Complicity

[El_Machinae]

There are more subtle forms of complicity. For example, someone could have voted for Trump knowing that he might do something like this, despite not wanting him to. And then, not taking actions to stop Trump from doing something that you empowered him to do.

 

[Gorbles]

You do not become complicit unless you take action contributing to the bad thing. I left out nuance because I did not intend there to be any in my position. So the answer to "at what point" is "when you start doing X bad thing or taking action to help others do it".

OP suggests complicity is possible from doing nothing, which is wrong.

You do understand that observing something bad happening, and doing nothing, is in of itself a form of action? That's something that has been highlighted several times in this thread, too. It's like saying "I'm not against gay rights, but I'm not going on vote anything relating to gay rights or do anything to raise their profile". By doing nothing, that person contributes to the status quo, and nothing changes for the group in question. Ergo, they become complicit in the status quo, because by their inaction they are maintaining it.

Likewise, if someone considers the camps on the American border abhorrent (whoever started them, whatever policy created them), and they don't vocalise this or raise the issue in any way, then yes, their abhorrence is basically pointless. At best. At worst, they're not helping people they may know to feel safe (in solidarity given the fear such camps instill). If you don't find the camps abhorrent, you don't have to say so, this example is simply one of many.

It's why a lot of this thread is about the line at which point understandable inactivity leads to complicity. Simply attempting to redefine the basic issue of complicity because you don't understand the consequences of not taking a particular action isn't good enough. It's not always as simple as "not doing or contributing the bad thing". This thread probably wouldn't exist if it were that easy!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You do understand that observing something bad happening, and doing nothing, is in of itself a form of action?

Words have meaning, so no. I reject the assertion that inaction=action. They are opposites for a reason.

That's something that has been highlighted several times in this thread, too.

The nonsense assertion was what prompted my post in the first place.

It's like saying "I'm not against gay rights, but I'm not going on vote anything relating to gay rights or do anything to raise their profile". By doing nothing, that person contributes to the status quo

Words have meaning, so no.

Ergo, they become complicit in the status quo, because by their inaction they are maintaining it.

Words have meaning, so no.

Likewise, if someone considers the camps on the American border abhorrent (whoever started them, whatever policy created them), and they don't vocalise this or raise the issue in any way, then yes, their abhorrence is basically pointless.

True, but this does not imply complicity. It implies they don't care enough about this particular topic to do anything about it.

It's why a lot of this thread is about the line at which point understandable inactivity leads to complicity.

Inactivity does not lead to complicity. Some types of activity do.

Simply attempting to redefine the basic issue of complicity because you don't understand the consequences of not taking a particular action isn't good enough.

I'm not the one attempting a redefinition.

It's not always as simple as "not doing or contributing the bad thing". This thread probably wouldn't exist if it were that easy!

If this thread genuinely cared about the issue it would make more sense to talk about what policies should be in place and how they should be enforced, rather than likening current practices to Nazis (somehow, this hasn't gotten old for years) or blaming/shaming. I pointed this out already, but there hasn't been much discussion about what should actually be done.

Using logic quoted earlier, I could therefore make a "sound" case that you are complicit in practices Hobbsyoyo compares to Nazi concentration camps. Fortunately, I don't subscribe to such silliness so I won't make that case.

 

[Gorbles]

Repeating something doesn't actually make it a valid argument, you know? You don't even attempt to explain what meanings you're referring to, you don't explain what context each case is relevant to (which impacts on a word's meaning and how it is perceived, which if you're going to go full English pedant on me I get to ask for), etc, et al.

Besides, you simply disagree that inaction in any case results in complicity. Regardless of how right or wrong you actually are, this means you're not even attempting to debate the thread itself. Which means you're coming dangerously close to derailing it for the aim of . . . I don't even know. Sounding right? I don't get this type of argument. If you disagree with the premise upon which the debate is presupposed, there is no debate (with you). It's futile, and honestly looking intentionally incendiary.

 

[Senethro]

Inaction would be suspension of your citizenship and retiring to live in lawless land.

If you participate in a society as a citizen and consensually abide by its laws and conditions of membership then you're complicit in its wrongs. Every time you affirm this you are acting.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If i witness an assault/crime/murder etc and i decide to do nothing, i share some complicitly in the results of it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Repeating something doesn't actually make it a valid argument, you know?

The refutation on the first quote holds for the rest of the quotes.

You don't even attempt to explain what meanings you're referring to

Actually, I did. Multiple times in this thread. You're arguing from a logical framework of "X = Not X", literally attempting to define inaction as action...as if this can possibly be a coherent position.

Besides, you simply disagree that inaction in any case results in complicity.

No, I disagree with incoherent rationale.

For the same reason people should disagree that chess pieces are fish. Though if I want to be technical, claiming chess pieces = fish is less of a logical failure. We COULD define chess pieces = fish. And if that found its way into common usage in the English language we'd be stuck with it unless/until people stopped using it. X = Not X doesn't work regardless.

Regardless of how right or wrong you actually are, this means you're not even attempting to debate the thread itself.

If you can get past a tautologically false statement made to arbitrarily attribute blame to people and sensationalize it with unrelated horrible acts, the discussion could continue. I'm not the source of this impasse lol.

I don't get this type of argument. If you disagree with the premise upon which the debate is presupposed, there is no debate (with you). It's futile, and honestly looking intentionally incendiary.

I prefer to keep fire starting to video games. That said, tautologically false statements can and should be met with disagreements on premise.

If I started a thread that presupposed I could punch the Earth in half and then advocated other people had responsibility based on this "fact", what types of disagreements SHOULD happen? I bet it would look similar to the disagreement in this thread.

