Hate speech harm may flow through exclusion and violence rather than the words themselves

Evidence

It remains an empirical question as to how much of the aversive effect of antilocution is due to a direct effect (representing Allport’s notion of verbal realism) versus how much of the aversive effect of antilocution is due to more indirect effects. In other words, is the primary harm inflicted by hate speech due to the direct hurtful nature of the words, or is the primary harm inflicted by hate speech due to the more indirect effects of hate speech leading to other hurtful social behaviors like exclusion and/or violence? — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1298

It remains an empirical question as to how much of the aversive effect of antilocution is due to a direct effect (representing Allport’s notion of verbal realism) versus how much of the aversive effect of antilocution is due to more indirect effects. In other words, is the primary harm inflicted by hate speech due to the direct hurtful nature of the words, or is the primary harm inflicted by hate speech due to the more indirect effects of hate speech leading to other hurtful social behaviors like exclusion and/or violence? — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1298

Categorization

• QUESTION: This unresolved empirical question — direct verbal hurt vs. downstream behavioral harm — is exactly the kind of causal mechanism worth chasing down in related literatures.
• DEFINE: Allport’s concept of verbal realism is invoked: the view that words themselves directly inflict harm.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1298; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1298
• XREF: connects to: Terror is the performativity system’s enforcement by threatening exclusion from the language game — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on…, 441