In the February 21 episode of CBC Radio's "The Current" there was an item about harassment of opinions that were anything other than hard-line, the persecution of whatever might be painted as "liberal".
One spokesperson who in effect defended thugism by minimizing it and rationalizing it had a lot to say about "respect" and the need for "speaking softly".
It's the classic bully-boy tactic.
"If they are truly trying to convince they shouldn't be creating a storm. And that's actually what's happening." Do you see the tactic?
Okay: in SEP03 I was stationed at CFS Gander, doing "communications research" *nudge-nudge wink-wink*. Allende got dumped. I am a Pearson-era hippie ... my brain broke. I reasoned this way: there is no way for an honest person to prevail in the face of corruption.
Fast forward decades. writing on the subject of bullying in the work-place and online I have written, "Whatever ideology is put into place is straw-man type argument, serving merely as pretext. Typically the aggressor will be reactive, causing controversy, acting with impunity."
The point is that those who are /individually and subjectively disposed to imposition, to judgement and fault-finding, to condemnation and punishment/ will be over-reactive: so long as they "up the ante" they a) create the specious argument of having been wounded while b) issuing warning by making it clear that dissidence or difference will not be indulged.
Solution? Authenticity, integrity, solidarity, and community. heh