There is a whole lot to unpack there, as everyone assumes that they are innocent and are the righteous, virtuous, and correct party but the reality is both sides of any argument have flaws, a perfect example is BLM, they pack in a bunch of radical marxist and intersectional theory onto the back of racism to give it emotional charge and to label people like me who want nothing to do with that as racist. When in fact I correctly see racism as a doctrine of hate as well. But I am not going to answer their rally call of racism when to do so, would be to lend my voice to their other and just as important doctrines that are part of their agenda and honestly I suspect their real agenda.

The reality is I am not going to support that as it is a doctrine of hate. You cannot couch hate in emotional issues and then label it good. If you are out supporting it, I am not going to support you. I am not with them, I am against the hate. I am against their as well hate, I will just as I am now, call out my opposition to violence, but I am not going to support or advocate hate or violence because one side feels it is justified. I used BLM because you mentioned minorities, feel free to swap them, for Patriots Prayer because the message would be the same in talking to someone that mentioned ultra-nationalist, right wing, zealots who package it up behind a message of god's love. The people I support are men like Ken E. Nwadike who are consistent in a doctrine and worldview of no tolerance for hate or violence and that non-tolerance starts with the only thing we can change in this world, ourselves.

If someone is being actively attacked no matter who they where I would try to stop the violence. This is very different that supporting any doctrine that espoused that it is acceptable to hate or be violent to others, this is the breeding ground of violence and I will not support it as to do so is to aid in violence. That being said if you are taking to the streets and you get killed don't expect me to come out to avenge you. You, just like the other side, took to the streets to push your grievances.

The grievances I see in the streets right now are back by some really nasty human desires. I want nothing to do with it, I am neutral because I am not lending my support to either side. If you cannot see that there is hate packaged with what is being sold, than you miss the point as to why I cannot support it, and why I am not lending the other side aid. To lend aid to hate would be wrong. Both sides will label me against them, and that is fine it's the way dogmatic hate works. Yielding to it, would mean that the cycle cannot be broken.

But once again, when you claim that a pacifist is participating in the violence by staying true to their belief in nonviolence. It is you that are placing the label on the pacifist, it is you that is putting into action blame and hate on a person that is correctly telling you that this is the fruits of hate, it is you that is placing blame, not me. Put simply the pacifist will not make someone their enemy, but that does not mean that people do not see them as the enemy and when you realize the truthfulness of that reasoning, you will understand the pacifists world view, and that is that hate starts from each and every one of us, to not condemn it oneself, while calling for the condemnation of it in others is hypocaracy. hate breeds contemptment and enemies, not the other way around. My actions cannot by their nature make enemies, anger and rage coupled with a feeling of justification are what makes them. You are justifying and rationalizing why it is ok to see a pacifist as the enemy, to the extent that you are claiming that they are participants in violence. I hope you can see where dogmatic thinking has led you.