Recognize Harmful Rhetoric Online, Reduce Risk, and Protect Your Mental Health

Therapy is Political
Written By Jenevra Owen

Have you ever wondered why some public rhetoric feels so dangerous, or why the comments make your body practically go into fight -or-flight? Some of it may be from what is called stochastic terrorism. Understanding it can help you protect your nervous system, set smart media boundaries, and decide when (and how) to intervene.

What is “stochastic terrorism”?

Stochastic terrorism describes a pattern where influential people or outlets use broad, hostile rhetoric that statistically increases the likelihood that some audience members will commit violence, even though no direct order is given and any specific act is unpredictable. Researchers have described it as “the use of mass media to provoke random acts of ideologically motivated violence that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.” (Max Plank Institute)

You’ll also hear the related term dangerous speech, which is any expression (speech, text, images) that raises the risk that audiences will condone or commit violence against a group. It focuses on risk amplification (not simple cause-and-effect), which fits what we see online: repetition, dehumanizing metaphors, and “jokes” that normalize harm.

A few notes for clarity:

  • Stochastic terrorism is not a legal charge; it is an analytic framework used in security, media, and social-psychology research to explain how rhetoric primes violence while preserving plausible deniability for speakers. The concept is discussed and critiqued in recent scholarship. So it is useful, but still debated. (Taylor & Francis Online)

How it works (in people and platforms)

Harm-priming rhetoric often uses recognizable moves:

  • Dehumanization is the act or process of regarding or treating people as “less than” human, denying them the qualities that place someone within our circle of moral concern. In practice, it often shows up as language or imagery that likens a person or group to animals, diseases, dirt, or objects (e.g., “vermin,” “plague,” “infestation”), making mistreatment feel thinkable, reasonable, or even necessary. Researchers who study harmful rhetoric flag dehumanization as a core hallmark of “dangerous speech,” because it reliably lowers empathy and increases acceptance of violence against the targeted group.

    Scholars describe two common patterns: animalistic dehumanization, which strips people of uniquely human traits (culture, civility, rationality) and casts them as animal-like, and mechanistic dehumanization, which denies human nature (warmth, emotion, individuality) and treats people like tools or machines. Both patterns function as mechanisms of moral disengagement, which loosens normal restraints against harming others by reframing the target as unworthy of care. These dynamics are well documented across contexts, from everyday prejudice to mass violence. (Dangerous Speech Project)

  • Dog whistles are coded or suggestive words, phrases, or frames used in public messaging (especially politics and media) that sound ordinary to most listeners but carry a second, sharper meaning for a specific in-group, allowing the speaker to mobilize prejudice or allegiance while maintaining plausible deniability. The term borrows from ultrasonic dog whistles (audible to some, unnoticed by others) and describes language that appears neutral yet signals something specific to intended audiences. For example, appeals that a targeted group recognizes as racialized or exclusionary even when those elements are not stated outright.

  • Algorithmic amplification. Recommendation systems can push sensational, polarizing content, sometimes steering users toward increasingly extreme material, even when content skirts platform rules. Evidence here is nuanced (and evolving), but reviews show patterns of exposure and borderline content that create fertile ground for radicalization. (PubMed)

  • Online → offline spillover. Studies analyzing specific events have linked leaders’ online rhetoric to surges in violent behavior and coordination. (Northwestern Now)

Where you are likely to see it

In media and feeds

Segments or podcasts with dehumanizing, “invasion,” or “purity/contamination” frames

  • What it looks like: A host describes a group as “vermin,” “a plague,” or an “invasion,” or claims the group is “corrupting our children” or “defiling our values.” Sometimes it flips to accusation in a mirror: “They’re planning to hurt us, so we have to defend ourselves first.” These are hallmark risk signals of dangerous speech because they lower empathy and justify pre-emptive harm.

  • Why it matters: Repetition normalizes the frame; audience members don’t need explicit instructions to feel “authorized” to act.

  • What to try: Name the tactic (“this uses a dehumanizing metaphor”), step away from outrage-sharing, and point to higher-quality coverage if you choose to engage.

Memes and short videos that hide hostility behind “jokes” or “satire”

  • What it looks like: A looping video or meme caricatures a group as dirty animals or dangerous “others,” captioned “just joking.” Humor provides plausible deniability while seeding the same narratives. Courts and scholars note that hate can be cloaked in humor and still carry harm. Media researchers also show how “attention economies” can amplify such content. Referring to incentives of advertising-driven companies to maximize the time and attention their users give to their product/ brand. (Laughing Matters)

  • Why it matters: “It’s just a joke” discourages pushback and accelerates sharing.

