Opposing Fear and Hatemongering

6. Civic Knowledge and Skills

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

June 26, 2026

Fear and hatemongering are among the most powerful tools for escalating conflict. They work by persuading people that their opponents are not merely wrong, but dangerous, evil, and beyond the reach of ordinary democratic negotiation. Once people believe that the other side intends to harm them, it becomes much easier to justify cruelty, exclusion, repression, or even violence. This is why fear-based appeals are so attractive to bad-faith actors. They can mobilize supporters quickly by making politics feel like self-defense.

Opposing fear and hatemongering does not mean pretending that all fears are baseless. Some groups really have been threatened, excluded, or harmed. Some policies really do create serious risks. The task is to distinguish legitimate concern from manipulative demonization. The Dangerous Speech Project defines dangerous speech as expression that increases the risk that an audience will condone or participate in violence against another group. This kind of speech often portrays the target group as a mortal threat, a disease, an invader, or a criminal force that cannot be reasoned with. Such language narrows the moral imagination until harming others begins to feel necessary.

Resistance begins with naming the tactic without amplifying it. Citizens, journalists, educators, and civic leaders can point out when a message is trying to make people afraid of an entire group rather than evaluating specific behavior or policy. They can ask for evidence, challenge exaggerated threat claims, and insist on ordinary standards of fairness. The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech stresses that addressing hate speech should not be confused with suppressing free expression. In a democracy, the better response is usually more honest speech: careful correction, humanizing stories, credible messengers, and firm public refusal to treat whole groups as enemies.

Organizations can also build social defenses before hate campaigns take hold. Communities need trusted channels through which rumors can be checked quickly. Schools, faith communities, local media, and civic organizations can teach people to recognize dehumanizing language and scapegoating. Political leaders can set norms by refusing to benefit from fear-based attacks, even when those attacks help their own side. Susan Benesch’s work on countering dangerous speech emphasizes that counterspeech is most effective when it comes from people the target audience already trusts. Outsiders may be dismissed, but respected insiders can sometimes slow escalation.

For constructive conflict, the goal is not to eliminate strong criticism or moral judgment. Democracies need room for anger, protest, and hard truth-telling. But they also need citizens who can oppose harmful actions without turning opponents into monsters. Cross-partisan and intergroup efforts, such as Braver Angels’ depolarization work, try to help people criticize without stereotyping or contempt. That distinction is crucial. Fear and hate make democratic conflict feel like war. Resisting them keeps open the possibility that people can protect themselves, defend their values, and still recognize the humanity and legitimate concerns of those with whom they deeply disagree.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.