1. Overview: What Name-Calling Is

Words are meant to reveal truth, but too often they’re used to replace it.

Name-calling is one of the oldest tricks in the rhetorical arsenal—disarm the opponent, distort their image, and declare victory before the argument even begins. It’s a psychological shortcut dressed up as moral certainty.

At its core, name-calling belongs to the ad hominem family of fallacies—attacks aimed not at ideas, but at the people who hold them (Engel, 2022; Walton, 2008). Instead of testing a claim against evidence, it collapses discourse into emotion and identity. Once the label sticks, reason is no longer necessary; the crowd does the rest.

Calling someone a “Nazi,” “fascist,” “racist,” “groomer,” or “terrorist” doesn’t clarify truth—it anchors perception. These are linguistic landmines: one step on the wrong side of them, and rational exchange explodes into outrage. They work not because they’re accurate, but because they’re efficient. They activate emotion faster than analysis can respond.

Rhetorically, name-calling operates like a virus—it infects both speaker and audience. Once released, it spreads through repetition and emotional contagion, mutating to fit whatever ideological body it enters. In this way, it becomes a form of propaganda-by-proxy, requiring no central control, only participation. Each person who repeats the insult becomes both carrier and vector.

The psychologist Daniel Kahneman observed that our minds are lazy thinkers—they prefer System 1 (fast, emotional, intuitive) over System 2 (slow, rational, reflective). Name-calling is built for System 1. It offers the illusion of understanding without the burden of thought.

And this is where the danger lies. When a label replaces analysis, when a word becomes a weapon rather than a tool, language itself ceases to serve truth. It serves power.

Somewhere in the vast sprawl of our public conversation, we lost the map. Words that once described have become words that divide. Those who control the language begin to control the mind—not by force, but by framing.

“I aim to misbehave.”

That’s the calling for those who still believe words matter: to misbehave against linguistic tyranny, to resist the seduction of easy labels, and to reclaim language as the instrument of truth rather than tribalism.

2. Psychological Mechanisms at Work

a. In-Group / Out-Group Tribalism

We are social creatures, wired to belong. According to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), a part of our self-worth comes from group membership. The moment we define an us, an opposing them is born. That boundary, meant to orient identity, easily mutates into a moral frontier—where those on the other side cease to be neighbors and become narratives.

Tribal identity simplifies the world. It offers belonging, moral clarity, and purpose—all precious psychological rewards. But the same mechanism that binds a unit together in battle can tear a society apart in peace. When disagreement threatens the tribe’s cohesion, loyalty eclipses curiosity. The opponent stops being someone with a perspective and becomes someone with a problem.

In today’s discourse, the transformation happens almost instantly. Words like Nazi, fascist, groomer, or terrorist aren’t used to describe; they’re used to divide. Each label compresses complexity into a moral absolute: good versus evil, safety versus corruption, civilization versus chaos. Once spoken, the label functions like a tribal password—signal recognition to allies, a warning to outsiders.

“Once you label me, you negate me.” — widely attributed to Søren Kierkegaard

The first step toward violence is not the weapon but the word. “Us versus them” rhetoric erodes the baseline of mutual respect that makes disagreement survivable. When public figures—on any side—frame opponents as less than human or agents of evil, they license followers to treat them accordingly. History offers grim confirmation: the Nazi regime could not have built camps without first building categories.

Dehumanization rarely announces itself. It begins with ordinary language—sarcasm, ridicule, suspicion of motives. “They’re not just wrong; they’re dangerous.” Repeated often enough, the accusation hardens into identity. From there, moral restraint collapses. Violence no longer feels like a violation of conscience; it feels like obedience to it.

The tragic irony is that every tribe believes it is the moral one. Each sees its hostility as self-defense, its aggression as righteousness. The rhetoric of virtue cloaks the reality of fear. And fear, when shared collectively, forges the most unbreakable bonds—and the most unforgiving conflicts.

The antidote begins with awareness. Anytime language defines another person as subhuman or unworthy of empathy, a red flag should rise in the mind. The moment we feel the satisfaction of scorn, we should pause and ask: Am I defending truth, or just my tribe?

