Australia

I hear you and I understand. I just want to try to clarify something. This is over simplified because I'm on my phone

Imagine you're in a room with 50 people. Two are designated as the leaders. Each leader has a goal of attainting the most followers, and will claim a cash prize for each follower they acquire.

Leader A looks around and thinks, "hey only about 25% of people have blonde hair. Ah ha! They're my target" and then proceeds to talk mad shit. Some of the people agree, and also start talking mad shit.

The other leader looks around, and thinks: "I now know I have about 25% of the people on my side, but how do I get more?" B could silence A by force (a fight breaks out), B could point out what A is doing to gain followers (A could then claim B is a liar), or A could focus on how the blonde's are really just people like everyone else, brothers and sisters, friends and lovers. A loses, if B can help people see that differences add to the group, as well as that everyone is connected to the human family

Whatever the outcome, what I mean with this is that the true baddies are few. They speak to the insecurities of the masses, and turn people on one another. They may not be the ones organizing the march, but they are at the head of it. I'm not saying to let them have the stage 24/7. I'm saying we should focus on swaying the hearts/minds of the people marching, because oppressing them only gives the main baddies more power