It can be useful to strategically pretend to be shocked and disgusted, because normal people legitimately are shocked and disgusted.
If for example a coworker you don't like says something like "too bad he missed" it may behoove you to act "shocked and disgusted" in front of HR who (even if they too are sad he missed) now will probably be obligated to take "glorification of violence" much more seriously than two weeks ago now that first blood has been drawn.
Think of today as 9/14/2001: tenured university professors could say "the US deserved it" in the right company, but otherwise that was a good way to get into a confrontation. But this is a limited time offer that won't last forever.
If for example a coworker you don't like says something like "too bad he missed" it may behoove you to act "shocked and disgusted" in front of HR who (even if they too are sad he missed) now will probably be obligated to take "glorification of violence" much more seriously than two weeks ago now that first blood has been drawn.
Maybe it's me just being a cuck, but I don't like screwing over co-workers even for 'bad opinions'.
The following is definitely me being a cuck: I actually feel sorry for people who want DJT dead. They've been so brainwashed that they think Donald Trump is the cause of their problems. I saw a video of a middle-aged, woman at a cash register being confronted over opinions online. A woman who was obviously poor and miserable. Should she lose her job, and what little she has, because she believed the media?
The Inquisition always attempted persuasio before relaxatio.
It's a tactical matter whether or not you wish to employ the strategy against any given person. I probably wouldn't do it to someone I otherwise liked and who I didn't think would do the same thing to me.
That said, at a higher level I think society has gotten too casual in its use of "war verbiage" in politics. OP is right that "war is a continuation of politics by other means", so I would think then that unless you are prepared to go to war you wouldn't want to speak of existential threats, and heavily discourage people from speaking in such terms.
You could see (and I commented on several times at the time) in the aftermath of the 2020 election the same sort of "war verbiage" (eg. "if we let this election fraud stand we don't have a country any more"), and I said at the time (before 1/6) "these people saying these things are playing a dangerous game, because you risk people taking them seriously and taking them to their logical conclusions. So if you say them then you'd better really believe them, because some people will." And lo and behold, a lot of the politicians saying those things actually didn't believe them; and a lot of normal people who did are sitting in prison right now as a result when support they probably thought they had completely evaporated.
And it's happening here too: "threat to democracy and our very way of life" taken to its logical conclusion is...what almost happened on Saturday. If you believe that statement is true (which I don't of course), then the only logically consistent critique of the shooter is that he didn't actually wait until Trump won the election. And now a husband and father is dead, as is a 20-year old kid who got whipped into a frenzy by being exposed to it for half his life.
So I would say that if you don't want these things to happen every election you need to tamp down heavily on that sort of verbiage unless you really mean it. Ideally the politicians and press who pushed this would be in prison for instigating it, but I think we both know that won't happen. The next best thing (but far from a perfect solution because it punishes normal people) is for there to be consequences for normal people saying such things the same way there is for joking about bombs in an airport security line.
One of the problems with that line of thinking though is it smacks very heavily of the notion "we'd better not do it because that gives them permission to do it". Which is utter lunacy because they're already doing it and they're going to do it anyways no matter what we do. So we can either match them or be overrun. There is no scenario where if we stop, they also stop. There is they do it and we do it, and they do it and we don't and we lose. Those are the only two options.
My line of thinking is more "smack their instigators down hard (because they just shot one of ours), and only if they've shown they can behave* can there be a mutual de-escalation where if either side instigates they get smacked down."
Unless and until that happens you have to do tit for tat. Arguably smacking them down hard itself is tit for tat since that's what they did for 1/6.
* Which given their total reversal in less than 24 hours is highly improbable.
It can be useful to strategically pretend to be shocked and disgusted, because normal people legitimately are shocked and disgusted.
If for example a coworker you don't like says something like "too bad he missed" it may behoove you to act "shocked and disgusted" in front of HR who (even if they too are sad he missed) now will probably be obligated to take "glorification of violence" much more seriously than two weeks ago now that first blood has been drawn.
Think of today as 9/14/2001: tenured university professors could say "the US deserved it" in the right company, but otherwise that was a good way to get into a confrontation. But this is a limited time offer that won't last forever.
Maybe it's me just being a cuck, but I don't like screwing over co-workers even for 'bad opinions'.
The following is definitely me being a cuck: I actually feel sorry for people who want DJT dead. They've been so brainwashed that they think Donald Trump is the cause of their problems. I saw a video of a middle-aged, woman at a cash register being confronted over opinions online. A woman who was obviously poor and miserable. Should she lose her job, and what little she has, because she believed the media?
The Inquisition always attempted persuasio before relaxatio.
It's a tactical matter whether or not you wish to employ the strategy against any given person. I probably wouldn't do it to someone I otherwise liked and who I didn't think would do the same thing to me.
That said, at a higher level I think society has gotten too casual in its use of "war verbiage" in politics. OP is right that "war is a continuation of politics by other means", so I would think then that unless you are prepared to go to war you wouldn't want to speak of existential threats, and heavily discourage people from speaking in such terms.
You could see (and I commented on several times at the time) in the aftermath of the 2020 election the same sort of "war verbiage" (eg. "if we let this election fraud stand we don't have a country any more"), and I said at the time (before 1/6) "these people saying these things are playing a dangerous game, because you risk people taking them seriously and taking them to their logical conclusions. So if you say them then you'd better really believe them, because some people will." And lo and behold, a lot of the politicians saying those things actually didn't believe them; and a lot of normal people who did are sitting in prison right now as a result when support they probably thought they had completely evaporated.
And it's happening here too: "threat to democracy and our very way of life" taken to its logical conclusion is...what almost happened on Saturday. If you believe that statement is true (which I don't of course), then the only logically consistent critique of the shooter is that he didn't actually wait until Trump won the election. And now a husband and father is dead, as is a 20-year old kid who got whipped into a frenzy by being exposed to it for half his life.
So I would say that if you don't want these things to happen every election you need to tamp down heavily on that sort of verbiage unless you really mean it. Ideally the politicians and press who pushed this would be in prison for instigating it, but I think we both know that won't happen. The next best thing (but far from a perfect solution because it punishes normal people) is for there to be consequences for normal people saying such things the same way there is for joking about bombs in an airport security line.
One of the problems with that line of thinking though is it smacks very heavily of the notion "we'd better not do it because that gives them permission to do it". Which is utter lunacy because they're already doing it and they're going to do it anyways no matter what we do. So we can either match them or be overrun. There is no scenario where if we stop, they also stop. There is they do it and we do it, and they do it and we don't and we lose. Those are the only two options.
My line of thinking is more "smack their instigators down hard (because they just shot one of ours), and only if they've shown they can behave* can there be a mutual de-escalation where if either side instigates they get smacked down."
Unless and until that happens you have to do tit for tat. Arguably smacking them down hard itself is tit for tat since that's what they did for 1/6.
* Which given their total reversal in less than 24 hours is highly improbable.