Fighting authoritarian discourse is, first of all, balancing the political game.

The public positions of celebrities, digital influencers, media professionals, and political leaders have a huge impact on society, especially in relation to the reach of social media.

With the potential of the Internet, it is inevitable that almost everyone wants to expose a position they believe in, and that they also create an expectation of conformity to that belief on the part of people with wide reach and seductive appeal to their followers. That is why accusations and vigilance are brought against these claims.

Political positions are controversial and controversial. Naturally, many avoid walking through this minefield, which in general represents the loss of followers, wear and tear and the like “cancellations” that are undesirable results of those who live off the image and do everything to preserve it.

However, we live in a moment when it is no longer possible to remain neutral. We are faced with an authoritarian political project of the far right that has rare precedent, and that, by the way, many of those who today claim their right to remain neutral helped elect when they publicly showed their support.

It is a mistake to argue that you are against the polarization of political discourse in order to refrain from the required position, because when an authoritarian government emerges, polarization is already underway at one pole. As Jewish Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said, neutrality favors the oppressors, not the oppressed, and persecution encourages the persecutors, not the persecuted.

This is not just a crisis of representativeness, as some are trying to convince us, when it is difficult to choose between two populist and authoritarian political projects that oppose each other on antagonistic ideological spectra – which is not even a fair comparison, since they are No, no position opposing the current power is not such a radical and obvious anti-democratic discourse. It is the defense of democracy, humanitarian, environmental, institutional and social problems through violence, authoritarianism, sectarian fundamentalism and regression.

The views of the President of the Republic on issues ranging from the customs of individuals to issues related to human rights such as torture, gender, racial and sexual violence, to government policies to combat the pandemic using ineffective treatments. against a disease that has already devastated millions of people around the world, drag a multitude of people willing to reproduce superficial notions of just about everything. Fighting this discourse and countering attacks on democracy is, first of all, balancing the political game, in which it will again be possible to disagree exclusively in the field of ideas.