his off time? Or is it generally speaking that, say, an ad campaign triggers some segments of the population (like that Gillette ad).

I realize I am hijacking your thread against your wishes and I do want to apologize for that. Just wanted to get some more context around it. Even a made up scenario.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
52,651
Reaction score
39,830
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Too many people in this country, particularly on the right-wing, seem to operate under the premise that it is better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission. They do horrible things and let horrible things slide until someone forcibly calls them out on it. So long as that is the case we have no choice, but to watch them like halks and demand every mea culpa we can get. They want to play dumb and pretend they just didn't realize it was wrong, but in reality, they should know better from the start.

I hear from the right all the time that we didn't need the civil rights movement because the free market would solve everything. If businesses discriminated they would be punished by consumers who vote with their feet. It's a load of bull****, but unfortunately, sometimes it's the best weapon we have and we must hold companies feet to the fire when they don't do the right thing.

I am not certain what the OP is trying to flesh out, but to the bolded, this is learned behavior in childhood. It doesn’t take too long to figure out that the punishment for disobedience is much more severe than the punishment for just ****ing up!
 

Rogue Valley

Putin = War Criminal
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
83,068
Reaction score
67,996
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So you agree with the premise that silence is tactic approval?

Not always, but it certainly can be. Governments often use silence as an intended "green light" signal to another nation.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I actually really think your question has merit. I hope you understand I'm struggling to really answer it, because I don't know what you may be asking about. Is it something that directly impacts the company (like animal testing in China, for instance). Or is it what an employee does on social media in his off time? Or is it generally speaking that, say, an ad campaign triggers some segments of the population (like that Gillette ad).

I realize I am hijacking your thread against your wishes and I do want to apologize for that. Just wanted to get some more context around it. Even a made up scenario.

I understand. I'll make up an absurd scenario in order to (hopefully) avoid the bogging down and focus of a specific.

Person A on YouTube says that the sky is is beautiful. A group of people that thinks the sky is ugly sees that YouTube is allowing advertisements to be shown on Person A's video and calls for a boycott because they believe that YouTube is endorsing what Person A said even though YouTube could care less whether the sky is beautiful or not.

Hope that helps?
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,767
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So you agree with the premise that silence is tactic approval?

I would argue that depending on the severity of the subject silence is certainly not good enough. When you're talking about things like choosing to advertise on Fox News for example. There is enough information about what Fox News is out there that if you're still allowing your adds to be run there then you know what you're supporting.

With something like youtube or twitter for example. They make money based on the volume of consumption. If they're allowing trolls, racists, misogynists a platform to spew their hatred then if they don't outright support it we can assume they care more about money than they do about what is morally right. Making sure they understand that allowing a platform for such hate is going to be bad for their bottom line is one of the few weapons we have for making them do the right thing.
 

Barnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
10,720
Reaction score
5,260
Location
Middle Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thought: In today's world, more often than not, if one is silent on something that is considered tactic approval, or tactic endorsement of <insert whatever here>.

I believe this to be true of today's world. I do not agree with it, but that is the sense that I get. I see it when YouTube is hollered at for allowing certain video's to have ads on them. I see it when people demand companies to withdraw their ads from X shows or X radio station because Y said something offensive. It doesn't matter if the companies that advertise agree with, don't agree with, or simply don't care because they wish to remain apolitical, with what is said by Y show/person. I see it when someone gets fired because they happened to say something that someone, somewhere found offensive and that company does not want the blowback by these people that think they would endorse what was said just because they didn't fire that person. Even though that person was on their own time and not representing that company in the slightest.

What do you think? Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?


Difficult times for businesses and anybody in the limelight. Liberals have cornered the market on "if you're not with us, you're against us".

Most conservatives don't care one way or the other. They will support what they feel is right and ignore what they don't agree with.
Liberals, on the other hand, will seek out the reason why you are not supporting certain causes and stamp on your forehead their above mentioned motto.

Remember Chick-fil-a. Never the slightest comment against gays, but did not financially support any gay organization ... and we all know how they were branded.

Difficult times ... being silent is no longer an option, live-and-let-live has gone to pots. Another trademark of the progressive movement.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
103,345
Reaction score
82,697
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I understand. I'll make up an absurd scenario in order to (hopefully) avoid the bogging down and focus of a specific.

Person A on YouTube says that the sky is is beautiful. A group of people that thinks the sky is ugly sees that YouTube is allowing advertisements to be shown on Person A's video and calls for a boycott because they believe that YouTube is endorsing what Person A said even though YouTube could care less whether the sky is beautiful or not.

Hope that helps?

That does help. Thanks!

In that scenario, I think the company should give them a big old f you.

I don't think companies are responsible for the words of their staffers or the people who use the company goods or service to deliver a message. I think in that example it would be the height of ignorance for the sky haters to say "YouTube thinks the sky is beautiful. They suck. Shut the down.".

I guess maybe I'm saying First Amendment and all that, and delivering a message should be allowed without backlash or interpretation that the message deliverer agrees with the message.

