Hostile, Inflammatory Language and Behavior

3. Factors That Make Conflict Intractable

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

Hostile, inflammatory language and behavior* are words or actions that demean, humiliate, threaten, dehumanize, or delegitimize other people or groups. In ordinary conflict, people argue about policies, values, interests, and facts. In escalated conflict, they increasingly attack the character, identity, motives, patriotism, intelligence, or humanity of their opponents. The result is that disagreement becomes contempt, and political competition begins to feel like a struggle against an enemy who must be defeated, rather than a fellow citizen who must be persuaded or accommodated.

This kind of language makes conflicts worse because it changes how people understand both themselves and the other side. If opponents are described as “vermin,” “garbage,” “fascists,” “communists,” “traitors,” “racists,” “terrorists,” or “enemies of the people,” then ordinary compromise begins to look immoral. Listening becomes naïve. Procedural fairness looks like weakness. Restraint looks like betrayal. The more people are encouraged to see the other side as dangerous, disgusting, or fundamentally illegitimate, the easier it becomes to justify retaliation, exclusion, censorship, intimidation, violence, or even genocide in the worst cases.

Recent U.S. politics offers many examples. On the right, Donald Trump has repeatedly used inflammatory and dehumanizing language, including saying that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” calling some political opponents “vermin,” and using harsh terms such as “animals” or “criminals” for groups of migrants. Such language alarms many people not simply because it is insulting, but because dehumanizing language has historically been used to make harsh treatment of targeted groups seem acceptable.(It was often noted that Rwandan Tutsis were repeatedly referred to as "vermin," and "cockroaches" before the Rwandan genocide.) It can also deepen fear among supporters by portraying politics as a fight against an internal enemy rather than a debate over policy.

There are also examples from the left and Democratic side. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 “basket of deplorables” comment became a lasting symbol, for many conservatives, of elite contempt toward ordinary Trump voters. More recently, President Biden’s 2024 “garbage” comment — which he later said was aimed at hateful rhetoric at a Trump rally, rather than Trump supporters generally — was widely heard by Republicans as another example of Democrats insulting their voters. Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2024 statement that Trump “is a fascist” was grounded, in her view, in serious concerns raised by former Trump officials; but such labels can still escalate conflict when they are heard by millions of voters as an attack on them and not just on a leader’s behavior.

The problem is not that citizens should avoid strong criticism. Democracies require vigorous debate, moral judgment, and the ability to call out genuinely dangerous behavior. The challenge is to criticize actions, policies, and threats without needlessly demeaning whole populations of people. Constructive conflict requires language that is clear, but not contemptuous, firm but not dehumanizing, and honest about danger without treating every opponent as beyond redemption. Societies can survive sharp disagreement; they have a much harder time surviving when each side is taught to believe that the other side is evil, subhuman, or unfit to share power.

——————

This essay was written by ChatGPT, and reviewed, lightly edited, and approved by Heidi Burgess. The prompt we gave ChatGPT was: "Now please write an introductory essay on hostile, inflammatory language and behavior, explaining what it is, and what problems it causes--with real world examples. (Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" comment is one example, but it is old now--can you come up with some newer examples--from both sides?")

ChatGPT's source notes were as follows: BI’s Guide description for this topic says that “calling the other side names, demeaning and humiliating them, or accusing them of being the source of shared problems almost always makes conflicts worse,” and it places hostile language under escalation and conflict “overlay” problems. BI’s escalation essay also describes how escalating conflicts move from specific issues toward generalized distrust and hatred, with heavier tactics and increasingly destructive goals.

For the broader social-science basis, Finkel and colleagues’ Science article on “political sectarianism” defines the problem as a combination of othering, aversion, and moralization that threatens democracy. That framing supports the essay’s point that hostile language changes opponents from people to be argued with into enemies to be defeated.

For recent right-leaning examples, Reuters reported Trump’s “poisoning the blood” remarks about undocumented immigrants, and another Reuters analysis summarized inflammatory 2024 campaign language including “bloodbath,” “vermin,” and “animals.” ABC news also reported historians’ concern about Trump’s “vermin” language and its authoritarian echoes.

For recent left/Democratic examples, Reuters and AP covered Biden’s 2024 “garbage” controversy and the subsequent dispute over the White House transcript. AP also reported Harris’s 2024 statement that Trump “is a fascist,” while noting that experts differ on how the term should be applied. Reuters covered Biden’s earlier “semi-fascism” remarks about MAGA-aligned Republicans.