system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People in neutral stances shouldn't be demonized or be instantly thought of as siding an enemy or the opposite side

So something happened that really pushed something in me and I wanna hear the arguments and side of the people who believe in the opposite argument.

So an event of relative great turmoil is currently happening in my country (aside from the current worldwide crisis) and it's really riled up the populace right now. A fe wof the readers coming from the same coutnry as me might instantly recognize what it is, but as of now I am not revealing where it is for the purposes of safety and such.

So my stance is that people who choose not to side to any argument and such shouldn't instantly be thought of as siding the enemy or opposition. For many  years, I was never swayed or moved to any sort of political party or ideology and didn't wanna meddle in politics or governmental affairs. Of course, after several events I've changed from that and have come to challenge the current status quo since it's just so fucking atrocious. The way the government here is running is just wrong.

However, I'm seeing people end friendships and fight here and there just because that person doesn't share their view and just wants to be in peace and not meddle in anything. Now, I've been in that position before albeit during a different time. I can symphatize and emphatize with the people who just suddenly lost their friends just because they didn't want to mess with the Big People. And I find that horrendous and illogical. It's liked they were whipped into a frenzy to think everyone who doesn't follow their view is wrong.

That's why I've always thought of people in the middle or in  neutral stances as resources that a faction can obtain by educating or informing them about a crisis or a situation, giving the actions or details of their side, and then voila, you got yourself a new member who believes the same thing you do. By just alienating or outright demonizing them just makes them less and less likely to go to your side. If they find that the other side is the same, then they're belief is further reinforced while on the other hand if the other side explains and convinces them, well that's a resource gained by the other side.

What I'm saying is, people in the middle need convincing, they need to know and throw off that pesky shadow of ignorance from their minds. If they won't budge, then leave them alone. Yeah your respect for them will change, but that person is someone who you might've shared a lot of moments with, who you enjoyed the company of for many years, and you're throwing it down the drain just because they don't wanna mess with something that they're not sure might end well. If they were convinced by you then congrats! You have a new person on your side. If they aren't, okay then, I won't bother you. You are informed about the current situation and yet chose not to meddle because you fear the reprecussions. That's fine. No relationship-ending necessary.

Right now, my country's in a lot of turmoil and a lot of people are angry, but that doesn't mean that those in the middle should be in your crossfires as well. They're civilians in the middle of a war between two countries. And when the two sides clash, they'll be in the way and get hurt.

I just want to hear what people who think otherwise want to say. I want to know why exactly are the people in the middle the same as the opposition. Why are they the enemies as well? What is it about the people with a neutral stance that makes you think they side the opposition as well?

EDIT: Would like to clarify, I am redefining the term 'neutral' here as 'people who choose not to join or pick a side or argument because of various reasons ranging from ignorance to self-preservation'.

Alright, I finally see where the side of 'people not taking a stand is siding the opposition' is coming from. But I reserve my view that 'neutrality' is not a single categorical term that can encompass everyone under it. Not everyone is on the same level of neutrality and can have valid reasons of why they aren't joining in, whether because they're afraid, their lives are on the line, or because they haven't been taught or convinced enough. Those who stay put just because they think nothing is wrong or because they completely agree with an unfair status quo are the ones who are truly on the side of the opposition.

UPDATE: Holy cow! I never realized it would blow up this big this quick. And whoever gave me Gold, thanks man!
gpt
When the Nazi party took unilateral control of Germany in 1933, the party had approximately 2 million members, or ~2.5% of the German population. 

At the time of the rise of one of the most brutal totalitarian governments in human history, the perpetrators were outnumbered by a margin of nearly 40 to 1.

Many remained 'neutral' - failing to resist because they were ignorant or afraid. Neither reason made even an iota of difference to the 11 million people that the party murdered.

Over the following decade, 5.5 million more Germans joined the party. Many joined out of the same ignorance and fear, for social or financial standing, or simply out of a need for belonging. Most had little interest in genocide.

Today, we have a name for these people. We call them Nazis.

In practice, neutrality is often functionally indistinguishable from siding with those in power.