Does that make sense?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not always, but it certainly can be. Governments often use silence as an intended "green light" signal to another nation.

Ah but governments are meant to be political. Companies are, more often than not, just out to make a profit. Non-political organizations meant to help poor people just want to get the word out in order to help more people etc etc.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
103,345
Reaction score
82,697
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ah but governments are meant to be political. Companies are, more often than not, just out to make a profit. Non-political organizations meant to help poor people just want to get the word out in order to help more people etc etc.

This I agree with. Government by its very nature is steeped in politics. Companies are in the business of business.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
18,096
Reaction score
12,120
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't feel that silence is necessarily endorsement, however it could be, and I think that's the issue. Refusing to speak out against a perceived wrong does nothing to right it, and if enough people remain silent it can embolden bad actors to take advantage of a lack of resistance to make it worse. When a public figure, whether a person or a company, remains silent in the face of a wrong it invites speculation that they might be endorsing it, and even if they don't actually endorse it they're refusing to use their public position to help right that wrong. This isn't something they're morally required to do, but I can't blame people who are actively trying to right that wrong from expressing disappointment that someone else isn't.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
52,651
Reaction score
39,830
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Difficult times for businesses and anybody in the limelight. Liberals have cornered the market on "if you're not with us, you're against us".

Most conservatives don't care one way or the other. They will support what they feel is right and ignore what they don't agree with.
Liberals, on the other hand, will seek out the reason why you are not supporting certain causes and stamp on your forehead their above mentioned motto.

Remember Chick-fil-a. Never the slightest comment against gays, but did not financially support any gay organization ... and we all know how they were branded.

Difficult times ... being silent is no longer an option, live-and-let-live has gone to pots. Another trademark of the progressive movement.

Chick-fil-a is bulletproof, imo. That sandwich has not been duplicated! :mrgreen:
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
91,246
Reaction score
54,713
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thought: In today's world, more often than not, if one is silent on something that is considered tactic approval, or tactic endorsement of <insert whatever here>.

I believe this to be true of today's world. I do not agree with it, but that is the sense that I get. I see it when YouTube is hollered at for allowing certain video's to have ads on them. I see it when people demand companies to withdraw their ads from X shows or X radio station because Y said something offensive. It doesn't matter if the companies that advertise agree with, don't agree with, or simply don't care because they wish to remain apolitical, with what is said by Y show/person. I see it when someone gets fired because they happened to say something that someone, somewhere found offensive and that company does not want the blowback by these people that think they would endorse what was said just because they didn't fire that person. Even though that person was on their own time and not representing that company in the slightest.

What do you think? Is a company endorsing X by simply remaining silent about it?

That depends on what one considers to be "company policy".

Such a question could be framed in many ways: "Mr. Y, known to work for your company, said A to his neighbor yesterday - what is the company policy on A?" or "Your company placed an add running on the Z show, during which the host said A - what is the company policy on A?". In those cases stating that company policy does not address such matters is perfectly fine and is in no way an endorsement (or condemnation) of A.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
52,651
Reaction score
39,830
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kal, Does this old poem factor in what you are digging for?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
. —Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
 

Cramer

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This I agree with. Government by its very nature is steeped in politics. Companies are in the business of business.

That was pretty much the case, til about 20+ years ago. Large corps have become more politically active, in many ways to influence laws and regulation to benefit them.

A handful of SCOTUS rulings have helped in that effort.
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,767
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I am not certain what the OP is trying to flesh out, but to the bolded, this is learned behavior in childhood. It doesn’t take too long to figure out that the punishment for disobedience is much more severe than the punishment for just ****ing up!

Yes, the point here is simply that the result of this is that we must force people out of silence and give the apology. We can't rely on them to properly vet these things in advance on their own.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That does help. Thanks!

In that scenario, I think the company should give them a big old f you.

I don't think companies are responsible for the words of their staffers or the people who use the company goods or service to deliver a message. I think in that example it would be the height of ignorance for the sky haters to say "YouTube thinks the sky is beautiful. They suck. Shut the down.".

I guess maybe I'm saying First Amendment and all that, and delivering a message should be allowed without backlash or interpretation that the message deliverer agrees with the message.

Does that make sense?

But do you feel this way in ALL cases? Or are there some things that you think silence is tactic approval? I gave an innocuous example so its easy to say "the company should give them a big old **** you", "first amendment" etc etc. But would the same apply for something more serious?

For instance, about a year ago Mike Rowe, who strives to be apolitical in order to help more people, was told that he was a white supremacist because he refused to speak out on political topics.
 

Cramer

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This thread reminds me of this:
I must confess that over the past 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 his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler 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
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kal, Does this old poem factor in what you are digging for?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
. —Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller

No. I'm talking about people, companies etc etc being hollered at and accused of something simply for not speaking up on political topics because they simply do not care about political topics or wish to avoid them in order to do more good in the case of organizations that only strive to help people. Think Mike Rowe of Mike Rowe Works.
 
Top Bottom