In the shadows of yet another recent act of political violence, there are numerous calls for self-examination and, naturally, finger-pointing. Unfortunately, by my figuring, plenty of the people making these calls and accusations have themselves contributed to a culture of political violence.

I think it’s beyond time to come to terms with what it really means to oppose political violence, and point out where numerous people fail to do so. It’s time to lay it out as plainly as possible.

I would argue that opposing political violence requires opposing it consistently and with integrity. I propose a modest set of 5 tests for determining whether someone really opposes political violence or not.

1. First, we have the obvious one. They don’t commit any acts of political violence. Also, they do not make threats of violence.
2. They do not make statements attempting to incite violence, directly or indirectly. This includes dehumanizing language.
3. They do not praise acts of violence or the people who commit them. They also refrain from minimizing or attempting to justify these acts.
4. They do not support political policies of violence. Having the government commit violence on one’s behalf is still violence, plain and simple.

That’s 4 tests. Didn’t I say there would be 5 up above? Yes. But the 5th test is the one where lots of people stumble, and needs some elaboration.

5. They do not provide any form of support for anyone who doesn’t pass all the tests.

This sounds so simple, and yet there are numerous actions I would argue constitute support:

• Voting for a politician who fails the tests.
• Donating to politicians or organizations that fail the tests.
• Continuing to follow someone on social media after they have failed the tests.
• Liking, or otherwise promoting, posts from somebody who fails the tests.
• Continuing to watch, listen-to, or read material from somebody (activists, talking-heads, news hosts) who fails the tests.
• Shopping with the sponsors of somebody who fails the tests.
• … and so forth …

Notice that I never said anything about shunning them. This isn’t about severing the lines of communication. If you do that, they have no opportunity to apologize.

That’s right. Apologize. There always has to be room for forgiveness. If somebody apologizes, recants, and seriously changes their ways, I’d argue it’s OK to give them another chance. But don’t be fooled by insincere non-apologies.

Remember, these tests are for ALL OF US. Not just public figures. We can all benefit from measuring our past words and deeds against these tests and seeing where we have fallen short. Fighting against violence is a responsibility we all share.

Our society absolutely requires a rejection of violence if we want it to continue functioning. These people who insist on their violent rhetoric are like arsonists, seeking to burn it down. By standing against violence in a complete, uncompromising fashion, we can deny them the fuel they need and protect our society.