Does it even make sense to say "won't" [...] in reference to causality violation?
Yes. (Leave out the anthropics, when that makes sense to bring up is complicated.)
Most of the reason for saying:
If there are ways to violate causality they are likely restrictive enough that we can't use them to violate causality prior to when we knew about the methods (roughly).
... are somewhat related to "causality doesn't appear to be violated". If (counterfactually) causality can be violated then it seems like it probably hasn't happened yet. This makes it a lot more likely that causality violations (like wormholes and magic) that are discovered in the future will not affect things before their discovery. This includes the set of (im)possible worlds in which prior-to-the-magic times cannot be interfered with and also some other (im)possible worlds in which it is possible but doesn't happen because it is hard.
An example would be faster-than-light neutrinos. It would be really damn hard to influence the past significantly with such neutrinos with nothing set up to catch them. It would be much easier to set up a machine to receive messages from the future.
It may be worth noting that "causality violation" does not imply "complete causality meltdown". The latter would definitely make "won't" rather useless.
... "causality doesn't appear to be violated"
Well, it's just... how could you tell? I mean, maybe the angel that told Colombo to sail west was a time-travelling hologram sent to avert the Tlaxcalan conquest of Europe.
An example would be faster-than-light neutrinos. It would be really damn hard to influence the past significantly with such neutrinos with nothing set up to catch them.
Well yes, I understand you probably couldn't use faster-than-light neutrinos from the future (FTLNFTFs) to effect changes in the year 1470 any more easily or pr...
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v1
http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2169
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3027056
Perhaps the end of the era of the light cone and beginning of the era of the neutrino cone? I'd be curious to see your probability estimates for whether this theory pans out. Or other crackpot hypotheses to explain the results.