Does the Silence of Good People Make Evil Thrive?

I have heard many people say, "The silence of good people makes evil thrive." This is one of the most misleading and counter-productive maxims in social media today, which I intend to explore here.

First of all, what qualifies one to be "good"? Being good is inherently subjective. A man may think he is good, whereas all he does is gossip and criticize others all over social media. Meanwhile, people who know he is worse than those he criticizes will keep quiet because the man in question is vindictive and problematic.

In relationships—whether marital or professional—the dynamic is similar: those who align with the opposite side of a conflict are naturally labeled as bad; you are only "good" if you are on their side. 

A lot of friendships have been damaged in this situation because some people do not know how to avoid taking sides in a conflict where the two sides change positions very frequently based on how the situation favors them and where there is often no winner.

Another man may think he is righteous when, in reality, he only listens to his own echo and lives entirely within a self-affirming echo chamber. Yet, goodness is defined by another man based on his ability to dazzle with motivational talks or quote copiously from holy books, even if his actions are contrary to what he says or preaches.

The Political Polarization Trap

The concept is often aggressively applied to politics, where "good" frequently means "pro-party" or "anti-government" (as the case may be). This creates a political landscape where partisans label opponents as bad and supporters of bad governance. Both sides exhibit similar biases, have obvious flaws, and are often unwilling to converge, sometimes driven by pecuniary interests or resentment against a particular person.

For example, some people believe a certain person is the only solution to all problems, while the other side sees flaws and insists on its idea of a "better" alternative. Each side stays loyal to an individual as a rallying symbol of their group, allowing the cult of hero worship to take precedence over objective, issue-based focus.

In doing so, both sides strategically ignore the flaws of their chosen heroes and magnify the positives, while pointing out the flaws of their opponents. This polar divide ensures that the two sides travel on parallel lines that never converge even though they are heading to same destination.

Now, this maxim often applies to the belief that everyone in power is automatically a bad person because some citizens are unable to benefit from the government or because some people are suffering. Throughout generations, this has been the case; there was never a time since creation that everyone has been happy. You can never satisfy everyone at once. Ironically, while we use suffering people to judge leaders, we ignore people who make the best of the situation under the same leader.

The Wisdom of Discretion

When some people talk and say there is good in the land, others in the same land are saying there is evil. The wise person in this situation is therefore not the one adding their noise to the confusion, but the one who silently evaluates the situation and, when he can't make sense of the chaos, chooses to keep quiet!

This is because both sides of the noise-making will only accept what supports their position whether they are right or wrong. If you support the opinion of wailer A, wailer B will make you an enemy and vice versa. The interesting part is that when a leader changes, the wailer and the hailer trade roles: the one who used to say there was evil will now say there is good, and the same goes to the other.

Again, to the third party or a wise one, it comes down to the wisdom to know when to shut up and not join either party, when their definitions of good and evil are selfish and personal, constantly swapping.

Therefore, the maxim that the silence of good people guarantees the triumph of evil relies on dangerously simplistic definitions of "good" and "evil," often conflating genuine moral duty with taking a partisan/biased side. When political discourse devolves into a cyclical battle of self-interested wailers and hailers—each merely trading places when power shifts—the truly wise response is not to amplify the confusion.

True virtue lies not in adding noise to a needless conflict, but in the quiet discernment to refuse participation in bad-faith arguments. The supposed "silence" of the good is, in fact, a powerful form of action: a rejection of polarized thinking that preserves one's moral integrity and clarity until the selfish tumult has passed.

Except you are interested in their politics, or can control both sides or have a superior argument that will get you out of both traps, do not let anyone hurry you into taking sides with their selfish positions no matter the beauty of their argument. If you take a side that is not compatible with their position, you will make an enemy without knowing.

The irony about ut all is. When it is time to choose next leaders, none of the noise makers will be good enough.  The winner is always going to be the ones  who speaks when it matters and not the one who run hia mouth every time like tap water.

Your friend, Najim