"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."
(Mark Twain)

For the purposes of this essay, I will assume that the majority of those persons responding to this prompt have agreed vehemently with Mr. Twain. To further intensify an already developing paradox, I should explain that by dissenting with the statement for this purpose serves only to delineate my compliance with the statement. How does one resolve this conflict? It seems that whether or not I profess agreement with the prompt, I am advocating it either directly or indirectly. There is, of course, a solution to this entanglement. Allow me a moment to pause and reflect.

First of all, one must establish the motive of dissension. Some of the most progressive human beings were those who not only thought outside of the box, but denied the constraints of an enclosure altogether. Men such as Einstein, Martin Luther, and Franklin D. Roosevelt reached beyond the offerings of convention to accomplish extraordinary things. However, is it reasonable to suggest that the guiding impetus of these men was a mere refusal of the consensus? Were their accomplishments the result of a mental diffusion away from the most guarded bastions of human principles and to the innovative and sometimes abstract truths which they uncovered? Were these achievements the product of a willful rejection of the establishment and nothing more? It is demeaning of both the men and their actions to say so. Rather, it is more appropriate to say that they acted independently of the majority--without regard for what "side" they were on.

Then, there is the question of societal inertia. As we know from physics, energy is always conserved within a closed system. And, as with all closed systems, some particles are more energetic than others. These excited individuals are the most likely to break from the constraints of the system. However, if this system if truly closed, then those individuals are helpless to do so. Our society is not a closed system; it does, like all systems, have a certain inertia associated with it. That is to say, the society in which we live is progressive but drags its feet.

Then, there is the question of when discrimination is fair. Is bias just so long as it is directed toward the majority? Is malediction against the established convention acceptable while words spoken against a less practiced premise are considered slander? Of course, discrimination is always equitably wrong in all situations. Progressivism is not the product of dissension directed toward everything; rather, it is the directing of everything toward a more perfect truth. Einstein's theories would have never made him famous if they had not been proven. The same principle holds for all notable progressives. Progressivism is not measured in how much it deviates from the norm, but how closely it adheres to the truth without reference to convention.

Finally, the biggest majority and the smallest minority are the same group--the individual. One-hundred percent of the population is comprised of individuals. And yet, the individual composes approximately one six billionth of the population. You see, the standard chosen depends solely upon where the distinction is drawn. The simple answer--don't draw distinctions. Rather than recklessly flee from the camp of the majority, each individual should unrelentingly pursue the truth and, when they have found it, sustain it as such. The ultimate goal of progressivism is to guide humanity to a higher understanding, not push it away for merely a different one. The aim is to develop a consensus that better contributes to a more unified mankind. That is to say, progressivism leads to a unity implying a universal majority. In that way, we are all on the same side.