Agreed. It's an announcement that you've determined that some speech has to be crushed, but also preemptively framing it as self-defense. It's like when you fir

Agreed. It's an announcement that you've determined that some speech has to be crushed, but also preemptively framing it as self-defense. It's like when you first hear about Libertarians having a Non-Aggression Principle at their core, but then you start to hear how they redefine "aggression." In a very similar way, when Group A starts calling Group B "terrorist," it's really an announcement that Group A is going to be compromising their own professed ethics and processes to destroy Group B. It's an announcement of martial law, not a label that reliably describes any particular behavior by "terrorist" groups. Speech- and thought-violence rhetoric is just empty rationalization and crybully rhetoric from the powerless, but it's often a prelude to a brutal crackdown when it comes from the powerful.