Not Part of the Problem

How can one be seen as part of 'the problem' 

 simply by appearing not to be part of 'the solution'?

That makes no sense to me.

And while I'm at it:

How can one's silence be construed as consent?

I am beginning to believe that those who spread these catch-phrases are simply pointing the finger at others so as to draw attention away from themselves.

In Lamentations we read:  

"Of what shall a living man complain? 

Each his own sins!"

How could I be part of the problem if I do not see a viable solution to support? and how could I automatically become part of the problem simply because I don't agree with a proposed solution?  I will never choose the lesser of two evils just to make people think that I am not part of the problem.  Choosing evil in any form is no solution to any problem; it only prolongs the inevitable.

Moving on, how can my silence equal consent when I've been verbally beaten down by the very ones accusing me of consenting? They have twisted honest talk into their perceived hate speech. There are times I keep my mouth shut because I have learned that lesson long ago; there are folks who just don't listen; and, for example, when I do point out the truth of a matter I get pushed aside as a conspiracy theorist.

These catchy phrases have been taken way out of context and reflect narrow mindedness by those throwing them out there (to one extent) and look like brainwashed behavior beyond that. Those words are a 'stop sign', a verbal wall put up that allows no further conversation. 

Here is the origin of one of those sayings:

"To be sure I must; and therefore I may assume 
that your silence gives consent."

This is taken from a speech given by Socrates as recorded by Plato.  Please note that it is an 'assumption' made by Socrates, who is standing trial in regards to a religious matter.  I was inspired to do some research and it turned out to be an interesting study.

I learned that the poet Meletus was one of three accusers of Socrates. The affidavit sworn out by Meletus made two related charges against Socrates: "refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the State and of introducing new and different gods" and "corrupting the youth."  Here is part of the speech made by Socrates in which his manner of speaking made Meletus look like a fool. I think I would have been temporarily rendered speechless listening to this man bloviate as well:

Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings? I wish, men of Athens, that he would answer, and not be always trying to get up an interruption. Did ever any man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses? or in flute-playing, and not in flute- players? No, my friend; I will answer to you and to the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself. There is no man who ever did. But now please answer the next question: Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?

He cannot.

How lucky I am to have extracted that answer, by the assistance of the court! But then you swear in the indictment that I teach and believe in divine or spiritual agencies (new or old, no matter for that); at any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies, so you say and swear in the affidavit; and yet if I believe in divine beings, how can I help believing in spirits or demigods; must I not? To be sure I must; and therefore I may assume that your silence gives consent. Now what are spirits or demigods? Are they not either gods or the sons of gods?

Certainly they are.

But this is what I call the facetious riddle invented by you: the demigods or spirits are gods, and you say first that I do not believe in gods, and then again that I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods. For if the demigods are the illegitimate sons of gods, whether by the nymphs or by any other mothers, of whom they are said to be the sons--what human being will ever believe that there are no gods if they are the sons of gods? You might as well affirm the existence of mules, and deny that of horses and asses. Such nonsense, Meletus, could only have been intended by you to make trial of me. You have put this into the indictment because you had nothing real of which to accuse me. But no one who has a particle of understanding will ever be convinced by you that the same men can believe in divine and superhuman things, and yet not believe that there are gods and demigods and heroes.

Socrates put a big spin on the accusations against him but was found guilty.  He failed in his attempt to use the words of Meletus against him, and failed to use his silence against him as well. His accusers argued for the death penalty. Socrates was given the opportunity to suggest his own punishment and initially offered the sarcastic recommendation that he be rewarded for his actions. When pressed for a realistic punishment, he proposed that he be fined a modest sum of money. Faced with the two choices, the jury selected death for Socrates. The philosopher was taken to the near-by jail where his sentence would be carried out. Athenian law prescribed death by drinking a cup of poison hemlock.

 ↔↕↔↕↔

"If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem."

This saying is attributed to Eldridge Cleaver who was an American writer and political activist. He became a follower of Malcolm X and an early leader of the Black Panther Party as 'minister of information'. In his later years Cleaver proclaimed himself a born-again Christian and a Republican, engaged in various business ventures, and struggled with an addiction to cocaine.  He died of prostate cancer in 1998. It is also noted that this popular saying might not be the full quotation from Soul on Ice, a collection of writings he composed while in Folsom Prison, in which Cleaver traced his political evolution while denouncing American racism. (I haven't read the book to confirm this):

'There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.'

The observation being made is akin to getting someone to stop sitting on the fence or to quit walking down the middle of the road (staying neutral), as in trying to force someone to take a side. It will only appear a person is part of the problem if they don't readily agree with your view on the matter. I, for one, would rather stay in the neutral zone while I studied out the matter at hand before making any decisions or jumping to any conclusions.

The bottom line of most problems is lack of knowledge which does not make one automatically part of the problem or the solution; just as one's silence doesn't equal consent.