Look, I think your career ending example would make a better case for what you are trying to argue. If you dig into history of longstanding democratic countries like US and Switzerland, you find plenty of rioting and chaotic infighting throughout centuries. Classic republican (as in, US founders) thinking would be that while unfortunate, this is preferable to a police state being able to establish a true monopoly on violence. Then you could have your "order" and "safety", but at the cost of naturally deteriorating toward thinking and doing only what the central power allows you.

I don't think we are disagreeing. Of course ideological and political conflict are to be expected in any healthy civil society. But my argument is that the threat of violence by the government is no longer what keeps people quiet, no matter how discontent they are.

Honestly yes. While I'm not going to comment on the behavior itself, the difference between individuals a acting as a group and the state is such an important distinction that it's written into our constitution.

Much of the bill of rights is about what the state can't do to you in a way that doesn't impact how private citizens interact. Not saying it's perfect, but I'm far less concerned about an internet mob coming after me than the US government