Today, a public debate can escalate into personal attacks within moments. Old friendships and family relationships become strained simply because someone sees the world differently.
Yet without political debates, there is no public life. We argue, we present our reasoning, we try to persuade one another of what we believe to be true.
What does not belong in that space, however, is spitting venom, raging, or threatening the other side. Unfortunately, this has become a common method in comment sections.
Many people now choose to remain silent because they don’t want to end up in the crosshairs. But if we stay silent, then only the loudest, hate-driven voices will remain.
Let’s show that it’s possible to debate with decency. It’s possible to argue without hostility. And yes—sometimes we have to pick up the gauntlet, not with hatred, but with clear and sober words.
The old “impex families” and their successors feel extremely uncomfortable—well… let’s just say uncomfortable—because there’s no longer a “meat pot” for them. Of course, long-standing family and friendly relationships also suffer in this current atmosphere. But I somehow feel—though this is partly subjective—that it’s not fundamentally right-wing people who try to convince others in the loudest and most aggressive way. Instead, in this overwhelming national mood, it sometimes feels as if we can’t even say what we think about the world anymore, because otherwise we’d be metaphorically strung up on the first lamppost we pass.
I’ve always said that we got to know each other as friends, as human beings. The fact that you think differently is one thing. We can still talk. We can try to persuade each other. And if you believe I’m wrong, then think differently—the course of life will eventually prove what stands.
Sometimes we need to find the courage. The things you just said should actually be written down in the comments. They should be posted. Because if we don’t pick up the gauntlet, what will people see online? Only the shouting voices dominating the space. And they will multiply—simply because we chose not to speak.
🔴 1️⃣ “Debate is important, but…” — moral framing
Technique: value alignment + assuming moral high ground
The text opens with universal values:
- debate is important
- friendship is important
- respect is important
👉 Effect:
The reader automatically identifies with the author because these are hard to disagree with.
This acts as a trust gateway through which a political message can later slip in.
🔴 2️⃣ “Us vs. them” hidden polarization
Technique: implicit camp-building
Key sentence:
“it’s not right-wing people who are the most aggressive…”
It never explicitly states who “they” are, but implies:
- we = civilized
- they = aggressive
👉 Effect:
The reader instinctively places themselves on one side → identity gets activated.
This is classic ingroup–outgroup framing.
🔴 3️⃣ Victim narrative
Technique: victim framing
“we can’t even say what we think anymore”
👉 Effect:
- sense of threat
- feeling of injustice
- moral outrage
This is a mobilizing tool, because people who feel threatened are more likely to become active.
🔴 4️⃣ Lamp-post imagery — emotional exaggeration
Technique: hyperbole + fear appeal
“they’ll hang us from the nearest lamppost”
👉 Effect:
It doesn’t function as a literal threat but as an emotional image.
Images like this affect audiences faster than rational arguments.
🔴 5️⃣ Activating closing — call to comment
Technique: call-to-action mobilization
“you should comment it… you have to write it…”
👉 Effect:
It doesn’t just shape opinion — it directs behavior:
→ comment
→ respond
→ enter the debate
This is already campaign logic, not just opinion.
🔴 6️⃣ “We are the civilized ones” self-framing
Technique: positive identity construction
The speaker’s implied self-image:
- calm
- rational
- fair
- pro-dialogue
👉 Effect:
Anyone who agrees with them automatically sees themselves this way too.
🧠 Overall picture — the text’s real communicative function
Not a simple opinion post, but:
a mobilizing identity message
Goals:
- activate one’s own camp
- increase comment activity
- create a sense of moral superiority
- indirectly delegitimize the opponent
✅ One-sentence strategic summary:
The text is identity-reinforcing and mobilizing political communication hidden behind a conciliatory tone.