“The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Recognizing that line—and refusing to outsource it to a slogan—is the first act of resistance against the machinery of dehumanization.

b. Implicit Bias and Emotional Contagion

Our judgments are not as deliberate as we like to think. Most of what we call “opinion” is automatic—a reflex shaped by hidden associations and reinforced by repetition. According to Brownstein (2025) in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, implicit biases are attitudes that operate below conscious awareness, influencing perception and behavior even when we sincerely believe we’re being fair.

Name-calling feeds those biases. Once a label is applied—racist, traitor, terrorist, groomer—confirmation bias ensures that everything a person does afterward is filtered through that label. The word becomes a lens, and every action seems to prove the caricature correct. It feels like discernment, but it’s actually distortion.

Our brains also synchronize emotionally. Psychologists call it emotional contagion—the automatic mirroring of another’s mood or outrage. Neuroscience shows that the same circuits that allow empathy can also amplify hostility. In the social-media age, this contagion is supercharged by algorithms that reward intensity. Outrage travels faster than understanding because it’s profitable. Anger keeps eyes on screens and fingers on keys.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

This is how echo chambers form: the more we feel, the less we think. A single inflammatory post can ripple through millions of minds, triggering cascades of righteous certainty. When that certainty collides with fear, it becomes fertile soil for conspiracy thinking—the belief that unseen enemies are orchestrating events behind the scenes. The pattern is ancient. Every regime of persecution, from medieval witch hunts to modern extremist movements, has relied on the same psychological recipe: fear, rumor, and repetition.

The mechanism is seductively simple. Suspicion replaces evidence. Motive replaces fact. Each accusation recruits a new believer, and belief spreads faster than truth can catch up. It is, as one researcher put it, “social proof on fire.”

But we are not powerless. The first step in resisting emotional contagion is to pause before sharing, liking, or reacting. Ask, Is this outrage borrowed? When emotion arrives pre-packaged with a target, it’s rarely truth that’s being served—it’s influence.

When we slow down, we reclaim agency. We remember that not every story of evil intent is evidence of a grand design; sometimes it’s just human imperfection, miscommunication, or fear. In that humility, empathy can breathe again.

c. Cognitive Shortcuts and Lazy Thinking

The human mind prizes speed over accuracy. From an evolutionary standpoint, quick judgments kept our ancestors alive; hesitation could get them eaten. But in modern discourse, those same shortcuts—what psychologists call heuristics—turn intellectual laziness into moral danger.

The affective heuristic tempts us to judge ideas by how they make us feel rather than by what is true. If a statement offends our values, we dismiss it; if it flatters our side, we accept it. Truth becomes an accessory to emotion. The fundamental attribution error compounds the problem: we explain our own behavior through circumstances but interpret others’ behavior as evidence of character. “I’m misunderstood,” we say, “but they’re malicious.”

Name-calling is tailor-made for this mental economy. It relieves us of the burden of analysis. Instead of wrestling with data or nuance, we can simply attach a moral label and move on. “They’re all fascists.” “They’re all groomers.” “They’re all racists.” These phrases feel decisive because they substitute certainty for complexity.

“Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.” — Carl Jung

Once moral certainty takes hold, curiosity dies. The mind closes around the label like a vise. Every new piece of information is filtered through confirmation bias, and anything that doesn’t fit is ignored or explained away. In this way, the intellect becomes a servant to emotion—a very efficient but very dangerous arrangement.

Another shortcut masquerades as insight: speculating about motives. We imagine we can see into hearts. “They’re not just wrong—they’re scheming.” The problem is that motives are invisible; what we project into others is often our own anxiety reflected back. When entire groups engage in this projection, conspiracy thinking takes shape—a communal hallucination that turns suspicion into shared “knowledge.”

Conspiracy thinking is the lazy mind’s grand unifying theory. It rescues us from ambiguity by giving everything a villain. It turns politics into theology—complete with saints, devils, and hidden plans of salvation or doom. Yet behind every grand narrative of evil intent lies the same small impulse: the refusal to admit that complexity is uncomfortable.

The discipline of clear thought begins when we resist the lure of easy conclusions. The antidote to cognitive laziness is not cynicism but curiosity. Ask slower questions: What evidence would change my mind? What if I’m wrong? These are the mental equivalents of deep breathing—ways to restore oxygen to a conversation suffocating on certainty.

