Read on Twitter
I've seen this enough now that it MORE than merits addressing from a dialectic standpoint. So this my fellow Twitter humans shall be a thread!
Let's chat about context shant we!
*thread... https://twitter.com/zagalozigoulee/status/1277367793483218945
Let's chat about context shant we!
*thread... https://twitter.com/zagalozigoulee/status/1277367793483218945
So I see this presentation frequently as a guide to pit BLM against those who would rightfully suggest that silence isn't consent re. Sexual assault. So why is it different?
WELL the answer is context. Context is the heart of dialectic understanding and it's sacrificed in the meme age quite frequently because we take for granted it will be inferred by an honest observer.
SUPER FUN FACT! The internet isn't rife with honest interlocutors. *GASP*!!!!
So when someone sees, "Silence is concent!" In meme form pushed out by BLM they say, "AH HA!!! I can exploit this lack of direct referential nuance to suggest this applies to sexual assault victims in order to counter the position!" because they're shitty
Here is the think about communication. And its it's something we take for granted. We assume context frequently in order to best utalize our medium. It's taken for granted here that, "Silence is concent!" Pertains to a specific ser of inferred contextual understandings
One being that the person being silent is an OBSERVER to victimization and NOT the actual victim. Most reasonable people grasp this point easily given their basic contextual queues when receiving the message being delivered.
BUT...some people see implicit contextual trust in information transmission as an opportunity to prevert the message. So they say..."You are saying in every context silence is concent which makes you monsters!" Where that the case...but it isn't!
They see the opportunity to take a message out of it's contextual reference position and utalize that to make it seem as though it leads to absurdity devoid of context. Lots of things do, THAT is why context matters!
A person saying witnessing atrocity and staying silent is wrong isn't the same as a person saying having an atrocity committed against you and staying silent is wrong because the situation and stakes aren't even remotely similar!
IF you think they are, IF you actually think this is what is attempting to be transmitted I feel sorry for you because it must be VERY difficult to understand almost anything anyone says unless they explicitly contextualize it
IF you obviously understand the underlying contextualized inference AND CHOOSE to present it as though you do not...YOU ARE A PROBLEM. You're dishonest on purpose in order to obfuscate 2 victim scenarios and pit victims against each other and your gross so fuck off
The end
