"[S]ilence over the killing of children and bombing of churches isn’t 'a moment of anger,' it’s a moral failure. Those who witness crimes and stay silent aren’t 'good people,' they’re complicit."
"Silence is Complicity" sounds an awful lot like "Silence is Violence".
How about we just drop the pinko-progressive semantic shenanigans and stick with "Silence is Silence" - for which there might be any number of understandable, sympathetic, or even laudable [1] reasons?
Shouting denunciations - similar to signing petitions and waving protest signs - seems too often to be a manifestation of performative ostentation and "virtue signaling" rather than of actually effective moral virtue. (File under: "Talk, Cheap". Cross index with: "Actions, Louder than Words" [1].)
Are we really supposed to imagine Saint Peter barring souls from passing through the Pearly Gates because they didn't post any angry tweets about Israel (or whatever other "outrage of the month") while they were still freighted with corporeal bodies?
[1] For extreme example, Oskar Schindler and John Rabe were each "silent" and "complicit" (which, as previously suggested, are not the same thing). Had they been otherwise, they could not have achieved the good that they did.
