Makes some interesting related points; cavaet emptor, though, as it cites the type of psychological studies that the very same author has been busy debunking on Vox elsewhere! I guess if one likes to have a piece vetted for reliability of psychological study conclusions, he's not a bad author to pick?

Donald Trump and the disturbing power of dehumanizing language

Dehumanization is already prevalent in America. We don’t need anyone — especially Trump — stoking it further.

By Brian Resnick @ Vox.com,  Updated Jun 20, 2018, 5:41pm EDT

[....] Dehumanization kick-starts a vicious cycle

And that’s only part of the problem.

In his studies, Kteily also looked at what happens when people feel like they’re being dehumanized. And here, the research predicts a vicious cycle.

“Those who dehumanize are more likely to support hostile policies, and those who are dehumanized feel less integrated into society and are more likely to support exactly the type of aggressive responses ... that may accentuate existing dehumanizing perceptions,” he wrote in the 2017 paper.

As the vicious cycle intensifies, the whole country becomes a more hostile, less safe place for everyone.

Do Trump’s dehumanizing views trickle down?

The fact that the president, who has enormous power to make life better or worse for immigrant communities, has dehumanizing views is disquieting enough.

But psychological research suggests that Trump’s rhetoric also encourages people who already have prejudicial views to act on those views.

“I don’t think Trump created new prejudices in people — not that quickly and not that broadly. What he did do is change people’s perceptions about what is okay and what is not okay,” University of Kansas psychologist Chris Crandall said in a 2017 interview [....]

Can Calcio Storico, an Ultraviolent Ancient Italian Sport, Help Heal Our Political Divides? Artist Shaun Leonardo Thinks So

In a new performance debuting at the Guggenheim, Shaun Leonardo mines ancient Italian athletics to inform a body-language-only debate.

By Tim Schneider @ Artnet.com, June 21, 2018

[....] The reason, in Leonardo’s view, owes to the way our political discourse has devolved from an earnest (if complicated) conversation into a series of prejudicial defense mechanisms. To debate an issue in contemporary times is to forge your talking points into sledgehammers in advance, then try to beat your opponent into submission with your carefully crafted words as soon as they move to present their side of the story.

“So much of that language is formulated based on who you already perceive your opponent to be,” Leonardo says. “I feel that is precisely what has worsened in the last five to 10 years [of political life]: this need, this desire to prove oneself right, not allowing for communication to take place. And so much of that stems from fear—a fear of letting go of a worldview that has provided security.”

In this context, he suggests, it isn’t a shock “that the needle hasn’t moved on any of these issues, because there is no meeting ground.” And after encountering calcio storico in this climate, Leonardo began to notice that the players’ physical strategies paralleled political partisans’ debating strategies.

For example, brandishing the same ugly language as your opponent, sinking the debate deeper into the muck? Mirroring. Trying to win an argument by simply talking over your opponent, or shifting away from the central issue to a personal attack? Shattering. Responding to a relevant question by answering an alternate one that was never asked? Deflecting. Think of it as rhetorical trench warfare.

In that sense, Primitive Games contests the notion that solving our most virulent political problems requires more conversation [....]