edit: To clarify, this is a light-hearted continuation about how essentially any claim about the stock market is enactable in some form. And so even the much of generally well-intentioned advise is in fact a claim that the person should be putting their money on, if they truly believe it. I think only claims like "Nobody knows what's going to happen, it's effectively gambling => stay out of the market" come close to being fully self-consistent, but e.g. advising to not buy because the price comes down, or to not short because of volatility both fail this. Markets are funny.
My only claim was that to profit from shorting it you need to not just be right that it is going to go down, but be able to tolerate the volatility in the interim.
That's a claim about the stock market, how do you enact it?
Note it is not a claim that volatility is definitely going to be high.
My point is, any claim about what is going to happen is implicitly weighing that information higher over the background. So if one thinks it's worth sharing, then they're claiming insight that they could be staking on.
I think in your claim that is the "tolerate the volatility in the interim" part. Stating this implies that you think that the volatility is going to be higher than the market expects (as otherwise the statement wouldn't contain new information, i.e. it wouldn't be worth stating) so that means you should be willing to take a straddle position to profit from this assumed volatility, as long as the costs associated with assuming such a position are less than the expected profit. If this isn't true, then you may want to aeconsider whether you actually believe that the volatility is going to be high enough to be worth considering.
Now I suppose there are further meta levels, where one can ask and advise to consider the possibility that volatility might be high, even if one doesn't actually regard the chance of volatility to be high themselves. But for that to be a true neutral claim, one should also ask to consider the chance of unexpectedly low probability. So to say "before you short, consider that volatility might be high" is itself a pro-volatility claim, mildly disguised as a hypothetical.
I hope I'm not coming off as too contentious. My principal point is this: any statement reflects underlying sentiments about what's expected to happen, made because those stated expectations deviate from what is commonly understood to happen. That is "delta", which can be monetised if large enough.