To all the sheeple out there that want to pick at our enlightened souls, the evidence is out there and it’s absolutely conclusive. All vaccines are ridden with autism inducing chemicals. In Canada this problem is reasonably feasible considering that the government, while paying for health care, wants to infect the entire nation and burden the education system and health care system with accommodations for autistic children for generations to come, all to satisfy the sages of the illuminati corporate monsters that laugh at the masses while sipping on their fine thousand year old carbon dated whiskey, safe and guarded by their jet powered bubbles that orbit the planet. Now that that’s out the way, let’s examine the theme of my post: the word “sheeple.” It’s bad enough that bootylicious and selfie have made it to the Oxford dictionary. Do we really need another miserably invalid word wedged between sheepish and sheepshank? First, the very sound of the word is awkward and seems incorrect while used in the singular form, as it often is used. As the word combines sheep and people, to attack a person by calling them a “sheeple” is calling one person a sheep people. Perhaps the conspiracy theorists need to come up with a singular version of the word like sheepson or sherpson, but that of course sounds ridiculous.
The second problem I have is the ontological error with the word. The word was coined to point out that its users are separate from the hoi polloi that are ill informed about the very reality that they are supposedly walking through. As more and more people become enlightened and shed their fleece, the enlightened theorists grow in numbers and the ignorant masses shrink in size. The few-to-many relation of the word coupled with its implied hope for change renders a trajectory that results in either equal part relations or many-to-few relations of enlightened people and sheeple, respectfully. If the so-called enlightened ones surpass the size of the ignorant, “sheeple” loses its very essence. The word itself seems to trap itself in an ontological error.
Finally, I have a concern of etiquette with the popular use of the word. Perhaps it’s just the pompous prick inside of me, but as soon as someone spews the word out of their keyboard and on to their Facebook page, their point loses its validity in my eyes. The reason for this is that most often the word is a response for someone either disproving a conspiracy theory or asking the one that proposed the theory for evidence that comes from a feasible source. Rejecting the conspiracy theorist’s conclusions with the use of logic or evidence that seems more compelling, almost always ignites the now infamous schoolyard shriek: “you are a sheeple!” A response of this nature is simply in bad taste. If you want to convince others of a theory or narrative, constantly reply with sentiments charged with evidence or reason. Use eloquence and wit if you need to silence an ignorant automaton. Let’s put “sheeple” to sleep once and for all. Then, we can move on and opposing collectives can argue and learn from each other, with style and grace.