If, knowing what you do now, imagine you woke up on an 1800’s slave plantation and ask yourself, which would be more moral:
1.) to be polite and civil to the slave owner, talking as if his viewpoint (that it’s okay to own people) is just as valid as yours.
2.) to do whatever you can, whether calmly or caustically, using reason or shame, to try to persuade him to change his ways?
Today, when there are hired thugs constantly initiating violence against innocents, is it moral to be polite and civil to them, treating them with respect and deference, talking and acting as if they are good people doing good things, and talking as if their viewpoint (that aggression is okay if it’s “legal”) is as valid as yours? Or is it better to do whatever you can to talk them out of being mindless thugs? Yes, if you CAN do it nicely, go for it! But if the choices are to let them feel five seconds of approval from you, or to feel five seconds of disgust and condemnation from you, choose the latter. They need SOME disincentive from being fascists, and you can bet that they will never get that from the system they work for.
It’s not even nice to THEM to allow them to comfortably continue being agents of evil and pawns of oppression, without anyone challenging or criticizing them for it. You aren’t doing them any favors by enabling their authoritarian psychosis. At least let them HEAR the truth, whether they like it or not, so they can choose whether to continue being bad guys with badges, or whether to start acting like decent human beings. Better yet — convince them to read “the Most Dangerous Superstition“. Believe it or not, there are a LOT of former mercenaries of the state who are very glad that someone smacked them upside the head with a little reason and morality. So give ’em a smack!