🌐 Online violence has crossed the boundaries of the internet. Today we have reached the point where, beyond verbal threats, thugs are hired for small change simply because someone dares to stand up for right-wing values.
That is precisely why we women, especially, must carefully consider when and how we voice our opinions. I understand if many choose silence, but I want to ask everyone not to give in. There is a real need for constructive female voices and for the determination with which we can defend our future. 🗣
Unfortunately, violence has already stepped out of the online world. We are no longer talking about verbal chaos; we are talking about the fact that hired enforcers physically go after someone over a difference of opinion—someone who thinks differently about a flower—and beat them. So violence has left the internet and entered real life, and I find that extremely, extremely frightening.
And that is why I understand those women who carefully think about when they express their opinions and when they raise their voices. But it is precisely to them that I want to say, through this initiative: believe me, you are not alone. And believe me, your speaking out is irreplaceable. Because when a woman, with her gentle yet firm determination, says “this is as far as it goes and no further,” and makes it clear that this is about her family, her son’s life, her children—and that she will not allow this—that carries a weight unlike anything else.
🧠 WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THIS TEXT?
🔴 1️⃣ Victim narrative + moral superiority
Technique: victim framing + moral high ground
“they hire thugs for small change”
❌ There is no:
- specific case
- location
- date
- police report
- final court ruling
📌 This is not a statement of fact, but emotional shock tactics.
The goal is to trigger fear, not to inform.
👉 Message to the audience:
“We are the victims. The other side is dangerous.”
🔴 2️⃣ Implying collective guilt
Technique: guilt by association
Not specified:
- who is allegedly hiring
- who is allegedly beaten
- which political side
- which organization
📌 “someone who dares to stand up for right-wing values” =
implicit message:
👉 “The other side uses violence.”
This is branding, not proof.
🔴 3️⃣ Turning their own incitement upside down
Technique: projection
The text complains about exactly what they have:
- normalized for years,
- relativized,
- excused on their own side.
📌 Classic logic:
“We only talk. They are violent.”
While:
- comment wars,
- verbal threats,
- dehumanizing language
are fueled by this very same communication ecosystem.
👉 This is a role-swap trick:
the arsonist suddenly poses as a firefighter.
🔴 4️⃣ “Female voice” as an emotional shield
Technique: gender shielding + emotional authority
“we women in particular need to think carefully…”
📌 Here, womanhood is not empowerment, but a shield:
- criticism = “you are attacking a woman”
- debate = “you are intimidating”
- refutation = “you are silencing her”
👉 This is not feminism — it’s emotional blackmail.
🔴 5️⃣ The paradox of fear-mongering + encouragement
Technique: fear amplification + savior framing
It simultaneously says:
- “very, very frightening”
- “thugs”
- “people fall silent”
Then:
- “speak up”
- “you are not alone”
📌 This is a psychological trap:
- Inflate fear
- Offer oneself as the protector
👉 Classic: “I’ll protect you from the monster I just drew.”
🔴 6️⃣ The “family–child–future” emotional nuclear weapon
Technique: moral blackmail
“this is about my son’s life, about my children”
📌 This shuts down debate with emotional force:
- if you argue → “you’re attacking her children”
- if you ask → “you’re insensitive”
- if you doubt → “you’re endangering the future”
👉 From this point on, rational dialogue is impossible.
🧩 SUMMARY – WHAT IS THIS REALLY ABOUT?
This message is not about violence, but about:
- moral consolidation of one’s own camp
- demonization of the opponent
- shifting responsibility
- emotionally blocking criticism
📌 The most cynical part:
the one complaining about “stoked hatred”
is the very person who has politically lived off it for years.