“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.” — Shunryu Suzuki

Real thinking is slow, humble, and costly. But it’s also the only kind that protects us from being manipulated by those who profit from our indignation.

3. Emotional and Social Consequences

a. Verbal Bullying and Social Control

When words become weapons, conversation becomes combat. Labeling and name-calling aren’t just rude; they’re tools of social control. They shame, isolate, and pressure conformity. Within the in-group, they enforce ideological purity. Within the out-group, they degrade identity and silence dialogue. As Daniel Goleman (1995) observed, emotional intelligence requires self-regulation and empathy—both of which name-calling short-circuits.

Here are two concrete examples of how this plays out:

Example from the right-leaning rhetorical arsenal:

Phrases like “own the libs” or “trigger the snowflakes” have become common currency in certain conservative circles. These phrases aren’t meant to engage policy; they exist to humiliate and dominate. The target isn’t an argument but a person’s identity or alignment. The message: “You’re not just wrong—you’re ridiculous, fragile, beneath us.” It’s social bullying masquerading as humor.

Example from the left-leaning rhetorical arsenal:

On the other side, the phrase “basket of deplorables” entered public consciousness as a sweeping moral judgment. Though intended as a critique of ideology, it dismissed millions of people as irredeemable. The effect was the same: a whole class of citizens was portrayed as beyond reason and beneath respect.

Across the spectrum, the impulse is identical: replace persuasion with shaming, replace dialogue with domination. And when you see it—especially from voices you otherwise agree with—you must call it out. Because the method undermines truth even when the cause is just.

How to refuse the bullying dynamic:

• Name the behavior. “That phrase—‘basket of deplorables’ / ‘own the libs’—isn’t addressing ideas; it’s dehumanizing the person.”
• Redirect to substance. “Let’s talk about the policy or principle, not about the people who hold it.”
• Reaffirm respect. “We can disagree sharply and still treat others with dignity.”
• Model restraint. When you feel the thrill of seeing someone else shamed, pause and ask: Am I witnessing justice—or enjoying cruelty?

When we let verbal bullying stand unchallenged, we normalize language that dehumanizes and demonizes. And when speech degrades humanity, violence becomes easier to justify.

“We become willing participants when we spread rhetoric that dehumanizes.”

So yes—call out the bully. Label it, name it, defang it. Because civil discourse doesn’t just need better arguments; it needs better character. And the first step toward that is refusing to let our side act like the very thing we claim to oppose.

b. Dehumanization and Moral Disengagement

Every act of cruelty begins with a failure of imagination. Before a person can harm another, they must first stop seeing them as a person. Psychologist Albert Bandura (1999) called this process moral disengagement—the mental reframing that allows ordinary people to do extraordinary harm while believing themselves righteous.

“Dehumanization is the precondition of atrocity.”

Dehumanization does not begin in death camps; it begins in conversations. It starts when language quietly redefines opponents as caricatures, animals, or villains. The label replaces the face. Once someone is no longer “one of us,” empathy shuts off like a light.

History supplies the clearest warnings:

• In Nazi Germany, Jews were first called vermin and parasites long before the gas chambers were built. Propaganda posters depicted them as disease incarnate, creating a moral license for atrocity.
• In Rwanda, state radio called the Tutsi minority cockroaches, softening the conscience of ordinary citizens who would soon pick up machetes.
• In the American South, slavery and segregation depended on the same linguistic sleight of hand—reducing human beings to property or threat.

“The moment we cease to see our neighbor as human, every cruelty becomes conceivable.”

Modern culture is not immune. Political rhetoric now traffics in subtler versions of the same psychology. Online mobs dehumanize with hashtags instead of uniforms. “They’re fascists.” “They’re groomers.” “They’re terrorists.” Each phrase flattens complexity into disgust. When such words repeat often enough, violence starts to feel like virtue.

This moral inversion is what Bandura described as advantageous comparison—redefining evil as necessary good. The persecutor feels heroic, not hateful. And because both sides tell themselves the same story, cycles of retaliation escalate while each claims moral high ground.

