“If you are NEUTRAL in situations of INJUSTICE, you have chosen the side of the OPPRESSOR” — Desmond Tutu

If you want to create a, "if you aren't with us, you're against us" type argument, then you have to answer the question, "who gets to decide what is considered 'injustice?'" And that's an extremely abstract question that's very hard to answer. It can be obvious in some cases, but what about when it isn't obvious?

And maybe your response to that is, "in order to make an omelet, you need to crack a few eggs." Meaning, if we wrongfully accuse some people along the way, that's fine because so much change needs to take place. Which if that is your argument, I'd strongly urge you to read about how quickly that same argument spun out of control very quickly in Cambodia under the Soviet Union circa WWII.

Also, you imply another point which is something along the lines of, "if you aren't doing enough, then you're against us." Who on earth is going to pass that moral litmus test? Also, who gets to decide what "enough" means? Is showing up to a few protests enough? Or do I have to devote my entire life to it? That's just a really hard question to answer.

I agree with your position on the matter, but I disagree with your strategy. I'm going to assume that one of your goals is, "get Donald Trump out of office," which I would very much agree with. But how do you expect to do that by positioning so many people as your enemy?

Developer 💻 || Writer 📝