system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Just because someone does not actively advocate for a specific issue or voice there opinion, does not make them part of the “problem”.

I have seen multiple family members get called out for not posting certain things on social media in regards to the current black lives matter movement. They are told they are part of the problem and are bad people for not actively advocating black lives matter.

I see it that someone just living their life normally and voicing no social opinions about the oppressions that go on in this world as being okay and normal. I find it hard to believe that everyone can advocate for all the wrong doings in the world. I am sure that most members of the black lives matter movement don’t advocate for problems in other countries actively such as Hong Kong, Iraq, or any other place that dont effect them. People tend to advocate for things that effect them which is okay, but is also not okay for not advocating things that don’t effect them. Lebrun James comes to mind for advocating for BLM but expressing ignorance for Hong Kong.

Change my view.
gpt
"You are with us or you are against us" is a powerful tactic in some situations.  It allows you to obtain active support from people who might otherwise not offer that support.  But then those people's support is contingent on "with us or against us" remaining the rule.  If friends of the coopted people remain uninvolved without punishment, it makes the coopted people more likely to withdraw their active support and spend their efforts on things they may care more about.  Thus, a person in the right demographic who doesn't actively advocate for the cause in question will tend to take away active support from others as they can more easily get away with not giving active support, and thus hurts the cause.