I've "learned" plenty about this issue, and the main thing I've gained is a greater appreciation for the power of ideology to obstruct rational thought. The symptoms of ideology include disproportionate emotional reaction to disagreement and accusing people of "ignorance" when they disagree with you.

Let's disengage from that, if we can, and try to answer my question. How is silence an action rather than a non-action? All you've asserted (well, you've let bloggers assert it for you, which doesn't add any more weight than saying it yourself) is that speaking out would be appreciated. I'll grant that. But just because action is appreciated doesn't turn non-action into action. It simply doesn't follow.

The purpose of this "with us or against us" tactic is to bully sympathetic people into radicalism, which is why radical bullies like Lenin and Mussolini were so fond of it. It is a self-replication mechanism for ideology. Which is why you become so angry when someone merely says "I have nothing to speak out about". Apparently one is supposed to go looking for outrage that motivates them to join your side when none is apparent, rather than simply acting on the evidence they have at hand.

I reject your bullying, reject the implication that I should speak out about things I have never witnessed just to further your agenda, and reserve the right to speak out about and solve the problems I do see in a calm and reasoned fashion.

The "problem/solution" formulation is almost entirely used by leftists, and I use that term inclusively of all identity politics. The semantically equivalent "with us/against us" formulation has a rather more diverse history. I originally attributed it to the fascists, as I recall it was a favorite of Mussolini, but it appears Lenin was fond of it as well.