People have been trying to understand the catalysts of human behavior, especially violent behavior, for thousands of years. In this review, we focus on how speech, especially public, often online speech, can inspire civilians of one group to attack civilians of another or create an atmosphere in which such violence is encouraged.
Read MoreEarlier this week, Twitter announced a new rule against language that dehumanizes others on the basis of religion. This change is a step in the right direction, but in order to truly mitigate offline harms, the company must define dehumanizing speech by its likely effect on others in addition to the literal content of the speech.
Read MoreChina’s clampdown on Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslims is shrouded in secrecy – but government documents, testimonies from detained Uyghurs, and officials’ Dangerous Speech reveal a disturbing picture of human rights abuses.
Read MorePresident Donald Trump has routinely used dehumanizing rhetoric, like “dog” and “animal,” to describe people – especially people of color. These words must not be brushed off; they bear the weight of centuries of racist horror.
Read MoreBy referring to immigrants who “pour into and infest our Country,” President Trump has invoked a malevolent vocabulary – one which has striking similarities to rhetoric which has preceded episodes of intergroup violence.
Read MoreDr. Anna Szilagyi describes how dehumanizing rhetoric – a key hallmark of Dangerous Speech – affects our thoughts and perceptions, making violence more acceptable.
Read More