Counterspeech as decentralized democratic self-defense

There is a large literature on how the use of an intolerant style of political rhetoric can erode democratic communication and give people reasons to question their faith in the democratic system. But the reverse is also true: that is, everyday linguistic practices shape political communication by providing stylistic forms and common words. My central claim is that an interactionist interpretation of the more-speech argument offers a normative foundation for a distinctive model of counterspeech as democratic self-defense: counterspeech as decentralized democratic self-defense. The core of this model is the idea that democratic institutions have a role to play in making it easier for citizens to engage in conversations with those they would otherwise avoid.