The problem with Desmond Tutu’s quote:

[Anonymous]

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

[Anonymous]

What. This isn't a philosphy forum, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

Yes you are right. Cultural Marxism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What. This isn't a philosphy forum, OP.

You are afraid the poster is thinking for herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

OK, but you're assuming both teams are equal. This quote specifically says it's in time of injustice. So if team A is oppressing team B, it doesn't matter what team A or B think about your choice - your inaction is a tacit approval of the injustice and the oppression, which team A is perpetrating. You're choosing team A because you're choosing status quo, and they control status quo.

This quote is predicated on a known injustice. If you were watching slave owners and slaves, and you remained neutral, you're choosing the side of the slave owners. Surely that feels obvious? I think you're struggling with it because you're applying it to a conflict where you're not sure who has made the injustice (maybe Israel/Palestine, or maybe in projecting?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

OK, but you're assuming both teams are equal. This quote specifically says it's in time of injustice. So if team A is oppressing team B, it doesn't matter what team A or B think about your choice - your inaction is a tacit approval of the injustice and the oppression, which team A is perpetrating. You're choosing team A because you're choosing status quo, and they control status quo.

This quote is predicated on a known injustice. If you were watching slave owners and slaves, and you remained neutral, you're choosing the side of the slave owners. Surely that feels obvious? I think you're struggling with it because you're applying it to a conflict where you're not sure who has made the injustice (maybe Israel/Palestine, or maybe in projecting?)

*maybe I'm projecting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

OK, but you're assuming both teams are equal. This quote specifically says it's in time of injustice. So if team A is oppressing team B, it doesn't matter what team A or B think about your choice - your inaction is a tacit approval of the injustice and the oppression, which team A is perpetrating. You're choosing team A because you're choosing status quo, and they control status quo.

This quote is predicated on a known injustice. If you were watching slave owners and slaves, and you remained neutral, you're choosing the side of the slave owners. Surely that feels obvious? I think you're struggling with it because you're applying it to a conflict where you're not sure who has made the injustice (maybe Israel/Palestine, or maybe in projecting?)

It doesn't say known injustice. The quote assumes there is a clear bright line between justice and injustice that can be determined by some wise arbiter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

OK, but you're assuming both teams are equal. This quote specifically says it's in time of injustice. So if team A is oppressing team B, it doesn't matter what team A or B think about your choice - your inaction is a tacit approval of the injustice and the oppression, which team A is perpetrating. You're choosing team A because you're choosing status quo, and they control status quo.

This quote is predicated on a known injustice. If you were watching slave owners and slaves, and you remained neutral, you're choosing the side of the slave owners. Surely that feels obvious? I think you're struggling with it because you're applying it to a conflict where you're not sure who has made the injustice (maybe Israel/Palestine, or maybe in projecting?)

It doesn't say known injustice. The quote assumes there is a clear bright line between justice and injustice that can be determined by some wise arbiter.

The rest of the quote says "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

I am pretty sure it was in the context of apartheid in South Africa but I'm not positive about that. The quote does assume that you can determine an injustice. You can take issue with that element, I suppose. I think some situations are pretty obvious (are you neutral on apartheid, for example? And if you are, wouldn't it have been reasonable to then assume that meant you supported the actions of the Dutch? They had all the power in the situation and therefore the status quo.)

[Anonymous]

That quote is so-so

[Anonymous]

It’s not complicated.

Neutrality is acceptance for whoever is winning, whatever is happening. It’s terrifying to see an adult not understanding this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not complicated.

Neutrality is acceptance for whoever is winning, whatever is happening. It’s terrifying to see an adult not understanding this.

So, if someone is winning, there must be injustice and we should oppose it until the other side is winning. Which would be injustice, because someone is winning. So we help the other side, now the other side is winning, so there must be injustice. So we need to help the other side...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

OK, but you're assuming both teams are equal. This quote specifically says it's in time of injustice. So if team A is oppressing team B, it doesn't matter what team A or B think about your choice - your inaction is a tacit approval of the injustice and the oppression, which team A is perpetrating. You're choosing team A because you're choosing status quo, and they control status quo.

This quote is predicated on a known injustice. If you were watching slave owners and slaves, and you remained neutral, you're choosing the side of the slave owners. Surely that feels obvious? I think you're struggling with it because you're applying it to a conflict where you're not sure who has made the injustice (maybe Israel/Palestine, or maybe in projecting?)

It doesn't say known injustice. The quote assumes there is a clear bright line between justice and injustice that can be determined by some wise arbiter.

The rest of the quote says "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

I am pretty sure it was in the context of apartheid in South Africa but I'm not positive about that. The quote does assume that you can determine an injustice. You can take issue with that element, I suppose. I think some situations are pretty obvious (are you neutral on apartheid, for example? And if you are, wouldn't it have been reasonable to then assume that meant you supported the actions of the Dutch? They had all the power in the situation and therefore the status quo.)

The elephant is standing on the tail of the mouse to keep it from running over the edge of a cliff. Simple, yeah?

[Anonymous]

Tell them both to suck it, you’re on team C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

OK, but you're assuming both teams are equal. This quote specifically says it's in time of injustice. So if team A is oppressing team B, it doesn't matter what team A or B think about your choice - your inaction is a tacit approval of the injustice and the oppression, which team A is perpetrating. You're choosing team A because you're choosing status quo, and they control status quo.

This quote is predicated on a known injustice. If you were watching slave owners and slaves, and you remained neutral, you're choosing the side of the slave owners. Surely that feels obvious? I think you're struggling with it because you're applying it to a conflict where you're not sure who has made the injustice (maybe Israel/Palestine, or maybe in projecting?)

It doesn't say known injustice. The quote assumes there is a clear bright line between justice and injustice that can be determined by some wise arbiter.

Exactly! Real life isn't like The Lord of the Rings" or Star Wars where you have "good guys" and "bad guys".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

OK, but you're assuming both teams are equal. This quote specifically says it's in time of injustice. So if team A is oppressing team B, it doesn't matter what team A or B think about your choice - your inaction is a tacit approval of the injustice and the oppression, which team A is perpetrating. You're choosing team A because you're choosing status quo, and they control status quo.

This quote is predicated on a known injustice. If you were watching slave owners and slaves, and you remained neutral, you're choosing the side of the slave owners. Surely that feels obvious? I think you're struggling with it because you're applying it to a conflict where you're not sure who has made the injustice (maybe Israel/Palestine, or maybe in projecting?)

It doesn't say known injustice. The quote assumes there is a clear bright line between justice and injustice that can be determined by some wise arbiter.

Exactly! Real life isn't like The Lord of the Rings" or Star Wars where you have "good guys" and "bad guys".

Yup. In this world there doesn’t even seem be such thing as a solid fact. Who the oppressor is is just not always clear. When people say “if you don’t side with ME you are supporting injustice” they’re really saying “accept my judgment as to who the oppressor is in this situation and what the facts are”. And often “if you don’t accept my judgment as to these things, you are a terrible person and I will do everything in my power to make your life hell.”

It’s quite a time we’re living in.