It occurs to me that opposing actions is a lot more focused/accurate/compassionate than opposing people. You're not opposing some archetypical racist, you're opposing a specific bit of harm that is being pushed on people. I don't know the full story, and personally come from being trained to believe in or be susceptible to belief in a lot of terrible things, so presumably the other side is hugely made up of very well trained people responding in the way they were trained. And surely there are a lot of situations in life and everyone's had their turn as the bad guy?

Etc etc. But of course the problem is it gets nigh impossible to untangle "oppose those doing points of harm" from "monolithic evil entity." It's real easy to look at terrible childhood assumptions and go "what did this person actually do wrong, looking different or speaking a different language doesn't count" and much harder to do that with more philosophical abstracts (money/profession/politics).

Guess if this were easy to figure out I'd be, and I'd be surrounded by, boddhisatvas.