Saying 'silence is complicity' is complicity to defame anyone who doesn't think just like the scold-shaming accusers does.
Saying 'silence is complicity' is complicity to defame anyone who doesn't think just like the scold-shaming accusers does is like saying "I don't care what they think about what I have to say, if they don't agree with me then they are as bad as the worst villains. Not only that, if they don't shout along with me while I try to bully others into complicity with my point of view, then they are as bad as the worst of the villains"
Saying 'silence is complicity' is complicity to defame anyone who doesn't think just like the scold-shaming accuser does, and is like saying "I don't care what they think about what I have to say, if they don't agree with me then they are as bad as the worst villains. Not only that, if they don't shout along with me while I try to bully others into complicity with my point of view, then they are as bad as the worst of the villains"
some times silence might be complicity. And 'complicity' would thus be a term in use in a courts of law. And so when someone says 'silence in complicity' in that venue, they have to site the laws to back up their accusation.
Many times saying that silence is complicity is the vocalization of a viled threat made by a lazy bully demanding no refutation of, or rebuttal of a on-going scree, talking points of the party faithful.
the proper tensing is 'would' in a format where they don't automatically win.
"if you were a good party tool, and the party controlled the gate-keeper processes, the AI would decide . . . "
that way your piece is about a possible out come, and won't be read as if it's a dictator telling others what has to be. the statement would thus be seen as a conjecture.