this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025

147 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42027 readers

1239 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

147

Is it morally wrong for an immigrant or naturalized citizen to "keep a low profile" and avoid speaking up against the government in order to minimize the risks of denaturalization/deportation? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Absolutely not.

We all have to make personal decisions about safety and risk, for our own unique situation.

While not in the US, I'm a straight, white, middle-aged dude. My risk in loudly speaking out is probably still orders of magnitude lower than yours is by staying quiet. If there are any moral decisions to be made, I'd say that it's my moral duty to use my overly-consequential and protected voice to stand up for the vulnerable and suffering.

There is no moral flaw in trying to survive within your means - and if that means keeping your head down, then hopefully I and many others will have your back.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not saying it's a "stupid question", but I don't understand it. How and why could it possibly be considered "wrong" or even a moral issue at all to keep a low profile?? Saying/doing nothing is our natural state, no one can say it's bad to just neutrally exist! Don't let anyone tell you you have to speak up, especially if it endangers or harms yourself or your friends and family.

If you're referring to the current US administration, they're not acting lawfully and are currently trying to arrest or deport legally-protected people and even citizens! You don't owe them or anyone else anything, certainly not at the expense of you or your family! When you're acting defensively and protecting yourself, it's not immoral. This is how hostile to immigrants we've become that you are even asking this question... ☹️

TL;DR: Absolutely not. You do you, and be safe!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Here's an example: in the us, international students are now required to have public social media accounts before they're allowed in. Unclear what happens if they don't have any accounts at all, but they're not allowed to have private social media accounts anymore.

Edit: wait I just woke up, this thread was about morality. My bad.

[–] [email protected] 114 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

No. It is never morally wrong to ensure your own safety.

"But those who allowed nazis to come to power were doing just that!"

...no. Most of those weren't ensuring their safety. They were ensuring their own comfort (in the beginning, at least)

If a regime is targeting you or your loved ones: Lay low. If the regime is targeting someone else: Resist, especially if at worst you're gonna get a slap on the wrist.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yup, this is why allies are so important. It’s the ally’s job to be angry and belligerent when the targeted group can’t. When the targeted group needs to keep their head down, that’s when allies should be the loudest. The ally’s largest point is that they’re beyond reprisal, because they don’t belong to the targeted group.

If someone throws a slur at your friend, that friend may not be able to speak up out of fear of further harassment and/or retaliation. Also, any anger they show will be DARVO’ed around and used to paint them as the aggressor. It will be used to confirm any stereotypes that the bigot already holds; fascists and bigots regularly weaponize decorum, by saying/doing awful things to marginalized groups while pretending to be civil. Then when those people get angry, the fascist turns it around and makes the targeted group look unreasonable. When the victim needs to maintain decorum, that’s when the ally should step up.

A great example of this in action can be found here. Rep Sarah McBride is openly transgender, and Keith Self intentionally misgenders her during her introduction. Sarah throws back a quick “thank you Madam Chair” (misgendering Self) joke in response, but then leaves it at that. Rep William Keating quickly recognizes what is going on, and asks Self to repeat the introduction using McBride’s chosen pronouns. At this point, McBride steps back and doesn’t say anything else; Any anger or belligerence she shows will be used by Self to justify further marginalizing trans people. Self tries to come up with a loose explanation, but quickly flees the situation when it becomes obvious that Keating isn’t going to let the flimsy reasoning stand. Self immediately adjourns the meeting, but he only does this because Keating is the one pushing back; If McBride had been the one to push back, Self would have dug his heels in and used it to grab anti-trans soundbites for later campaigns.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

i agree in principle, but that clip leaves a lot of nuance out. if taken to the small scale, pretend you’re trying to get into a bar with a trans friend and someone says some transphobic remark… yes, you have more power to make a scene than your friend, but being in a minority group can feel like a constant fight… they might not want to make a scene, to fight; they might just want to drop it and get on with their night in that moment

going above and beyond like keating did is admirable if they know it’s what mcbride wanted, but it could also have been more upsetting to a lot of people than just replying with the quick quip and getting on with their day

point absolutely stands though that allies are hugely important because they have the ability to say and do things in ways that get both more attention and less retribution

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

A big part of the nuance you mention is that Keating was not only defending McBride, but also defending the dignity (what little there may be) of the US legislative body, and fulfilling his role as a publicly elected representative to advocate for the interests of the people he represents.

