Dystopia Is What Results from the Attempt to Create Utopia

That is, using labels that previously widely used defined patterns resulting in real human-killing -- to, instead, describe a pattern that a person finds unfitting to his/her policy views.

In other words, misplaced naming calling, in a way, stealing the valor from the real victims of the true dystopian past events.

"... It is important to keep dystopia in its place, and in perspective.

There are and have been real dystopias in the world, and imaginary ones help illustrate how utopian visions can endanger decent regimes and communities.

Not every call for a border wall or “Medicare for all” is dystopian; one (or the other) may be a stupid idea, but it is not summoning 1984. ..."

If you mean that you don't like the author's choice of words, then that that instead of saying "the entire article [is] essentially meaningless".

> Fallen has a very specific meaning

Which of the four definitions in WordNet, or dozens of other possible dictionary meanings, is that very specific meaning?

> and using it as a poetic slush word is enough to make me not take the OP seriously.

"Slush" has a very specific meaning, involving partially frozen materials. I feel that your use of it here has rendered your entire comment essentially meaningless.

A dystopian ruler does not believe they are destroying humanity, they believe they are rescuing humanity from some exogenous menace, whereas a more Hobbes-inspired ruler believes themselves to be rescuing humanity from itself.

If humans are only evil because they are brainwashed by capitalism, or patriarchy, religion, or royalty, or lizardmen, or the government, or some other menace then any brutality used to purge this evil is both justified and a temporary state of affairs. On the other hand, if you assume that some people are just a little bit naturally anti-social then trying to fight this (through either soft measures like education, or hard measures like punishment) is only justified if the the tangible benefits (not the promise of some eventual Utopia) exceed the costs.

"Conform or be cast out." --Rush, Subdivisions, Signals, 1982

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."

From the article: Next, dystopia is marked by dehumanization

How one tweet can ruin your life | Jon Ronson -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI

From the article: The abuse of technology is another characteristic of dystopia.

Google. Facebook.

From the article: Next, dystopia empowers a new class of rulers and uses propaganda and state terror to maintain the power of the regime...The ultimate result of dystopia can be seen in the tragedy of an individual.

Instead of only relying on state terror, there is a new brand of current day authoritarianism which is trying to use non-state power through media, social media, and non-governmental civic groups. The new twist is to erode freedom of speech, but not have it be technically illegal, because the government isn't doing it. The new twist is to erode due process and presumption of innocence, but it's not technically illegal, because trial by public opinion and media isn't a judicial process. The new twist is to disenfranchise people, but not in person, only online and in social media, because it's not "technically illegal." However, all of the above violates various principles of individual rights in spirit. To me, they are all dishonest means of having coercive, authoritarian effects on people at large, without being "technically illegal."

People who actually believe in universal principles of human rights don't try and coerce people. People who actually believe in those principles actually try to convince people, and when they can't convince, they listen. It's authoritarians who have succumbed to groupthink who seek to use power to coerce people into acquiescence. In my life experience, it's only those who believe another group are less than human, who give up dialogue and trying to convince.