I am engaging in agonistic behavior. (So, by the way, are you, even if you are submitting to the President). I frankly don't know what I'm going to do with respect to the President right now. I'm pretty sure that I will take out my anger and contempt on any Democrats who vote for this monstrous bill. But I don't need to know yet. This bill is the equivalent of the Iraq War Resolution, of the USA-PATRIOT Act, of the worst of the past decade, and it will mark me, you, us, our party, our President, and those who support it in Congress forever.
So why am I shouting and being mean to my friends who think that this is "unimportant"?
Simple: because setting myself on fire to protest it would hurt too much.
Read on about "agonistic behavior" -- what evolution has designed us to do in these situations.
Agonistic behavior
In ethology, agonistic behaviour is any social behaviour related to fighting. Thus it is broader than aggressive behaviour because it includes, not only actual aggression but also threats, displays, retreats, placating aggressors, and conciliation. The term was coined by Scott and Fredericson in 1951. Agonistic behaviour is seen in many animal species because resources, including food, shelter, and mates are often limiting.
Some forms of agonistic behaviour are between contestants who are competing for access to the same resources, such as food or mates. Other times it involves tests of strength or threat display that make animals look large and more physically fit, a display that may allow it to gain the resource before an actual battle takes place. Although agonistic behaviour varies among species, agonistic interaction consists of three kinds of behaviours: threat, aggression, and submission. These three behaviours are functionally and physiologically interrelated with aggressive behaviour yet fall outside the narrow definition of aggressive behaviour. While any one of these divisions of behaviours may be seen alone in an interaction between two animals, they normally occur in sequence from start to end. Depending on the availability and importance of a resource, behaviours can range from a fight to the death or a much safer ritualistic behaviour, though ritualistic or display behaviours are the most common form of agonistic behaviours.
...
Avoidance
Physical fighting is actually rare between animals. It would seem that normally the more aggressive an animal is, the more it has to gain. However, in a normal scenario if an animal is too aggressive it might face an unacceptably high cost such as severe injury or death. Unless an animal has a sure indication that they will win without injury, or the resources are valuable enough for the risk of death, animals usually avoid fighting. An animal must weigh the relative costs and benefits of fighting. If the costs are too high, avoiding a fight is preferable.
Ritual display
For animals, display is any behaviour modified by evolution that is used to convey information. Animals display particular signs, which recipients can use to infer something about the mental and physical state of the first animal. To avoid the heavy cost of fighting, animals have evolved sophisticated rituals, which they use to bluff their opponents into backing down or fleeing. The cost-benefit model of display makes three assumptions: (1) type of display varies depending on the cost; (2) the risk of the display increases as the effectiveness of display increases: and (3) the value of resource being disputed over determines the choice of display used. Animals have evolved to use their physical attributes as a display of ability. If contests can be resolved with ritual display, fighting is not needed. Display can be used to dispute for mates, territory, and food through symbolic gestures instead of battles to the death. If an animal can display without fighting that he is more physically fit than his opponent, he will have gained more than he would have if he had fought and in the process possibly been injured
Threat behavior
Threat behavior is any behavior that signifies hostility or intent to attack another animal. Threat behavior is meant to cause the opponent to back down and leave. While ritual display can be used for an array of reasons or communicative purposes, threat distinctly is meant for hostility and is the last step before fighting or submission. Threat does not involve physical contact with another animal. Any threat behaviour most often elicits other agonistic behaviour in the recipient. This initiation of threat will result in a display of physical attributes, a fight, or submission; the behaviour or sequence of behaviours depends on what resources are being fought over and each individual’s chance of winning against his opponent. In any animal species, threat always contains components of attack and fleeing, which expresses an animal’s readiness and likelihood of winning. An intimidation display with a means to threat are exhibited through: hair bristling, feather ruffling, raising skin folds and crest, teeth displaying, horn displaying, making sound, etcetera.
This is not a time for proper etiquette. This is not a time for "nice." I honestly don't know where I'll end up here. I never imagined that the President would betray our party, our principles, our economy, and his own re-election chances this badly. This changes everything. So I don't need a detailed plan. I need to show that this is serious. It won't be nice and polite; it won't be pretty. I need to scream at Democrats to stop this insanity.
So do you. It's what we're designed to do.
And, to be fair, this is also a form of agonistic behavior:
Submissive behavior
Submissive behavior involves an individual indicating by an act or posture that it will not challenge a dominant individual in a social group. Submissive behaviors are part of the maintenance of a dominance hierarchy of cooperating individuals in a social group that have overlapping but not entirely coincident interests.
If that's your choice, you're welcome to it. Don't expect not to be challenged on it. The stakes are high.