ESRA KAMACI
Throughout human history, countless instances reveal that not everyone is treated fairly. While injustice may disturb the conscience of the perpetrator, individuals may persist in committing such acts. Examining the means by which this continuity is achieved, it becomes evident that people develop specific tactics to avoid discomfort, employing these strategies either consciously or unconsciously. Importantly, the use of these strategies is not solely to alleviate one’s own conscience but also to be recognized as a “good” person by others. One significant form of injustice is racism, and individuals employ mechanisms to legitimize these attitudes to avoid being perceived as racist or discriminatory.
This article explores how moral disengagement mechanisms, as explained by Bandura’s Moral Disengagement Theory, are employed in Turkish tweets. Within the study’s scope, tweets in Turkish on the Twitter/X platform containing words such as “Syrian, Arab, Afghan, immigrant, and refugee,” as well as content with the same theme on the Ekşi Sözlük platform, were analyzed. The selected contents contained hate speech or racist expressions against refugee and immigrant groups.
What stands out in these contents is the search for justification of one’s attitude. The significance of such content in print media lies in the fact that these expressions transcend mere discourse, leading to real-world consequences. Consequently, discourse plays a crucial role in shaping behavior or acting as a precursor to behavior, and understanding discourse becomes essential for making sense of behavior (Ataman, 2012).
(Ataman, 2012). 
One strategy that interrupts the connection between an act and one’s moral control is the dehumanization of the victim. In this strategy, individuals make victims forget their victimization by blaming or stripping them of human characteristics, thereby normalizing the victimization process. For instance, the expression “racially corrupt patients” in a tweet dehumanizes the victimized group. Moreover, the tweet illustrates the in-group and out-group distinctions mentioned by Social Identity Theory, where “children of pure race” represent the in-group, and “racially corrupted patients” represent the dehumanized out-group:
“We don’t want to see our children of pure race together with these tainted patients.”
Another strategy is advantageous comparison, where individuals construct actions on moral grounds by emphasizing the necessity and positive consequences of unethical behavior. This strategy aims to present racist behavior as having positive outcomes or protecting the individual from negative consequences. For instance: “There are 5-6 million Syrians in the country. If they don’t leave the country, new terrorists will grow up.”
“Take a Lesson from Ukrainian Women. Syrian woman is like a birth machine. #Syrians”, 25.02.2022
Euphemistic language is a moral distancing mechanism frequently seen in hate speech. Perpetrators use roundabout or purified expressions to distance their discourse from the content of hate. For example, expressing genocide as “ethnic cleansing” and killing people as “cleansing honor” are instances of this mechanism. In a tweet below, the statement “I am not against Syrians but…” uses a roundabout language to legitimize the racist discourse that follows, employing an opposite expression with a contrast conjunction: “I AM NOT AGAINST SYRIANS BUT NOW the country is full of Afkanis, Africans, Armenians, Syrians, our own citizens, our young people are unemployed, we will soon feel like foreigners in our own country.”
Another strategy employed is advantageous comparison, where individuals construct their actions on a moral foundation by emphasizing the necessity and positive outcomes of unethical behavior. By doing so, the person implies that their racist behavior will yield positive consequences or shield them from negative outcomes. Through this strategy, individuals justify their behavior by portraying genocide, conflict, and attack with lofty ideals. For instance, the claim made in the tweet below, asserting that the racist discourse was carried out “to prevent terrorists from growing up in Turkey,” serves to distance this discourse from an immoral standpoint.
“There are 5-6 million Syrians in the country. If they don’t leave the country, new terrorists will grow up.”
The subsequent example also employs the advantageous comparison strategy. Here, a statement underscores the perceived necessity of killing migrants. The expression “…not in vain, he says” reinforces the belief in the imperative nature of this action.
“He must kill them one by one, or I’ll never leave.”
Another frequently observed moral distancing mechanism in hate speech involves the use of euphemistic language. In this strategy, the perpetrator attempts to divert their discourse from the hateful content by presenting it in a circumlocutory manner or purifying the expression of hate. Examples of this mechanism include describing genocide as “ethnic cleansing” and framing the act of killing people as “cleansing honor.” The statement “I am not against Syrians but…” in the content below employs this roundabout language. To legitimize the racist discourse that follows, the author introduces an opposing expression using a conjunction of contrast.
“I AM NOT AGAINST SYRIANS BUT NOW the country is full of Afkanis, Africans, Armenians, Syrians, our own citizens, our young people are unemployed, we will soon feel like foreigners in our own country.”
Moral distancing mechanisms serve as strategies enabling individuals to legitimize and persist in actions that lack moral justification. Individuals frequently employ these strategies when engaging in racist discourse and actions, aiming to avoid reactions from others and prevent a decline in their self-esteem. Consequently, the ability to recognize these strategies is synonymous with identifying hate speech. Hate speech, like any other form of discourse, constitutes an essential mode of expression that requires recognition and intervention when necessary. It defines actions and extends into behavioral dimensions, emphasizing the importance of understanding and addressing it appropriately.
Translator: Sümeyye Öztürk
REFERENCES
Alhayek, K. (2014). Double marginalization: Theinvisibility of Syrian refugee women’s perspectives in mainstream online activism and global media. Feminist Media Studies, 14(4), 696-700.
Arriola, E. R., & Raymond, V. M. (2017). Migrants resistsystemic discrimination and dehumanization in private, for-profit detention centers. Santa Clara J. Int’l L., 15, 1-42.
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101– 119.
Okutan, N. (2016). Ahlaki söylem ve siyasal kimlik ile ahlaki çözülme arasındaki ilişki. [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi.
Taşdelen, B. (2021). Twitter’da Suriyeli Mültecilere Karşı Çevrimiçi Nefret Söylemi: #suriyelileriistemiyoruz. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 562-575.
Yıldız, E. (2018). Twitter’da ve çevrimiçi bir gazetede yer alan nefret söylemlerinin karşılaştırılması: Suriyeli Mülteciler örneği, OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(16), 760-793.