“Hatred does not cease by hatred at any time; hatred ceases by love. This is an eternal law.” — Dhammapada 5

To break the cycle, we must name the process as it happens. When you hear anyone, left or right, describe another group as vermin, rats, filth, or evil incarnate, mark it for what it is: the prelude to justification. Call it out even when you agree with their frustration. The line between rhetoric and reality is thinner than we think.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke

Refusing to participate in dehumanizing speech is not weakness; it is moral hygiene. Each act of restraint—each moment we choose empathy over contempt—re-humanizes the public square. That is how societies heal: one conversation, one correction, one refusal to hate at a time.

c. Fear-Based Solidarity

Fear is the most dependable fuel for loyalty. It binds groups together faster than hope ever could. When a movement can convince its followers that they are under siege—that enemies lurk everywhere—it creates what psychologists call fear-based solidarity: unity through threat.

In this environment, people mistake adrenaline for conviction. The more anxious they feel, the more virtuous their rage seems. Leaders who thrive on fear understand this perfectly. They promise safety while keeping followers perpetually alarmed. The result is a population addicted to outrage, dependent on the very voices that keep them afraid.

Fear-based rhetoric doesn’t just divide; it defines. It tells the in-group, We are the last line of defense against corruption, chaos, or evil itself. Whether it’s “they’re destroying democracy” or “they’re coming for your children,” the structure is the same: exaggerate the threat, identify the enemy, and demand absolute loyalty as proof of virtue.

Such messaging feels moral because it dresses itself in protection. Who wouldn’t defend the innocent, save the planet, preserve the nation? Yet behind the noble slogans lies a darker calculus: fear replaces thought, belonging replaces conscience. The tribe becomes the highest good, and dissent becomes betrayal.

Examples abound across the spectrum:

• Some on the far right stoke panic with warnings that cultural change equals national collapse.
• Some on the far left insist that disagreement itself is violence.

Both frames declare one’s own moral purity and the other’s depravity. Both shrink the world to us or them.

The tragedy is that fear-based solidarity feels like strength. It gives meaning, purpose, and camaraderie—at the cost of freedom and empathy. A mind gripped by fear can no longer tell friend from foe; it only recognizes allegiance.

When we notice this pattern—when conversation turns to existential threat and moral emergency—we must slow down. Ask: Who benefits from my fear? Who gains power when I’m outraged? Those questions re-introduce reason where manipulation thrives.

“Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear—not absence of fear.” — Mark Twain

True courage in a polarized age is not the absence of conviction but the refusal to build it on panic. To lead or to live without fear-mongering is the rarest form of strength.

4. Influence Dynamics: Why It Works

Name-calling persists not because it’s clever, but because it’s effective. It simplifies, mobilizes, and rewards emotional participation. The tactic exploits predictable features of human psychology—bias, fear, and our craving for belonging. Each mechanism below shows how rhetoric becomes influence.

Mechanism	Description	Effect
Moral Framing	Casts disagreement as moral evil (“They’re destroying the country,” “They’re grooming children,” “They’re fascists”).	Prevents compromise by converting opponents into sinners instead of interlocutors.
Social Proof	Everyone in the tribe repeats the label until it sounds like truth.	Reinforces conformity; dissent feels like betrayal.
Fear of Ostracism	Fear of being labeled yourself—“You’re not one of us.”	Silences nuance; people self-censor to avoid exile.
Cognitive Ease	Labels are simpler than arguments.	Reduces complexity; encourages snap judgment.
Virtue Signaling	Using moral outrage to display purity.	Gains approval within the in-group; moral status becomes performance.
Emotional Priming	Triggers anger, disgust, or fear before facts appear.	Shuts down reasoning and heightens tribal unity.

Each column describes a form of what Robert Cialdini (2021) called automatic influence—shortcuts that bypass critical thought. These tactics are not new; they’re merely digitized. Social platforms algorithmically reward what demagogues once cultivated from the pulpit: outrage that masquerades as virtue.

“Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is harder than to understand him.” — Fyodor Dostoevsky

The danger is cumulative. Moral framing turns politics into a cult; social proof transforms belief into dogma; fear of ostracism enforces submission. Over time, persuasion collapses into propaganda. A society built on emotional priming will always mistake intensity for truth.

