This split in reaction is also evident in case studies of hate speech. The typical reaction of target-group members to an incident of racists propaganda is alarm and immediate calls for redress. The typical reaction of non-members is to consider the incidents isolated pranks, the product of sick but harmless minds. This is in part a defensive reaction: A refusal to believe that real people, people just like us, are racists. This disassociation leads logically to the claim that there is no institutional or state responsibility to respond to the incident. It is not the kind of real and pervasive threat that requires the state’s power to quell.

Matsuda, Mari J. “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story.” In: Matsuda et. al. Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, And The First Amendment. Westview Press, 1993. 20

The same could be said/applied to sexist incidents and misogynist hate speech. The backlash about the #Aufschrei-discussion of everyday sexism in Germany is just one current example. The appeasing responses by ‘non target-group members’ came from Internet trolls, journalists and even the German President. The described reactions can also be witnessed in the case of KKK and other racists depictions at Oberlin.

%d bloggers like this: