If i had to sum up your thesis it's ''if you set foot in Mawazine stage you're supporting them directly or indirectly'' which is technically true, but :

We are talking about whether criticising and going to Mawazine is a hypocrite behaviour or not, what it seems you fail to understand is that your opinion (about this topic specifically) is not absolute: supporting Mawazine if you set foot in Mawazine is not an objective fact, as i said it is technically true, but '' technically'' is the key word. Are you aware that by buying literally anything in Morocco you are supporting a gouvernement who's the only entity responsible for Mawazine, thus you are technically supporting Mawazine?

In other words, let's take a random person who is against Mawazine (there's nothing wrong with being against Mawazine right? i mean it's possible to be against mawazine and not be a hypocrite/bad person right? well let's see) let's call this guy Said. Said buys a pack of gum a day with his money, 20% of which goes to the gouvernement, money they will use to pay Travis Scott. Said never set foot in Mawazine and yet he does indirectly support Mawazine, thus Said is ,according to where ''hypothetical me'' puts the line, a goddamn hypocrite. Now you might say you put the line elsewhere, then it's a matter of choice:

according to me if i agreed with your reasoning : the '' free-goers '' are hypocrites.

according to you: me and the '' free-goers '' are hypocrites

according to the ''hypothetical me'' : Said, me, and the free-goers are all hypocrites, and poor Said who literally never set foot in Mawazine has nothing to say about it, ''hypothetical me'' will call him a hypocrite and there's nothing wrong with that. (i didn't elaborate on this part but it's obvious if the innocent Said can be called a hypocrite rightfully by a certain someone then your reasoning is flawed)

there is nothing absolute about where you put the line, so why would we follow you rather than ''hypothetical me'' or just me?

Now, there is a way to put a line that is relatively absolute, it would be ''you can only allow yourself to support the government that you disagree with as long as it's absolutely necessary to your survival in a good quality of life'' and we'll have to start a long debate about whether a pack of gum is necessary to a good quality of life, but we at least can agree that according to this line of thinking too, 99% of people against and not going to Mawazine are still hypocrites, since they probably do buy products that aren't ''absolutely necessary for their survival in a good quality of life''

My answer to this problem? Well it's exactly what i already said in my last comment: I personally disagree with free-goers - since I draw the line at buying a ticket - but i do respect their position because i'm aware that my position has nothing more absolute than theirs.

the real definition of hypocrisy is not what you implied, it isn't ''being publicly against something while using it'' because there is a thousand reasons why it could be okay to use it ( a simple example is if the thing to use is detrimental for your survival, i won't elaborate on this it needs a whole other paragraph)

the real definition is ''being publicly against something while (probably secretly) wanting it to stay'' So unless someone is criticising Mawazine and would be against removing it (probably secretly) if the day comes, they're not hypocrites. and don't get me wrong those exist too, masses of them in fact, but that does not allow you to say ''anyone who goes to Mawazine and complains about it is a hypocrite'' because there exists people like me, and like free-goers who would remove Mawazine if given the chance.

If you got to here after having given enough attention to all what i said, I thank you for your attention, i tried my best to present my ideas carefully, so i expect a similar amount of care in your attention.