They’re saying that there is no third camp you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.
This is the same exact reasoning as “you’re with us or with the terrorists,” which is why I brought it up. It’s a direct critique of passivity by arguing that there is no such thing as passivity – “you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.”
But it’s not though if you are literally being passive and not saying anything about foreign American adversaries then you are not building consent for the empire. It is when you say things that help push the adversarial nature of the US as the imperial core while still saying I’m not approving of empire. That is the third camp that they’re talking about.
“passivity equals complicity” has been a hotly debated philosophical topic as long as philosophy has existed, so you will never reach a broad concensus on the point
This is the same exact reasoning as “you’re with us or with the terrorists,” which is why I brought it up. It’s a direct critique of passivity by arguing that there is no such thing as passivity – “you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.”
But it’s not though if you are literally being passive and not saying anything about foreign American adversaries then you are not building consent for the empire. It is when you say things that help push the adversarial nature of the US as the imperial core while still saying I’m not approving of empire. That is the third camp that they’re talking about.
There is no real passivity though