The Error in "You Bumped Me So I Can Shoot You"

 

I must admit to being very fond of Patterico's post on what he calls the "You bumped me so I can shoot you" fallacy.  He describes it as follows:

Move #1: Take an opponent’s arguably provocative act and declare it to be intentionally evil; and

Move #2: Propose a wildly disproportionate response to that act, and justify it by pretending that the “provocation” and the wildly disproportionate response are equivalent. Describing both at the highest level of generality possible (“they are both acts of violence”) is an excellent aid in drawing such false equivalencies.

He goes on to say that "You bumped me so I can shoot you" makes up about 95% of Republican discourse these days.  I see only one flaw in his argument.  It assumes that the "you bumped me so I can shoot you" argument takes place after the bump but before the shooting.  For instance, Hillary Clinton was genuinely (and legitimately) investigated for mishandling of classified documents and (controversially) cleared, so Donald Trump should be immune from investigation, let alone prosecution.  Or the Biden Justice Department has indicted Trump, so the Trump Justice Department should retaliate by indicting Biden.  Leaders of the two parties should be treated exactly the same regardless of their actual actions.  If a Democrat bumps a Republican and escapes prosecution, it would be unfair to prosecute a Republican for shooting a Democrat.

Except that is not necessarily how it goes.  Often times, the argument begins after the shooting, at which point Republicans frantically scramble for some instance in which a Democrat bumped a Republican in order to call it even.  Or the say that the shooting was a completely justified retaliation for the bump.

For instance, Trump responded to a defeat in the 2020 election by filing or encouraging others to file over 60 lawsuits to overturn the election, asking state legislatures to overturn the election, asking Republican election officials not to certify the results, arranging the appointment of alternate slates of electors, calling on Congress and the Vice President to refuse to certify the results, inciting a riot to put pressure on Congress and the Vice President not to certify, and refused to call of the mob until it was already defeated.  But hey, Hillary Clinton called Trump illegitimate in an interview three years after the election so we're all even, right?  And besides Al Gore sued to halt the recount in Florida and Stacey Abrams delayed 10 days in conceding defeat and denied she was making a concession speech.  So clearly Trump was just engaged in politics as usual and just doing what Democrats do all the time.  Right?