The film uses an exaggerated stylistic device to convey a message. It de-humanizes people into uniform entities, for example to visualize something like Nazi crimes. Now we all know that the fear of a dictator is inevitably transferred to the people in the country and that adaptation happens out of fear. It is a psychological phenomenon that nobody is unimpressed by. What you call non-thinking is your projection on others, because you have certainly had experiences in your past where you behaved or had to behave conformally (because you were a child). These followers remind you of your own following, i.e. having adopted a passive attitude, which you condemn. You can assume that every person integrates both passive and active tendencies into his life and is a follower in one moment and a resistor in the other. A uniformed behavior, as shown in the film, is an extraordinary event, which is a mass phenomenon that occurs occasionally when the transmission from one to many succeeds. But as soon as a person has removed himself from this situation and comes back into contact with himself or is exposed to other influences, he will behave differently than at the moment when he is part of a large group.

But if you assume that people always behave the same way as the grey men in the film, you degrade them, condemn them to inhuman beings. Not only is it unhelpful to look at people in such a way, it is even damaging and maintains a picture that has no reason for hope or cooperation. It only leads to a brief elevation of your ego to classify you as better or more intelligent. For this ego to permanently feel better, it needs to repeat this view because the satisfaction of feeling superior to others lasts only very briefly and requires continuous repetition. In doing so, you contribute to the deterioration of interpersonal relationships and simply gather yes-men around you who want to feel part of an in-group and inevitably need an out-group for contrast. In doing so, you're basically imitating exactly what you're condemning.

Although opportunism is generally to be regarded as critical and indeed problematic, you leave the concrete in the dark and must always refer to those who are not in personal contact with you as enemies (people of public life like politicians or just grey beings). But if you give a person from your immediate surroundings a chance, you will notice that they are partly critical of their society, their living conditions and worry about destructive tendencies. They then worry about other things that you may not care about at all while you worry about things that they don't care about.

You can assume that you wouldn't even know what you are blaming other people for if you didn't blame yourself at least once. As long as you say that you are guilty and hold yourself guilty of your omissions, you will also say that the others are guilty. Hence my initial statement that you are always the writer of your story.

Both are usually exaggerated: both the movie hero and the total loser. We humans are neither the one nor the other in this pronounced metaphorical form. They are ideal images or non-ideals.

You learn a lot through a contradiction in an exchange with others. After all, your concern is that you want people to behave more responsibly than you perceive - a very understandable wish that I also have. But no one you call a nonthinker will come and say: "Right, I belong to the group of grey beings. Therefore, such films are often seen from the perspective of the one who feels entitled not to belong to the opportunists and to chalk something up to his environment that I suspect he has not yet forgiven himself.

So my question to you would be: In which situations have you been an opportunist yourself or have you been silent, touching you unpleasantly and making you difficult to get over? And in which you haven't and it was taken positively? I do not ask this question because I expect an answer here in public, but only because I wish myself to be pointed to my own blind spots when I reveal them.