  • What to try: Avoid quote-tweeting (which boosts reach). If you need to discuss it, screenshot and share in safer spaces with context about why it is harmful. (Data & Society)

Online communities and comment sections

Brigading (coordinated swarms)

  • What it looks like: Within minutes, dozens or hundreds of accounts, often new or unfamiliar, flood a post with the same talking points, mass-report your account, or downvote in lockstep to bury your content. That false “everyone agrees” vibe is the point. It is a coordinated harassment/manipulation tactic.

  • Why it matters: It silences targets and deters bystanders from speaking.

  • What to try: Lock replies or follower-only replies, document with screenshots, and report patterns rather than single comments. Consider moving the conversation to a moderated space you control.

Astroturfing (fake “grassroots” consensus)

  • What it looks like: A flood of comments from seemingly different “local parents” or “concerned residents” accounts using nearly identical phrasing, links, and timing. The tactic hides sponsors or coordination to simulate widespread support or outrage.

  • Why it matters: Readers mistake a manufactured narrative for genuine public opinion, which can sway decisions and media coverage.

  • What to try: Check account histories, creation dates, and cross-posted scripts; ask “Who funds/hosts this?” and look for independent coverage before engaging.

Sealioning (performative “just asking questions”)

  • What it looks like: One or more users pepper you with polite-sounding, repetitive questions (“I’m just trying to understand…”) while ignoring sources you already provided and shifting the goalposts. Dictionaries describe it as disingenuous, relentless demands for debate that aim to exhaust you.

  • Why it matters: It drains time/energy, pushes you toward dysregulation, and derails the thread for observers.

  • What to try (script): “I’ve shared sources above and won’t keep revisiting this. Thanks.” Then mute/block. You are allowed to conserve your nervous system, and constantly engaging with a disingenuous “debater” is never going to lead to a positive ending point.

Doxxing threats (exposing private info)

  • What it looks like: Comments that post or hint at your home/work address, phone, family details, or travel plans (“we know where you work”). Even a threat to expose can be chilling. Digital-rights orgs recommend minimizing your public data and taking specific steps to document and report.

  • Why it matters: It escalates from speech risk to personal safety risk.

  • What to try: Screenshot with URLs/timestamps; save to a secure folder; report to the platform; consider contacting local authorities if there’s a specific, time-bound threat. Then tighten your digital footprint (remove exposed info, adjust privacy settings).

A quick note for survivors of high-demand groups

If “purity,” “contamination,” “apostate/traitor,” or “invasion” language spikes your body into fight-or-flight, that is a natural survival response to known danger signals. It is valid to log off, seek co-regulation with safe people, and re-enter only with boundaries in place. The Dangerous Speech hallmarks list can help you label what you are seeing quickly and step away.

Why your body reacts (and why that reaction is wise)

  1. Your brain is a prediction machine scanning for danger, mostly outside of awareness.
    When posts, clips, or headlines frame a group as “contaminating,” “invading,” or “violent,” your brain flags that as important and shifts you into high alert. Your brain coordinates with threat circuits (including the amygdala) to prepare you to act before you have had time to reason it through. That is efficient, not “oversensitive.” (PubMed)

  2. Dehumanizing language changes how we process other people.
    Neuroscience studies show that when targets are portrayed as less than human, regions linked to social understanding (like medial prefrontal cortex) quiet down, while areas tied to disgust and threat fire more. Your body reads this as “proceed with caution,” which can feel like dread, tension, or anger. (PubMed)

  3. Uncertainty and loss of control crank up anxiety.
    Stochastic dynamics are, by design, unpredictable, with no explicit commands, no clear endpoint. Uncertainty is a magnet for anxiety systems: when you can’t tell if or when harm might occur, vigilance stays high and is harder to shut off. We have decades of research linking uncertainty (and feeling you can’t influence outcomes) to stronger and more persistent stress responses. (PubMed)

  4. Repetition + moral outrage = sustained arousal.
    Platforms reward posts with moral-emotional punch. Moralized, negative content spreads further and faster, which means your nervous system is repeatedly cued by “this is dangerous!” signals. Over time, social reinforcement (likes, shares) teaches people to post more outrage, so your feed can become a steady drip of alarm cues. Your body reacts accordingly. (PNAS)

  5. The stress cascade is a whole-body event.
    Once “threat” is tagged, the sympathetic nervous system mobilizes: heart rate and breathing change, muscles brace, glucose floods the bloodstream, and stress hormones (like cortisol) rise. This is adaptive in short bursts, but with constant exposure, it is exhausting. You might notice headaches, GI flares, irritability, shallow breathing, or sleep disruption.

  6. Fight/flight is not the only normal response: freeze is, too.
    If your system reads “I can’t fight this and I can’t escape,” it may default to freezing, where slowing or stopping movement, spacing out, or going numb (sometimes with a drop in heart rate and “shut down” feelings). That is a protective reflex seen across species, not a failure of willpower.

