this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
137 points (95.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41997 readers
1548 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
L3s@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
137
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 1 day ago by DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 hours 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.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 6 points 10 hours 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!

[–] HiddenLychee@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours 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.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 4 points 12 hours 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”

[–] linrilang@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours 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.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 13 points 19 hours ago

No. This is simply self-preservation.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 5 points 17 hours ago

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

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 hours 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.

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 110 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 1 day 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.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours 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

[–] grueling_spool@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours 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.

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 17 hours 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.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 5 points 19 hours 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?"

[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago

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

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 1 day 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.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 25 points 1 day 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.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 47 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day 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"

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day 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.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 5 points 1 day 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.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day 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.

[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day ago

Correct.
Free speech encloses the right to say nothing.

[–] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

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

[–] Little8Lost@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day 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

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

No.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Of course not.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 1 day 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.

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day 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.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 2 points 1 day ago

Sometimes discretion is the greater part of valour.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.