But influence cuts both ways. The same mechanisms that spread hate can amplify empathy. When moral framing names shared values instead of enemies, when social proof normalizes kindness, when virtue signaling becomes genuine virtue, rhetoric can heal rather than harm. Influence is not inherently corrupt—it’s a mirror of our motives.

The question, then, is not whether influence will shape us, but who we allow to do the shaping. In a noisy world, discernment becomes a civic duty. Every time we refuse to share a dehumanizing meme, every time we ask for evidence instead of emotion, we reclaim a small piece of moral agency.

“All that is required is that we think for ourselves—and think kindly.”

5. Logical and Ethical Analysis

Name-calling doesn’t just harm relationships; it violates reason itself.

In logic, it falls under the family of ad hominem fallacies—attacks directed at the person instead of their argument. The classic forms include:

• Ad Hominem Abusive: Dismissing an argument by insulting the speaker.
  • “You’re just a fascist.”
• Poisoning the Well: Preemptively discrediting someone so their words are ignored.
  • “Don’t listen to him—he’s one of those groomers.”
• Guilt by Association: Condemning a claim because of who else holds it.
  • “That’s the kind of thing racists say.”
• Reductio ad Hitlerum: Discrediting an argument by associating it, however loosely, with Hitler or Nazism.
  • “That’s exactly what the Nazis would have done.”

Coined by philosopher Leo Strauss, Reductio ad Hitlerum is particularly destructive because it evokes instant moral absolutism. Once someone is branded with a Nazi label, empathy and dialogue often collapse. The label doesn’t just reject an argument—it annihilates the person behind it.

Each of these fallacies short-circuits reasoning by substituting emotional shock for logical analysis. They collapse debate into identity warfare—who you are replaces what you’ve said.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” — often attributed to Socrates

But logic alone cannot explain the corrosion. The ethical damage runs deeper.

From a Kantian perspective, name-calling violates the principle of human dignity: every person must be treated as an end in themselves, never merely as a means to an end. To weaponize language is to use another’s reputation or identity for personal gain.

From a Rawlsian view, it corrupts public reason—the shared moral space where citizens justify decisions in terms others can reasonably accept. Name-calling replaces dialogue with suspicion and scorn, making collective truth-seeking impossible.

From the lens of virtue ethics, it erodes character. The habit of insult becomes a vice of spirit—arrogance disguised as moral courage. Every repetition dulls empathy and nourishes contempt. Eventually, the speaker becomes what they denounce: intolerant, reactive, self-righteous.

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.” — Confucius

Ethically, the standard is clear: language that degrades dignity, distorts truth, or destroys trust is immoral, regardless of ideology.

The integrity of a free society depends on how we speak to those we dislike most.

The moral test is not whether we can win an argument, but whether we can do so without abandoning the virtues that make argument worthwhile.

6. The Path Forward: Countermeasures

We cannot argue our way out of a culture addicted to outrage with the same tools that built it. Logic alone will not heal what emotion has broken. The antidote to rhetorical violence must be emotional intelligence, disciplined thought, and moral courage.

a. Emotional Intelligence and Self-Regulation

Outrage feels righteous, but it is chemically indistinguishable from fear. When we label someone before listening to them, we surrender to that fear.

The first discipline, then, is self-regulation—the ability to feel anger without becoming it.

Before reacting, pause. Name the feeling: “I’m angry,” “I’m afraid,” “I’m disgusted.”

Labeling emotion moves processing from the amygdala to the prefrontal cortex—literally shifting the brain from reaction to reflection.

Only then can we choose a response that aligns with conscience instead of compulsion.

“He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior.” — Confucius

Resisting the dopamine hit of outrage is not passivity; it’s mastery.

b. Cognitive Countermeasures

Reclaim the habit of slow thinking. When a label appears, interrogate it.

Ask diagnostic questions:

• Is this a fair description or an emotional weapon?
• What evidence supports this claim?
• Would I accept this label if it were applied to my side?
• What motive might someone have for making me angry?

These questions re-engage System 2 thinking (Kahneman), forcing analysis where propaganda seeks reflex. The act of questioning is itself resistance; it slows the contagion.

c. Restoring Dialogue

Conversation dies when curiosity does. The goal is not to agree but to understand. Replace labeling with listening: “Help me understand what makes you say that.”

