In his response, the Ethicist noted: “I don’t think one is obliged to confront everyone who says reprehensible things. I do think it would be better if more of us did so. So you didn’t have a duty to call out the guy. But if you judged it was safe to do so, you might, as you were leaving, have simply pointed out that there are gay people — and people who care about someone who’s gay — everywhere you go, and that it was a bad idea to assume he wouldn’t be overheard by one of them. Even if he wanted to be overheard, there are tactical advantages to invoking social norms as a proxy for moral condemnation. Of course, it would have been good if a straight person had spoken up, too. Enforcing norms of basic decency helps challenge the atmosphere of homophobia; in this case, it might have undermined the speaker’s confidence that he had conversational permission to wish for the obliteration of millions of human beings.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
I agree with the Ethicist’s response in a broad sense — we aren’t obligated to confront people for the offensive things they say, although the world would be better if we did. However, I feel he skated over a significant detail here, that the letter writer himself is gay and it may have been difficult or dangerous to speak out. As a queer person myself, I understand the day-to-day worries of “Will this person accept me? Will they view me as a threat?” And even in situations where one’s physical and mental health are not at risk, it can be exhausting and frustrating to constantly confront people on beliefs such as these, especially when they question your identity and right to exist. Sometimes not speaking out can be an act of self-preservation. — Carolina
⬥
I think the gay man in the barbershop made the wise choice by simply walking out. There is a good chance he would have subjected himself to violence if he’d confronted the bigot and identified as one of the people he wants to “obliterate.” But I believe it is absolutely incumbent upon those of us privileged enough to walk through the world relatively safely to speak up for those who may not feel so empowered. Men need to speak up against misogyny; white people need to speak out against racism; straight people must not tolerate any form of homophobia. People of privilege should consider it their job to speak up. Their silence gives permission for the haters to hate. — Lisa
⬥
In the words of Elie Wiesel: “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” A perhaps more familiar version is the quote misattributed to Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Ethically, when you start to make distinctions about just how bad bad is (and thus whether you need to speak out), you find yourself on a dangerous slippery slope to saying nothing. The Ethicist’s thought to appeal to social norms is a useful approach, but you always have to make the approach. — Laurence
⬥
As an old white woman I feel a special responsibility to speak out when people make racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemitic, misogynistic and other hateful comments. Most people would not physically attack their grandmothers (with an emphasis on most people), but as a former nonviolent peacekeeper I still do a brief safety assessment before responding. Silence is not golden in such situations, and it is particularly incumbent on me to speak out. When I think about the future, I wonder how people believe they will manage the major problems looming in their futures if they are filled with hate rather than prepared to work cooperatively to survive. — Laurie
⬥
More than 30 years ago, my husband and I stayed overnight at a bed-and-breakfast. The next morning, one of the other guests made some hateful comments about Black people. I did nothing. My nonresponse haunts me all these years later. I have no idea how speaking up would have affected everyone else in the room, but I wish I would have expressed my feelings. — Jean