1. I see it akin to a small war. We are talking here about acts of mild aggression here (if only verbal). 2. There are soldiers (metaphor for politicians) and

1. I see it akin to a small war. We are talking here about acts of mild aggression here (if only verbal). 2. There are soldiers (metaphor for politicians) and their job is to fight, so that civilians (citizens) could live free from violence. 3. The idea to put citizens to fight and to tell them to target the neutrals and opponents has to face this criticism: you are applying a huge multiplier to the sum of all violence in the world. You better do the multiplication and run the actual numbers to be sure that in the long run you'll come good. 4. If it turns out a group intimidated 100k people to free from intimidation 90k other people, they turn out not only horrible morally, but also crude simpletons. 5. The more opinions become weapons, the less opinions will be judged objectively by these citizens in future. Circumstances can change quickly and, in democracy, the only way to cope is to have masses of voters honestly predict the real life results of their choices. They need to clear their heads, not to wield opinions as weapons. (They have politicians for that after all.)