Such language re-humanizes the exchange. It affirms that ideas can be wrong without making people monsters.

Civil discourse is not civility for its own sake—it is the architecture of freedom. Without it, all that remains is noise and intimidation.

To heal our public square, we must model the conversation we wish to see. When we hear dehumanizing rhetoric, we cannot stay silent. Silence is consent; silence is complicity. Speak, but speak with love. Confront, but confront with dignity.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

This is the hinge on which everything turns. If Section 5 showed why corrosive speech is wrong, this is where we choose to make it right.

Rebuilding a culture of reason and respect will not come from governments, algorithms, or pundits. It begins in our own mouths.

Every conversation is a chance to sanctify language again—to turn words back into instruments of truth, not weapons of war.

Hold that thought, because the next step—the conclusion—is where we rise.

Where we turn moral insight into moral courage.

Where we remember that the same tongue that curses can bless, and the same word that wounds can heal.

7. The Language of Light vs. Darkness

“Don’t fall for demonizing people—it’s a path to darkness.”

That line echoes across time, across faiths, across the weary heart of humanity. For whether we speak of Christ’s command to love your enemies or the lamps of Diwali driving out shadow with light, the message is the same: the cure for darkness is not more darkness. It is light. Always light.

“When the lamp is lit, darkness disappears. The light of knowledge dispels the darkness of ignorance.” — Rig Veda

We stand at a crossroads in our civilization — between illumination and blindness, between the Word that creates and the words that destroy. Every insult hurled across a screen, every sneer disguised as virtue, every label flung in contempt — these are sparks of fire consuming our common home.

“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” — John 1:5

If we are to survive as a people — not just a collection of tribes — we must relearn how to speak with reverence. Not the timid politeness that hides from truth, but the fierce compassion that insists truth must be told in love. Because truth without love is brutality, and love without truth is sentimentality. Together, they are the only force strong enough to heal a wounded world.

“There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” — Leonard Cohen

So let us be the keepers of the flame.

Let us choose words that build bridges, not barricades.

Let us see each other not as “left” or “right,” “faithful” or “fallen,” but as souls carved from the same sacred breath.

When Christ washed the feet of those who would betray Him, He shattered the logic of contempt.

When the Diwali lights are kindled, they proclaim that ignorance and hate will never have the final word.

Both gestures preach the same sermon: love is non-negotiable.

To love is not to agree; it is to affirm the worth of the other even when their words wound us.

To love is to speak truth without venom.

To love is to remember that every human being — yes, even the one shouting us down — bears the image of something holy.

We do not need uniformity; we need unity.

We do not need more righteous anger; we need righteous mercy.

We do not need to silence the other side; we need to listen long enough to find the shared heartbeat beneath the noise.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.” — Matthew 5:9

The choice before us is simple but profound:

We can keep speaking the language of darkness — the language of fear, pride, and division — or we can reclaim the language of light: the language of empathy, humility, and love.

“Conquer anger by love, evil by good; conquer the miser with generosity, and the liar with truth.” — Dhammapada 223

The light of Diwali glows in candles; the light of Christ burns in hearts. Both remind us that hatred is a form of blindness — and that our task, our sacred task, is to see again.

So let this be the word we leave with one another:

• Love is stronger than hate.
• Light is stronger than darkness.

And the way forward is not to shout louder but to shine brighter.

“The same tongue that curses can bless; the same word that wounds can heal. Choose your words as if the future depends on them — because it does.”

Related Posts for Influence & Control Meta-Framework

Explore my series exploring the psychological tools, logical distortions, and social mechanisms that shape how influence and undue control operate.

Posts | References

References

• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
• Brownstein, M. (2025). Implicit bias. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Rev. ed.). Harper Business.
• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2018). Introduction to logic (15th ed.). Routledge.
• Engel, S. M. (2022). With good reason: An introduction to informal fallacies (8th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
• Govier, T. (2013). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press.
• Strauss, L. (1953). Natural right and history. University of Chicago Press.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Excerpt

Name-calling isn’t just rude—it’s a weapon of influence. It collapses complexity into caricature, trading reason for tribalism. When we demonize opponents, empathy dies and violence becomes thinkable. The way forward isn’t louder outrage but brighter light—words that heal, not harm.