Understanding Violence: Bad Actors and Bad Narratives9 min read

When violence erupts, we often focus solely on the person who pulled the trigger or threw the punch. But understanding violence requires looking at both the actors and the stories that shape them. This framework offers a practical approach to identifying responsibility across three key areas: the perpetrators, the narratives that influence them, and our collective role in shaping discourse.

1.0 Two Types of Bad Actors (With a Gray Zone)

Mental illness and/or calculated viciousness can motivate evil doers – but they have help from the narratives they rehearse.

1.1 Mentally Ill Actors

Some violence comes from people experiencing serious mental health crises—those dealing with paranoid delusions, psychotic episodes, or severe breaks from reality. Their actions often don’t follow logical patterns because their thinking is fundamentally disrupted. These actors may weave cultural narratives into their delusions, making their violence seem symbolic or self-confirming rather than strategically calculated. ¹

1.2 Rational Actors

Other violence comes from people who are mentally stable but choose violence as a calculated strategy. They may be angry, radicalized, or desperate, but their thinking is clear enough to plan and execute deliberate acts. This instrumental violence is purposive and strategic—planned as means to an end rather than performed to satisfy delusional narratives. ²

1.3 The Gray Zone

In reality, many cases fall somewhere between these categories. Someone might have underlying mental health issues that don’t rise to the level of psychosis, but combined with toxic narratives, become vulnerable to radicalization and violence. This gray area represents individuals with cognitive vulnerabilities who might not commit violence in a different cultural environment, but become dangerous when exposed to violence-justifying narratives.

This distinction matters because it affects how we respond—mental health intervention versus criminal justice, treatment versus punishment. However, the presence of mental illness or cultural influence does not automatically eliminate moral responsibility for intentional acts of harm.

2.0 The Power of Narratives

Here’s what we often miss: both types of actors are influenced by the stories circulating in our culture. Narratives that depersonalize opponents (“they’re not really human”), demonize them (“they’re pure evil”), or justify violence (“sometimes you have to fight fire with fire”) create a mental environment where violence becomes thinkable. ³

For mentally ill individuals, these narratives can become woven into delusions, providing external validation for internal distortions. For rational actors, they provide moral cover and strategic justification, making violence seem not just acceptable but heroic or necessary. Cultural narratives perform a crucial function by legitimating or delegitimating forms of action, assigning meanings such as “hero,” “traitor,” or “enemy” that shape public thresholds for violence.

3.0 Narrative Responsibility

This brings us to an uncomfortable truth: those who create and spread violence-enabling narratives bear real responsibility. Politicians who dehumanize opponents, media figures who glorify revenge, influencers who suggest violence is sometimes necessary—they’re not just expressing opinions. They’re providing the intellectual and moral framework that makes violence feel justified or even heroic. ⁴

This doesn’t excuse the person who commits violence. Individual responsibility remains primary. But it does mean we need to look beyond the immediate perpetrator to the ecosystem of ideas and stories that made their actions feel reasonable or righteous. As moral entrepreneurs, narrative purveyors help reshape social norms and contribute to environments where violence becomes more or less acceptable.

4.0 Moving Forward: Justice and Accountability

Understanding violence this way changes how we prevent it. We need better mental health resources, yes. We need law enforcement, certainly. But we also need a two-pronged approach to accountability that addresses both immediate perpetrators and the broader cultural environment that enables violence.

4.1 Maintain Justice for Violent Actors

Regardless of mental state or influence from narratives, those who commit violence must face appropriate consequences. Mental illness may be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but it doesn’t eliminate responsibility for harm caused. The primary moral responsibility remains with the individual who chooses violence, and our justice system must reflect this principle while still accounting for circumstances that may explain, though not excuse, violent behavior. Justice delayed is often justice denied, leading to justified anger and social discontent.

4.2 Hold Narrative Purveyors Accountable

We must seriously take to task public figures who spread violence-enabling narratives—not through hate speech legislation or government censorship, but through consistent, sustained public criticism. This means journalists calling out dangerous rhetoric in real time. It means citizens refusing to support politicians, influencers, or media figures who traffic in dehumanizing language. It means social consequences—lost followers, lost revenue, lost respect—for those who provide the intellectual framework for violence. ⁵

5.0 Practical Tips for Better Discourse

We all have a role to play in changing the narrative environment. Here are concrete ways to engage more constructively in our daily interactions, both online and offline:

5.1 Use AI to Improve Your Tone

Before posting that angry comment online, copy and paste it into an AI chat and ask it to “improve this.” You’ll often get a response that makes the same points but in a way that’s more likely to persuade rather than alienate. This simple step can help you express frustration or disagreement without contributing to the dehumanizing discourse that makes violence thinkable.

5.2 Avoid Personal Value Judgments

Skip words like “stupid,” “idiotic,” “uneducated,” or “ignorant” when describing people or their views. These labels shut down conversation and make people defensive rather than open to considering alternative perspectives. Instead, focus on why specific ideas might be problematic or what evidence contradicts them.

5.3 Discuss Ideas, Not People

Attack arguments, not the people making them. Say “that policy would be harmful because…” instead of “you’re a terrible person for supporting…” This distinction is crucial because it preserves the humanity of your conversation partner while still allowing for vigorous debate about important issues.

As I noted in previous writing, our method  should be this:

When confronted with dismissive or mocking opposition, a measured yet firm response can redirect the discourse. Rather than mirroring the adversary’s derision, we subtly challenge their approach while maintaining composure. ⁵

5.4 Redirect to the Issue

When conversations get personal, redirect back to the substantive issue. “Let’s focus on the policy itself—what outcomes are we trying to achieve?” This technique helps de-escalate personal animosity while keeping the discussion focused on matters that can actually be resolved through reasoned debate.

5.5 Model the Behavior You Want to See

When others use dehumanizing language, respond with the kind of discourse you’d want to see more of. People often mirror the tone they encounter, so by consistently modeling respectful but firm engagement, you can help shift the overall tenor of public conversation. This doesn’t mean being passive or avoiding difficult topics—it means engaging with both boldness and dignity.

Rather than mirroring the adversary’s derision, we subtly challenge their approach while maintaining composure. For instance, Proverbs 26:4–5 advises:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. ⁵

6.0 The Stakes Are High

The quality of our public conversation shapes the mental landscape in which political violence either becomes thinkable or remains unthinkable. That means calling out rhetoric that dehumanizes opponents, refusing to share content that glorifies revenge, and actively promoting stories that emphasize our shared humanity—even with those we disagree with most strongly.

The person who commits violence bears ultimate responsibility. But those who provide the stories that make violence feel justified must face serious public accountability too. And all of us have a responsibility to model better discourse in our daily interactions—online and off. We must reject both the pathology of violence and the narratives that make it seem reasonable, while maintaining our commitment to justice for all involved.

We all have a role in making violence unthinkable rather than inevitable. The choice is ours, in every conversation, every social media post, and every public statement we make or support. The future of our democracy may depend on getting this right.