>that person / thing is complicit in some way with the thing they are claiming to be against
There's a sense in which it's tautological - when anything bad happens, the universal cause is that nobody prevented it, and everyone in the whole wide world is guilty.
Also, even if your dichotomy is sort of correct, surely every non-complicit entity must have a non-negligible amount of time before anyone gets around to "COINTELPRO'ing" it, so it can't be literally true.
The most succinct way I can express my disagreement with you is that loyalty is never wholly binary.
So arguing over whether an entity is for or against something especially when they are composite and not a single person, is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down.
There is a simple way to deal with endless BS and lies - judge by actions, and never make a final judgement.
There's a sense in which it's tautological - when anything bad happens, the universal cause is that nobody prevented it, and everyone in the whole wide world is guilty.
Also, even if your dichotomy is sort of correct, surely every non-complicit entity must have a non-negligible amount of time before anyone gets around to "COINTELPRO'ing" it, so it can't be literally true.
The most succinct way I can express my disagreement with you is that loyalty is never wholly binary.
So arguing over whether an entity is for or against something especially when they are composite and not a single person, is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down.
There is a simple way to deal with endless BS and lies - judge by actions, and never make a final judgement.