The self-defeating logic of "if you're not with us, you're against us"

If you're not against "if you're not with us you're against us", you're against us.

Apr 21, 2022

to be clear, the final "us" can be read as being "the folks who don't do this sides-forcing", which is not false but I think it's much deeper to read it as an "us" that is *inclusive* of the sides-forcing folks it's everybody you're against collective usness if you sides-force.

Jun 20, 2023

also the issue here is the positive objective assertion: "if you're not with us, THEN IT IS THE CASE THAT you're against us" no such issue with "if I can't tell you've got my back, then I hope you'll understand that I will distrust you"

Malcolm Ocean 🏴‍☠️ @Malcolm_Ocean · Dec 14, 2020

if someone can't trust me in some way, even if I or others *do* trust me in this way then I cannot ask them to trust me more than they can trust me each person has been betrayed in different ways, and their trust must thus be earned in different ways

Oct 8, 2023

in other words, "if I/we can't tell you're NOT against me/us, then I/we must take precautions towards you as if you might be against me/us" yes! of course you must! absolutely!

Malcolm Ocean 🏴‍☠️ @Malcolm_Ocean · Oct 9, 2023

"if you're not with us, you're against us" ❌ asserts "it is the case that" ❌ implies objectivity ❌ false binary "if we can't tell you're with us, then we must take precautions towards you as if you might be against us" ✅ perspectival ✅ healthy boundaries ✅ non-accusatory

Oct 9, 2023