It doesn't address the core of the article at all, which asks: > Democracy is hard work. There is always going to be the need to fight corruption and fight for

It doesn't address the core of the article at all, which asks: > Democracy is hard work. There is always going to be the need to fight corruption and fight for fairness. But how do we even do that if we don’t have a seat at the table? Don’t sell yourself short handing over your privileges and responsibilities to the state. Shouldn’t you be able to voice your opinion when it really matters? Shouldn’t you have a seat at the table? Saying that it's not always perfect in practice, so it makes no difference if you don't even have it in principle is usually a double standard, because nobody who says that would consider removal of their post or person a valid rebuttal of their argument, which is the democracy vs. totalitarianism dichotomy in a nutshell. That's an actual double standard. On the other hand, it's rather convenient and arbitrary to claim that people who think totalitarianism is bad and support people who want to be free, think "their shit doesn't stink". It's just an accusation so broad, and against no particular person, that it just lingers there, it doesn't get proven, and cannot be refuted.