If i witness an assault/crime/murder etc and i decide to do nothing, i share some complicitly in the results of it.

No, you don't.

You can make a strong case you failed some moral responsibility, but you are not complicit any more than you are McDonald's.

 

[Gorbles]

You're interpreting individual words independent of context, and assuming this argument is good enough when discussing morals. It is not.

However, like I said, there's no point debating anything here, because you refute the core premise of the thread which is necessary to debate the level of complicity associated with various situations people find themselves in. Your continued arguments to absurdity don't help me discern any good faith in your intentions here, either.

I recommend reading up on some history books. Even something like Weimar Germany, I know people seem to react badly whenever anyone even goes near an association to the Third Reich, but there are plenty of actual, historical recordings of inaction leading to the worsening of the status quo at the time. You're obviously not reading what I say with any intent to absorb it, hence my recommendation.

 

[Lexicus]

"Doing nothing" is literally possible after someone is dead, and the dead are certainly not "complicit" regarding this topic.

It literally isn't, because if someone is dead there is nobody "doing" anything anymore.

Try again. How is it possible for a person to be doing nothing? It isn't, and you know it. We are always doing something.

 

[Lexicus]

You're interpreting individual words independent of context, and assuming this argument is good enough when discussing morals. It is not.

TMIT's posts make much more sense when you realize he is far more concerned with the world of Platonic Forms than with what you and I would call "reality."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I recommend a premise that isn't necessarily false, and actual discussion of the purported issue if one feels it to be an issue. Something I've invited multiple times now.

Instead I'm seeing repeated insistence of a blame game on an absurd and disingenuous premise. I'm not the one ignoring "good faith" discussion. That ship sailed when we brought Nazis into a discussion about immigration policies in the modern US.

TMIT's posts make much more sense when you realize he is far more concerned with the world of Platonic Forms than with what you and I would call "reality."

What "you would call reality" and what actually happens with observed experiences are...sometimes misaligned.

Something that fails even at the level of platonic formal logic will also fail in reality. It's a necessary but not by itself sufficient consideration.

I also recommend reading on the mutability of language (it's a really cool phrase, if nothing else).

Great. So chess pieces are fish.

Even so, it's odd to claim X = Not X.

 

[Lexicus]

Something that fails even at the level of platonic formal logic will also fail in reality. It's a necessary but not by itself sufficient consideration.

No, it's actually the opposite. Reality constantly defies logic. Quantum systems exist in superpositions of multiple states at once; x does not equal x.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Instead I'm seeing repeated insistence of a blame game on an absurd and disingenuous premise

What? Where are you getting that from?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What? Where are you getting that from?

Apologies, that came off harshly since I was frustrated with the discussion with Gorbles. I don't like comparison between things like V2/Nuclear weapons and current immigration practices, because they are different on several levels (motivation, what's at stake, possible solutions, necessity, come to mind). At the basic level it all effects people, but it does so pretty differently.

No, it's actually the opposite. Reality constantly defies logic. Quantum systems exist in superpositions of multiple states at once; x does not equal x.

Once we understand exactly what's going on, it would be useful to update logic. It's all superposition all the time, yet at macro scales we see causality and x will consistently equal x every time we measure x. I'm not sure it's even meaningful to define a superposition as x, maybe someone with more experience could comment on that.

 

[Lexicus]

It's all superposition all the time,

So stop being so concerned with logic and start being concerned with making arguments about the real world

 

[AmazonQueen]

If i witness an assault/crime/murder etc and i decide to do nothing, i share some complicitly in the results of it.

You don't share any legal responsibility, although you would have a moral responsibility IMO.
In the US a lawyer can represent a client knowing they are guilty. In the UK if you know your client is guilty and they plead not guilty (or indicate during the case to their lawyer that they are guilty) you are supposed to withdraw from the case, and in several cases I worked on that happened. Are US lawyers who defend a client to the best of their ability, knowing that they are guilty, complicit in their crimes?

 

[Gorbles]

You don't share any legal responsibility, although you would have a moral responsibility IMO.
In the US a lawyer can represent a client knowing they are guilty. In the UK if you know your client is guilty and they plead not guilty (or indicate during the case that they are guilty) you are supposed to withdraw from the case, and in several cases I worked on that happened. Are US lawyers who defend a client to the best of their ability, knowing that they are guilty, complicit in their crimes?

I mean, yes? Not only is "just doing your job" a famously poor justification, a lot of investigative (and creative) work based on lawyers and the law focuses on the ethical quandaries and the personal cost it accrues.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I mean, yes? Not only is "just doing your job" a famously poor justification, a lot of investigative (and creative) work based on lawyers and the law focuses on the ethical quandaries and the personal cost it accrues.

So you don't feel a defence lawyers first duty is to their client?
In the UK it isn't, its to the court, but I can see that easily lending itself to the Stalinist/ Fascist version where the lawyers first duty was to the people which effectively meant the state.
However convenient to Mafioso and racketeers etc the US version has its merits too.
There will be people saying "I was only doing my job" whichever system you have.

 

[Yeekim]

was it really a double edged sword in post-war Japan, Germany or Korea though? seems like the sword is a lot sharper on one side than it is on another

Was thinking more on a global scale. But I'm sure these all have their share of environmental problems as well, no?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Was thinking more on a global scale. But I'm sure these all have their share of environmental problems as well, no?

And probably Labour problems etc although in the case of Germany and Japan they'd already gone through the industrialisation stage before WWII. I think a lot of Koreans would think it a double-edged sword.