Dialogue Is Deteriorating Before Our Eyes

Dehumanization has replaced dialogue and we are all worse off for it—but we can change if we choose to

It’s the first Monday of 2026, and we need to talk.

I’ll always level with you. The truth is it’s getting increasingly difficult to have meaningful dialogue on issues of human rights. And I want to take a moment to address it out loud—because I need the support of every person reading this.

As you know, my writing is near daily. In my articles, I present researched, referenced facts as a trained human rights lawyer of 15 years. A lawyer who has published ample peer-reviewed scholarship on U.S. and international human rights law. Over the last two years alone, I’ve published more than 700 researched, fact-checked pieces on the critical human rights issues that impact us all. The coalition we’ve built is powerful and inspiring.

But what I want to discuss today is the death of that dialogue. A death ignited by those seeking to drive us apart. The response from those who disagree falls into two categories. And the second category is literally ripping our country apart. It has become toxic and dangerous. And we must build our coalition to respond effectively.

Let’s Address This.

iStock Denis Novikov

The Death of Dialogue, And Humanity

Some thoughtful readers respond to my writings by sharing a different point of view. I call this the first category. I may not always agree with their different point of view, but I’m grateful that they took the time to share their perspective with sincerity and good intentions. I especially enjoy a counterpoint with new facts or evidence I may not have considered. This article is not about those readers. It’s about the second category.

Because unfortunately, the majority of those who disagree do so with pure vitriol.

Terrorist. Muzzi. Sand Ni**er. And plenty of F-Bombs to boot. Here’s one response from Daniel Andriyenko, upset about my condemnation of Donald Trump’s illegal bombing of Venezuela. A bombing that has resulted in the killing of at least 80 Venezuelans.

Chuck Farley chimed in last week, responding to my article where I researched and rebuked the claims against Somalis in Minnesota. Chuck is quite the intellectual it would appear.

Cody Ashdown spewed this bigotry on another recent post, ironically a post that addressed and condemned antisemitism. On that post no less, Cody decided to respond as follows:

And these are not isolated anecdotes. They’re a reflection of dehumanizing language that has become mainstream. Language ignited by right wing politicians who care more to divide us than find ways to work together. Consider this recent post by Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville. How very “Christian” of him.

Not to be out done, MAGA member of Congress in Florida Randy Fine has seemingly made it his mission to incite violence against Americans who are Muslim.

It's become increasingly rare to find someone who has the integrity to disagree with an actual, sound legal argument—and not the above vitriol. I welcome disagreement. I welcome debate. But debate is not "Go back where you came from, camel jockey." It's dehumanizing to me, and more importantly, it's dehumanizing to the marginalized communities I’m elevating.

And ultimately, that is what pains me the most—the above cited dehumanizing and violent language that undermines the ongoing suffering of the marginalized communities I’m advocating for. The child suffering genocide in Gaza, the 1 in 6 Americans going hungry in the United States, the Ukrainian fleeing Putin’s bombs, the mother escaping horrific violence in Sudan, or the immigrant hunted by ICE. When dehumanizing language enters the conversation, we all suffer. Marginalized communities suffer because the focus shifts away from their dire needs, and into justifications to further harm them. And the rest of us suffer because debate is stifled or denied, and ignorance fills the gap in the public discourse. That vicious cycle continues and degrades our entire societal discourse.

In 2026, we must demand better. Our lives literally depend on it.

Why Am I Sharing This With You?

I don’t share the above examples of hate for shock value. I share them because this is reality. It’s what I see as a matter of routine every hour of every day. And it’s important to me that you see what I see—precisely because each of you have invested in me. I share the above to demonstrate why fact-based dialogue matters to me so deeply, and why we must continue to build this coalition to fight back against hate. Disagreement is not the enemy of democracy; it is its lifeblood. But to have value, disagreement must be grounded in evidence, integrity, and a shared commitment to our humanity. When debate collapses into slurs, threats, and dehumanization, it does not strengthen anyone’s argument—it exposes the absence of one. We cannot respond to hate with more hate and expect justice to follow. That path has never led anywhere but deeper division and violence. Indeed, that is one reason you will never see me respond to such dehumanizing language in kind.

And likewise, I must add this fact. For every hateful message I receive, there are many more rooted in curiosity, gratitude, and solidarity. Tens of thousands of you read this work not because you agree with every word, but because you care about facts, about law, and about the dignity of human beings. That overwhelming support is not incidental—it is proof that most people are not driven by fear or bigotry, but by a desire to understand and to do better. That is the coalition that gives me hope. And it is a coalition we must massively build in 2026.

The forces who seek to divide us are not slowing down—so we must double our efforts to ramp up.

Closing Thoughts

You have my firm promise that I will continue to respond to hate the only way that has ever meaningfully challenged it: with education, patience, justice, and moral clarity. I will continue to name injustice without dehumanizing those who perpetuate it. I will continue to invite disagreement while refusing abuse. And I will continue to insist that human rights are not partisan, conditional, or negotiable.

But I cannot do this alone. I need each of you and your continued gracious support.

That means calling out the hate when you see it. That means holding those in your circle accountable to shed hate. And that means continuing to build this community.

If you believe in that approach—if you believe that justice is built through truth, and that humanity is strengthened through dialogue, and destroyed by cruelty—I invite you to subscribe and support this work. Together, we can keep building a platform rooted in law, facts, and compassion.

A platform that resists hate not by mirroring it, but by outgrowing it. Join us, and let’s get to work in 2026—together.