Silence

 It's interesting how people interpret the silence of others in ways that usually buttress they're already formed prejudices about people based on sweeping generalizations themselves based in superficial assumptions.

For example, the "Silence is violence." bullies.  The reality is that they are making assumptions based 100% on the skin color of the people they choose to bully.   The notion of making assumptions based on skin color seems wrong somehow.

Or the "If you don't specifically address topic X, in the way I think it should be addressed, then your silence means you support (or oppose) topic X."

This is usually couched in broad sweeping generalizations based on one persons assumptions.  Those could be skin color, political philosophy, or social class.   Rarely is there any actual evidence to prove the claims.

What's interesting is that when you apply the same standards to these types of people, they act as if it's unheard of to draw conclusions based on people's silence.

For example.  If someone has had multiple accounts and incidents of ham done to innocent people pointed out to them, and they continually remain silent, it might be reasonable to conclude that they support those who caused the harm.   In general, it seems reasonable to assume that if someone stays silent in condemning those that harm innocent people, that they either don't care or support the harm.

If instead, of condemning the harm done to innocent people, you offer platitudes and understanding to those doing the harm, don't be surprised if you are misinterpreted.