Defusing Hate: A Strategic Communication Guide to Counteract Dangerous Speech

A link to hundreds of pages, and no short summary?

"Dangerous speech" could easily become a weapon to attack and surpress views you don't like.

This has already happened with "Hate speech" and "Fake news".

Without getting into your specific examples, your statement doesn't seem to contradict my point.

Any term used to describe speech that is untrue, misleading, generally morally shitty or some combination of the three can and will be misapplied to shut down argument or signal team-loyalty. How would that not also be true of a new term like "dangerous speech"? And if "dangerous speech" is also susceptible to the same sort of misuse, where is the extra value that would make it useful as a new term?

Which is exactly why I didn't read it - and I'm not saying I'm going to read it either. I'm just saying that it's a neat example of how debating the terminology is, in many situations, the low-hanging fruit. I know it's mentioned in the Sequences, though I can't remember where. Debating the content of the argument is harder and, I find, quite often means reading a lot of boring things like white papers and scientific studies and reports to commissions nobody's ever heard of. That comes up in political discussions all the time.

(Though speaking of terminology, I think we should throw things at morganism for posting a link to a 166-page "strategic communication guide" and calling it an "article".)

I would like to see a credible citation on the 'no go zones'. The best I can find are articles linking such evidence as:

• one constable… talking about different, unspecified jurisdictions.
• videos of large numbers of muslims praying (peacefully) in the streets.. I can imagine additional context that could make that either seem or actually be threatening, but with no specific context and in a language I don't know, it doesn't seem so.
• some sites (allegedly; I will presume for now that they are real) by people who have stated this as their aim. I note that there is no particular shortage of assholes who talk a big game, especially in propaganda arms.

This seems like the kind of thing that, if real, would leave a fatter trail of evidence.

from this article

"“She is one of the highest performing Fellows we have ever had and her subsequent trajectory speaks volumes of her talent and commitment to positive global change,” says Leetha Filderman, PopTech’s president, in an email.

Brent Decker, chief program officer for Cure Violence, an international peace initiative hosted by the University of Illinois at Chicago, collaborated with Brown on her project in Kenya. “I walked away from our engagement just being totally impressed. Just ‘wow,’ ” he says. “I felt we were lucky to be part of the partnership because it also shifted a lot of our thinking.... She was amazing.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/2017/0112/How-can-dangerous-speech-be-neutralized-This-woman-has-some-ideas

from the Holocaust Memorial group, author did a stint in Kenya before the 2013 elections, where it was very "hot".

"Genocide and mass atrocities are commonly preceded and accompanied by “dangerous speech”—hate speech that has the potential to influence people to accept, condone, or commit violence against targeted groups. Dangerous speech is consequently considered both a warning sign and an instrument of group-targeted violence. Counteracting its dissemination provides us with one avenue for preventing this type of violence from occurring."