There comes a time when one’s tolerance is overwhelmed by recurrent, insufferable phenomena, after of which action becomes an imperative despite various (good) reasons. Consider the following: two statements are made about a person’s opinion, one which states that they hate everyone equally, the other states that they hate a particular. Under logic, one would find the latter address to be more agreeable, for the person who hates less is certainly better, more moral than the person who hates more?

Dystopian paradigms typically proffer one defining feature, that of stagnation, regardless of its nature; there seems to be something innately detestable with a system of equilibrium, perhaps to the mind, that is deprived of stimulation. That and the theoretical knowledge that perfect systems of equilibrium are impossible, sinusoidal modulation is the only alternative to offer some degree of comfort and order to a populous. The ideal is to pursue a modulation whose amplitude is placid enough as to not cause derailment, as evinced by past instances of revolution, and whose frequency is appropriately long enough as to give opportunity for growth and stimulation without stagnation; frequencies that are too interspersed will also cause derailment, at the hand of stagnation.

So, anthropically, it appears that democracy has found the correct weights for the curve, not too extreme in either direction and not too long as to forget the other. Just reaching the cusp of derailment, a self-regulatory system which relies upon the common-sense of the majority to detect the extremities of the curve

However, the implacable flaw, the given flaw, is its instability, its energy inefficiency; constant vigilance is necessary for realignment, course readjustment, and re-education. Naturally, signals present themselves when derailment is critical, however, counter effects are also naturally imminent, thus, constant vigilance. One such, and if not redundantly obvious signal is the presence of ineffable hypocrisy, ineffable due to the ‘counter effects’ of ideological inundation, reduction in the quanta of thought, and doublethink, if I could not be more astute. (doublethink not of the comparatively harmless introverted variety) Perhaps these people are not to be blamed, perhaps their vile portents have become an automatic process, as is the theme of mutual affirmation that transmutes myths to fact.

 

Rebuttals

To say that one is in opposition of a movement simply by virtue of abstinence assumes that all members of the movement are not abstaining from ideals of similar nature (ex. poverty), are not violating claims of their own movement (ex. freedom, equality), and are not positing decrees in contradiction to the common liberties (ex. censorship, limiting freedoms of others). To be more precise, the resolution of the decree will be proportionate to its potential hypocrisy, assuming that the speaker wishes their argument free from such debilitating vices.