[thisiscorrect]

In fact, there were even claims during the 2020 riots that "White silence is violence." See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSVUrvnJFXs. That's right, even _not_ saying anything at all (including not parroting the expected slogans) is a direct act of violence.

[Broken_Hippo]

This is not the same thing.

If you know the kid next door is being abused - and you do nothing about it, you are partially at fault for the violence happening to the kid. If you do something (call child services, for example) and it fails, you tried, and should try again lest you fall in the same trap.

It is similar with police violence and racism. If you sit idly by and don't demand change, despite knowing people are getting beaten and things like that, you are partially responsible.

I'm pretty sure the same thing happens with other things too: You knew someone was taking money from the company yet did nothing, you are at risk of getting in trouble too. It isn't a concept that exist in only one arena.

[xdennis]

Yes, but see what you did there? You're comparing an individual case where you have personal information to a general vibe promoted by the media.

The general public has been led to believe that thousands of unarmed black men are killed by the police every year. In reality it's around 20. [1][2]

Saying that "silence is violence" coupled with misleading information is a means of manipulating people.

I prefer the old fashioned "sicks and stones, ...", "due process", "innocent until proven guilty", ...

[1]: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/03/police-blac... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ...

[deanCommie]

You're missing the point. You DO have personal information that you can do things with in your daily life.

A simple example: challenging racist or sexist jokes from your friends.

[peteradio]

What about yo momma jokes?

[lodi]

> If you know the kid next door is being abused - and you do nothing about it, you are partially at fault for the violence happening to the kid.

You're doing something bad in this hypothetical scenario, but it's not violence. Maybe it's "accessory to violence" or "willful ignorance" or some other immoral or illegal thing that you should be jailed for, but it's not literally "violence". Blurring this distinction is dangerous; people will start using actual violence against figurative "violence" in a kind of aggressive "self-defense".

[selfhoster11]

The obvious, yet clearly heartless way question to ask is, why should you care? In the first example, the kid is not yours.

A failed intervention may carry the risk of violence being used against you as revenge. If you’re unfortunate, the police may refuse normal interaction if you later need it (say, because they found no evidence, or if they for some reason ignore domestic violence as a rule of thumb). You’re sticking your head out for someone who you don’t even know.

Even assuming that there are reasons to help that particular person, why is there suddenly a burden on me to do or say something? Doing or saying nothing will of course mean that I’m an an asshole, sociopath, or <insert derogatory term >, but that still shouldn’t compel me to do or say anything. Compelled action and speech aren’t compatible with personal freedoms, or so I gather from the current consensus - so why is there suddenly a pressure to act?

[Broken_Hippo]

"The obvious, yet clearly heartless way question to ask is, why should you care? In the first example, the kid is not yours."

I'm sorry, are you really asking why I wouldn't care about others in general? In some cases, it doesn't matter if I know them.