  7. Why it lingers after you log off: fear generalization.
    Threat learning is sticky on purpose. Once a pattern feels dangerous (certain phrases, images, or symbols), the brain can generalize, reacting to new things that resemble the original cues. So similar headlines or memes can trigger the same spike, even if the context differs.

  8. Why constant viewing can feel worse than one bad moment.
    Studies of real-world events show that heavy media exposure to violent or traumatic news can elicit more acute stress than limited direct exposure for some people. While some may assume that means you are “too online,” it is actually about cumulative activation without resolution. This means what you view matters, how much you view/hear traumatic content matters, and how you regulate yourself matters. (PubMed)

What to do: personally, with loved ones, and in community

1) Practice critical ignoring (not everything deserves your attention)

It is not just “think critically”; it is about choosing what to ignore to protect limited attention and regulate your body. Practical skills include muting/blocking, unfollowing outrage-bait accounts, and leaving hostile threads. This is a validated digital-literacy strategy. (SAGE Journals)

  • Before opening an app, set an intention (“I’m here to check messages for 10 minutes”).

  • Create a list of accounts that inform without sensationalizing.

  • Default to not quote-tweeting harmful posts; screenshare to discuss without boosting. Guidance from humane-tech groups can help you design healthier defaults. (Center for Humane Technology)

2) Use SIFT to vet what you see

A quick four-move method: Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claims to originals. It keeps you from being pulled into manipulative frames. (Pressbooks)

3) “Prebunk” with inoculation

Brief, proactive education about common manipulation tropes (scapegoating, false dilemmas, fake experts) builds resistance to future disinformation. (Misinformation Review)

4) Set comment-section boundaries

  • Don’t feed brigades. If a thread is swarmed, disengage and move the convo to safer spaces you moderate. Document patterns.

  • Report, block, limit replies. Most platforms have tools; use them early. (Mass-reporting and brigading are known tactics, don’t mistake that for consensus.)

  • Adopt community rules that prohibit dehumanization and “accusation in a mirror” narratives. Share a short rationale and link to resources.

5) Protect targets and yourself

  • If doxxing or credible threats appear: screenshot with URLs/timestamps, save to a secure folder, report to the platform, and if there is specific, time-bound threat, contact local authorities.

  • Nervous-system care: plan “aftercare” after exposure; movement, breathwork, a check-in with a supportive person, and time away from screens. While this does not change the the sources that are causing harm, regulating your mind and body as much as possible is going to help you.

  • Media breaks are protective, not avoidance. Build structured check-in windows (e.g., 20 minutes morning/evening).

6) When (and how) to speak up

  • Name the tactic, not the person. “This post uses a dehumanizing frame that research links to higher risk of violence, here’s a better source.” Then link out.

  • Model safer norms. Replace “their filth/evil” narratives with precise, behavior-focused language.

  • Move from public brawls to private bridges. If someone is reachable, try a DM with curiosity and a reputable link (SIFT first).

  • Know your limits. If your heart rate spikes or you’re spiraling, step back. Your wellbeing matters more than winning a thread.

For people leaving controlling groups

  • Expect old alarm bells to ring when you hear purity, contamination, or betrayal language. That doesn’t mean you’re “weak”; it means your body learned to stay safe.

  • Curate an online environment aligned with your values: education, nuance, consent, and repair.

  • Build a tiny team (friends/family) you can text when something online spikes your anxiety. Plan responses before a flare-up (scripts, block/mute settings, what you’ll do in the next 30 minutes).

Quick checklist you can Use

  • Name three hallmarks of dangerous speech (dehumanization, accusation-in-a-mirror, “joking” calls to harm).

  • Use SIFT when a post spike adrenalin.

  • Practice critical ignoring (mute, block, unfollow; no quote-tweeting outrage).

  • Know how to document/report doxxing or threats.

  • Have a “aftercare” plan post-exposure.

Disclaimer:

⚠️ The content on this blog is intended for informational and educational purposes ONLY and should NOT be considered a substitute for personal professional mental health care, diagnosis, or treatment. Reading these posts does not establish a therapeutic relationship.

If you are currently in crisis, experiencing thoughts of harming yourself or others, or are in need of immediate support, please call 911 or contact a crisis line such as the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 (U.S.) or access your local emergency services.

These blog posts are written to explore topics like trauma, religious deconstruction, cults, identity development, and mental wellness in a thoughtful and compassionate way. They may (or may not) resonate deeply, especially for those healing from complex trauma, but they are NOT meant to replace individualized therapy or medical care.

Jenevra Owen

Next

When Religion Replaces Parenting: Attachment Wounds Beneath Spiritual Obedience