Also, while I do believe Keating deserves way more public attention and praise for this than I have seen, I would not say that he went "above and beyond" by defending McBride. He did what should have been done by anyone in his position.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Sure, there’s always the “time and place” consideration to be made. If you tried to start a fight every time someone disagreed with you, you’d never get anywhere in life. But that’s really a different discussion.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If I broke into your house holding a knife would it be morally wrong for you to hide in the wardrobe?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

I'd add that they also have your roommate at knife point. I don't think it changes the answer too much, but it's closer to the scenario that OP is probably thinking about.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

No. This is simply self-preservation.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 days ago

Do you blame the Jews for hiding from the Nazis and even trying to look as non Jewish as possible? No? Exactly.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

This depends entirely on your prescribed system of ethics.

Duty-based ethical systems would say yes, because you have a duty to speak out.

Point utilitarianism would say no, because the good outweighs the bad for that scenario.

The other utilitarianism of which I can’t remember the umbrella term would say yes, because it’s better for everyone if people speak out.

My understanding of Kant is that the unethical act is being performed by the government and that it is not morally wrong to keep a low profile.

TLDR: If you’re asking, the answer is no. If you’re being pedantic, the answer is “it depends”

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 days ago

No. Let the white people (like me) who were born here (like me) continue to speak out on behalf of people being brutalized. Keep your head down. Stay safe.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are you asking if it's morally wrong for someone to save their own arse from an opressive government?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Because I've read a lot of comments online, especially Lemmy, saying that (paraphrased) "they are gonna come for you eventually, so you might as well start resisting now" and "if you don't take up arms against your oppressors, you deserve whatever happens"

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

These are short sighted reactionary takes from people who think resisting is nothing more than voting and protesting, they say to take up arms but never talk about organizing together with arms, so what they're really asking for is a mass shooting to make them feel good. Resistance isnt a monolith and requires more than just physically showing up to protests and town halls. Beyond that the same people accusing of others of not speaking up would have likely been just as shitty to the people in ww2 who kept quiet because they hid jews in their houses. I tell this type of person all the time, you don't know someones situatuon, don't do ICEs job for them simply because you don't think someone is being loud enough.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

It's important to support those in your community that have the target on them before the target gets placed on you. Once the target is on you and the community has failed you keep yourself safe.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Fair enough. No, it's not morally wrong. Also you said to keep a low profile. That doesn't mean you don't do anything if your identity is protected.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's morally wrong to make them feel the need to hide. What someone decides to do with their free speech is up to them.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

Correct.
Free speech encloses the right to say nothing.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago

Regardless of whether you're in a part of the country where the effects of you speaking up won't have as much consequence, I don't think it's morally wrong to try and keep yourself, friends, family, and loved ones safe by not speaking out.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

No, it's okay to keep your head down.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

I don't think it's morally wrong — it's just human nature to want to survive. Not everyone has the same level of safety or privilege to speak out. Sometimes staying quiet is the only realistic option.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

You should know that in many countries, and now also the U.S., the government will revoke the visa of "political irritants". In other words, your question is actually a historical one, and it is equivalent to, "Is it immoral to immigrate?"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

No, it's morally wrong to contribute to the circumstances in which that would be a logical action

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

its the "attackers" that are morally wrong
for the communities it would be very valuable if everyone would work together but someone keeping a low profile can also be quite valuable

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

TLDR: Depends on a person’s personal situation but generally the more power someone has the more of an obligation they have to speak up and do something. —————- I think it’s dependent on the individual’s situation. Most people don’t have the platform or personal power to move the needle on nativism. If we use the recent unrest in LA as an example someone would need to consider the weight their presence would contribute to the cause against the likelihood of their being singled out and targeted by the government. What are the ramifications of their staying silent versus having that attention on them, their families and their community.

