Which way: Horace or Juvenal?

Thus life is indifferent: the use is not indifferent. When any man then tells you that these things also are indifferent, do not become negligent; and when a man invites you to be careful (about such things), do not become abject and struck with admiration of material things. And it is good for you to know your own preparation and power, that in those matters where you have not been prepared, you may keep quiet, and not be vexed, if others have the advantage over you.

—Epictetus

There is an argument to be made (but not in the space of this forum) that a satirist is an idealist/romantic/conservative who finds himself confronting knaves and fools where he hoped to find saints and heroes. When one finds that the world is made of brass, and one finds that one’s expectations are dashed, what is there to do if one is not willing to succumb to indifference or worse? You confront the wrong! Attack!

I find myself tending toward Juvenal . . . but the problem is that his approach leads to some pretty harsh reprisals. When I see years’ worth of fecklessness coming home to roost, and consider how it affects people and institutions I care about, it’s difficult to keep my trap shut. I’m just irascible enough to not be able to pull off Horace’s gentle but piercing judgments. And so—-I guess I know how much my righteous indignation is worth.

So I try to take the advice of the Stoic instead.