Yes Indeed, Words Can Kill

 

Or better put, “words” can motivate and justify all kinds of violence, from civil unrest to extermination of entire segments of society. Hitler’s genocide and Stalin’s pogroms are clear examples. But lest we believe that “it can’t happen here,” the escalation of mass shootings against Jews, African Americans, Asians, Muslims and the LGBQT+ community scream otherwise. Clever politicians use “buzzwords” to deflect liability and responsibility. Not so clearly defined “woke” has become a dog whistle for White Christian nationalism, but it can mean a lighter “activism against social injustice” as well. Allusions to activist and philanthropist George Soros have become clearly associated with antisemitism… even when there is no tangible link to him.

In earlier eras, torrid speeches, often recorded in some medium and replayed, books espousing violence (from Hitler’s Mein Kampf – meaning “my struggle” to Mao’s little red book), pamphlets and stories in biased print media, and even motion pictures (the 1916 American film, Birth of a Nation, resurrected the KKK) fueled hatred and allowed brutal dictators to come to power. And then came the Internet, linking small pockets of extremists, even lone wolves, with others sharing their beliefs. Today, there really are virtually no lone wolves. They are linked together.

With top political leaders embracing loud bigotry and personal insults, legitimizing and justifying violence, the Web became an amplifier of anger and hatred. With that undercurrent, social media became the great influencer, the megaphone of justifying violence, a profound society-destroyer hiding under a very distorted view of the First and Second Amendments. We sit on the edge of a possible civil war, teetering under a government that is so polarized, population segments at each other’s throat, that we do not seem to be able to govern. Even as little children are mowed down by mass shooters legally carrying assault rifles, red states are tripping over themselves to make gun ownership and open carry easier. Florida just jointed the ranks of states with permitless open carry rights.

Social scientists, using artificial intelligence to track verbiage within social media, have proved a direct correlation between the rise of hard-right social media to incidents of political violence and civil unrest; violence is not happening in a vacuum. One such study, reported by Mike Cummings in the March 31st Yale News, presents the numbers… and what should concern us all: “An increase in social media activity on ‘hard-right’ platforms — those that purport to represent viewpoints not welcome on ‘mainstream’ platforms — contributes to rightwing civil unrest in the United States, according to a new study led by Yale sociologist Daniel Karell.

“In an analysis of data from hard-right social media activity and incidents of civil unrest that occurred ‘offline’ nationally between January 2020 and January 2021, the researchers found that a 10% increase in hard-right social media activity predicts a .04% increase in the number of hard-right civil unrest events during the following month.” Some those seemingly small numbers produce dead or severely injured bodies, torched buildings and even mass shootings.

Cummings continues: “The researchers define ‘hard-right social media’ similarly to platforms and websites commonly known as ‘alt-tech.’ Like alt-tech platforms, hard-right social media platforms claim to support viewpoints unwelcome on mainstream platforms or within the corporations that operate them. But they differ from other alt-tech platforms in two ways. First, while they often describe themselves as open forums dedicated to free speech, they are all but exclusively used by political conservatives, the researchers explained. Second, they have a strong focus on financial gain and profit, whereas a lot of alt-tech — at least in its early generation — eschewed profit-making.

“They describe social media platforms that have these two features as ‘hard-right’ rather than ‘extreme right’, ‘far-right’, or ‘right-wing’ because most of the content posted on them aligns with mainstream conservative views. Instead, ‘hard-right’ is meant to emphasize that the majority of platforms’ content is socially and politically conservative but also obstinately opposed to compromise with the political left and center.

“The analysis drew on multiple data sources. They acquired records of civil unrest events related to hard-right groups that occurred across the United States during the period studied compiled by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project, a non-governmental initiative that collects data on political violence and protest in 100 countries, and the Crowd Counting Consortium, a scholarly project that documents contentious events across the United States. They also accessed a database of all activity on the hard-right social media platform Parler in 2020, which included reliable information about users’ location. They created a database of tens of thousands of videos Parler users created and shared on the platform during 2020 and early 2021…

“‘The magnitude of the effect we found is modest but two characteristics of social media and civil unrest caution against dismissing it,’ said Karell, assistant professor of sociology in Yale’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the study’s lead author. ‘First, hard-right social media platforms are easy to join, increasingly popular, and attracting more than a billion dollars in investment, meaning activity on them could grow rapidly. Second, as demonstrated by the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, a single incident of hard-right civil unrest can be very consequential.’

“A secondary analysis showed evidence that activity on hard-right social media shifts users’ perceptions of social norms in a way that aligns with their previously held views, especially when users see their own speech being echoed in the rhetoric of hard-right ‘elites’ on social media — prominent pundits, celebrities, and politicians whose content is amplified by the platforms. This change in understanding of social norms makes users more likely to engage in contentious activity once considered taboo.” In short, these “words” resonate with those with strong, bigoted biases and provide justification for violent acts. They explain away hate crimes with a litany of conspiracy theories and provide vindication for violent responses. The result is greater polarization, fewer movements in legislative bodies to benefit the majority of people, and requiring people to choose sides rather than find a middle ground.

I’m Peter Dekom, and we can hide behind that distorted view of the First and Second Amendment – the equivalent of condoning people yelling “fire” in a crowded theater – or we could allow common sense to regain its proper place in American society.