If you’re talking about those with platform and power then we can add an argument about the responsibility of those with privilege. We have a lot of pretty famous arguments for that example in favor of them being morally obligated to use it. The old school take is noblesse oblige, or noble obligation, while a modern version of the same sentiment would be “with great power comes great responsibility” from spider man.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

No.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Of course not.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Ok so I bring this up all over Lemmy for this reason and people always push back like "har har ok touch grass"

Why the hell do you need to identify yourself in a digital world. How fucking mental are we to not realize you are on a device that offers anonymity whole allowing you to engage and capture as many people as you're willing to do.

How much effect did libsotiktok inflict? How'd she do it?

How much effect did.... Anyone have any examples of that on the left?

Why? Well maybe it's because online accounts on the left keep telling others to not engage, remove ourselves from platforms, show up in IRL resulting in lots of images of people like you getting your head kicked in and disappear.

Maybe it's time to realize its free and fun to download meme and use AI to create shit posts online with the intention of keeping things in front of the public's eye. The left keeps picking fights on arenas it cannot win and it's weirdly not correcting for it.

It's 2025, everything is fucking digital. Why is the left so hell bent on standing in a street and getting beat up by people who have trained for 8 years to beat them up effectively.

Come on people, it's not 1967 FFS Gimp is free. What the fuck are people sleeping on.

"Oh guys I'm conflicted, I want you do something but I don't want to get arrested and harassed."

"Ok here's an Internet connection, a VPN and few software plus free accounts. You just need to make fun of them, share opinions and network online in your underwear."

"No, no no that's crazy talk."

Meanwhile the fucking right shit posted their way into they presidency. Trump talked about cat litter in classrooms, officially. Sunshine to kill COVID. Doesn't matter.

You people act like you're my grandmother trying to send an email.

Back in the day the left were the tech people. Now uncle Glenn with 8 Trump flags on his truck admin for 30 let's go Brandon Facebook groups.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The Left does both. The purpose of real life stikes and protests is because its proof that Leftist organizations have the logistical capacity to plan, demonstrate, and act in a cohesive and unified manner. Organizing is more important than meme sharing. Memes, agitprop, etc are very useful recruitment tools, so they should not be ignored, but it's more important to actually put in the work of organizing effectively once recruited.

Sharing memes without actually organizing is just an outlet for people to express frustration, but organizing is an actual necessary and important step in toppling the existing system and replacing it with a better one, as the hard work on organizing has already been laid out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There's no way you can say it's more important given that all the left has done is show up for protests, including multiple "greatest protests ever" and all the right does is shit post and has nothing but victories. That math doesn't math.

I have no idea how none of you see this. It's like horse blinders or worse, willful ignorance.

You cannot spend decades losing and doing the thing you said while the right has shit posted digitally into the Whitehouse. They still do it daily. There's a reason RSA and Cambridge and all these companies and nations invested into channels and digital tools.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The Left is fighting an uphill battle. Capitalism is the status quo, and the US relies on imperialism using its vast financial capital and massive number of millitary bases to keep goods relatively cheap, but this is crumbling. Change works as quantitative buildup until significant, qualitative change. Orgs like PSL are growing rapidly. They are still small, but the rate of growth is large. Time is on the Left's side.

Just look at Palestine, as an example. 5 years ago, the vast majority of the US was Zionist. Now, the majority oppose the genocide. Mamdani winning the primary in NYC shows that more overtly left-leaning individuals are valued over right-wingers like Cuomo. Change works on trends. History doesn't reset every day, eventually water droplets bore through stone. The left has never been in the White House, it has always been a toss between the right amd the far-right, this isn't a new struggle, but it's one that is changing every day thanks to historical work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're literally saying my point but missing the whole picture.

Mamdani one out of spite. Not because the left did anything successful but because of the actions of the right. If we see more of these victory's I'll be happy. But right now I have yet to see the left do anything of any significance.

You bore through stone with digital media. It's the only damn thing that makes sense. If the left truly believes it has the numbers then the only answers is to use this numbers to flood the zone. Use the Internet as a force multiplier.

If we truly believe the right are buying bots to push agendas there's a fucking limit how much it costs. If we have the numbers, flood the fucking zone because when you flood the fucking zone it costs them more to counter it. Which is why the dominate comment among the left is ... Say it with me... "Don't wrestle with pigs" right? We all know that saying as if it was repeated in zones and we all read it over and over again and went yea it's useless why would we ever give our opinion. We need to create content, not protest in the streets. We need to keep stories said news in front of people's eyes through memes and shit posts. Let the good ones catch on. Taco last 24 hrs.

The reason the left is losing is not because of the right. They're losing because of the left. The left is losing because there are traits that are inherent with being on the left that unless they figure it out, they'll always lose.

These people are all talk "we'll go punch a Nazi and fight in imaginary freedom wars" but can't be bothered to spend a few hours a week building a network to share content to flood zones and at the very least make the rights ability to flood the zone much harder and costly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

No, lol. The Left is fine on the internet. You can touch grass and organize, and do online agitprop. Mamdani won because people are being radicalized. Even then, Mamdani doesn't eliminate the need for revolution, not even close.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I guarantee you Mamdani did not win because people are radicalized.

But I agree people are being radicalized. Cuomo's had to kill everyone's grandmother and Trump had to basically bring the empire to reality for Mamdani to win.

Let's make a prediction here. I bet Mamdani is going to get crucified. The Lefts lack of awareness and ability to do what I'm saying which is control zones online will contribute massively to Mamdani failing. The right will pull every thing they can and sabotage him. The left having failed to build any networks will not be able to control the public opinion and will watch their one shot to show a more leftist politician can be successful.

Because if what you're saying is true, then people who are radicalized and supportive of Mamdani aren't going to let him get pushed around. But if I'm right, these voters are only supporting out of spite and will let him be crucified.

Hell trump just said he'll arrest his ass. Mouse squeak can be heard. I bet some people reading this hadn't even heard of that. Had this been a let president saying this, there would be armed militias showing up at the White House to remind the government about the constitution. And they would have organized between their multiple shit posting groups that are networked together

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There have never been left presidents in the US. Mamdani is not the leader of the revolution. You're very confused about what's going on, and you're out of touch with why Trump won. It wasn't "memes," it isn't some masterful play, nor are liberals left wing.

You need to take a step back and familiarize yourself more with what's going on. Try to take a materialist outlook, not an idealist outlook.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Where the hell was it said he's a leader of any revolution.

There's no confusion. You'll either wake up one day and realize how late to the party you all are.

I have taken a step back which is why I'm able to see the issue. The problem is you're in it. You have blinders on.

The left is cooked. You're highlighting exactly why. The left act like we don't have decades of marketing and behavioral science that shows how to influence people.

Keep showing up for those protests and door knocking and when you lose, blame those low information voters and idiots who keep beating you while doing none of what you're doing

And if you think you can wear the defense that "well they're just supported with more money like Peter Thiel or Steve Bannon or Musk" it won't work. Their money is only doing what we all do for free except or effort is put towards vapid platforms and bean Sheeran moth posts. Theirs are focused and self organized

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

You're extremely confused, I'm not blaming "low information voters" of any sort. Electoralism is not a valid path for leftism. I'm not using a money excuse, either, though your erasure of money's influence on media is also oversimplified. You haven't taken any steps back, you've invented a caricature of "the left" in your head and are acting like you're the only one to see things as they really are. It's very silly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

I mean its what they want. This whole thing is not about getting rid of folks as much as making sure any folks coming in are ready to bend the knee and actively support the bs. At a minimum stay silent but that may not be enough. Need to loud the ones in power and how good and just they are. Basically the ideal is north korea.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

You can keep a low profile with the government and still be active in rallying support from non-targeted communities. If you are the group in danger, we will hide you and help keep you safe but we need you to ensure that we actively know about this so that we can protest for you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Sometimes discretion is the greater part of valour.