Dehumanization on Display

Lessons from Prescott’s Anti-ICE Protests

The Prescott Pulse collaborators are made up of long-time Prescott and Yavapai residents who deeply love and are committed to our community. When we tackle difficult or controversial topics, we deliberately weigh any short-term discomfort for us (we are regularly labeled as communists) against the long-term benefit it could contribute to our readers’ understanding of concerning issues. We’re not blind to the reality that what we share today may upset some but believe the health of our community should be everyone’s first concern.

We take great care with our words because we know how easily intent can be misunderstood. Our hope is simple: by honestly examining the forces, people, and decisions that have led us to this deeply polarized moment in time, we can start using our words to build real solutions, rather than turning them into weapons. Freedom of speech, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, is the foundation for citizens, the press, and groups to scrutinize, criticize, and influence government actions without fear of retaliation.

We face a clear choice: keep heading down this destructive path of division and hostility, or start rebuilding a stronger foundation for respectful, reasoned, and truly civilized conversations.

What Prompted This Prescott Pulse Post

On January 31, 2026, the local group Prescott Indivisible organized an anti-ICE protest on Prescott’s Courthouse Plaza. This event was part of a nationwide coordinated day of action by Indivisible groups, calling for an end to what protesters described as violence, abuses, and overreach by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and related federal agencies.

Carson Carpenter, co-founder and CEO of Off the Record USA (a group focused on on-the-ground journalism and interviews at public events), attended the protest not only as an observer and interviewer; he calls Prescott “his home town.” Carpenter recorded approximately 47 minutes of footage, which primarily captured the winding-down period of the protest and his interviews with some participants.

When we began reviewing Carpenter’s footage, it was what we heard in the first three minutes that stopped us cold. It began as Carpenter first entered the Courthouse Plaza, just before the protesters began to disperse, and recorded interactions between individuals, on both sides of the immigration argument, that many in our community would find shocking.

We ask you to watch this short video with an open mind and a human heart, setting aside preconceptions. Then ask yourself how it made you feel.

For context, the clip ends just after a protestor assures Carpenter there will be no violence. We made that editing decision out of respect, as he was later identified as a local teacher and charged with disorderly conduct. Videos of his subsequent actions should go from being judged in the court of public opinion and into rightful legal channels.

What troubles us most is that this kind of behavior would have been unimaginable in Prescott just 10 years ago. Our town has long prided itself on neighborly respect, even amid disagreement. So, why the shift? After several discussions on this subject, the collaborators at the Pulse came up with more questions than answers, but one thing we agreed on was how constant negative labeling through social and main-stream media, on both sides of the political spectrum, have escalated division that bypasses rational dialogue.

What is Negative Labeling?

Negative labeling, a time-tested strategy in propaganda and social conflict, is at the core of this phenomenon. The next step in 5G Warfare after “tribalization” (my tribe vs. your tribe) is referred to as “dehumanization.” It involves portraying individuals or groups as subhuman or deserving of absolute condemnation. Common labels from the political left include Racist, Fascist, Communist, White Supremacist, and favorites from the political right include Snowflake, Libtard, Marxist, Socialist, and other terms that evoke images of irredeemable humans.

Dehumanization removes the others’ humanity and creates a moral justification for otherwise unthinkable actions. It can encourage rational, level-headed people to endorse or commit harm while sidestepping their usual ethical boundaries.

Let’s Dive Into The Prescott Indivisibles

Those of us who have a more conservative policy and lifestyle perspective view anti-ICE protesters as angry people with wildly inappropriate signs. When we take a closer look into Prescott Indivisible (PI) and its national ties we find clues about why that is so. Their website, prescottindivisible.org, openly promotes negative activism against figures like President Donald Trump, his administration, and almost all conservative policy initiatives. On their handbook page, they state:

PI encourages members to tune into the weekly “What’s the Plan with Leah and Ezra,” hosted by Indivisible co-founders Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin. This live discussion breaks down political news, strategizes action, and repeats dehumanizing rhetoric about Trump, his cabinet, and supporters. You can watch these videos by Clicking Here.

We are not sharing this to attack PI or their cause - it’s to show one example of many who use negative labeling to invoke public conflict. Dehumanization isn’t limited to one political side; it’s a tactic used across a broad spectrum of political ideologies to justify incivility and division.

This isn’t organic grassroots assembly or outrage. It’s largely driven by well-funded operations (NGOs) that amplify emotions, trigger survival instincts, and blind people to everyday realities in order to change points of view toward their preferred policies. A quick search across various publications shows that in the past few years (roughly covering late 2024 into early 2026), estimates for related spending include:

• Protests & Activism: $300 to $550 million (funding for organizing, events, and advocacy groups on both sides, often through nonprofits and dark money networks).

• Negative Rhetoric: $8 to $10 billion (primarily attack ads and divisive messaging in political campaigns, with projections for the 2026 midterms already pushing toward record highs like $10.8 billion total ad spend).

• Overall Total: $8.3 to $10.55 billion (combining activism/protest funding with the massive scale of negative political advertising and related influence efforts).

These figures highlight how much money flows into polarizing activities, often from non-transparent (dark money) sources. This funding has created a paid protester job class, and produces “astroturfed” optics rather than purely spontaneous (grassroots) public sentiment. In the process, massive polarization occurs, resulting in mutually directed anger. A question or post for a later date: What is the return on investment (ROI) for getting us so “pissed off” at each other?

What Can We Do to Spot It and Stop It

In Prescott, where community ties run deep, we can do better! Let’s commit to debating civilly on policy and strategy without resorting to labels that dehumanize. Spot it in conversations, online, or at events, and if you can’t stop it, turn it off or walk away.

• Ask yourself before typing a reply/retort: “Would I say this to their face?”

• Ask yourself if your words or actions will improve the situation.

• Commit to doing basic research before reposting social media posts that dehumanize other groups.

• Stick to facts when expressing disagreement over issues.

• Pause and reflect before responding: Take a breath to check if your words are escalating emotional tensions or calming them.

• Call out dehumanization gently when you spot it in your own circles to help redirect the conversation away from name calling.

• Agree to disagree when needed: It’s okay to say, “We see this differently, and that’s OK. Let’s see where we CAN agree.”

• Seek common ground first: Start by acknowledging and/or finding shared values or concerns before diving into differences. We are all Charlie now!

• Step away if you find yourself becoming agitated because the conversation is turning personal or hostile. You can’t control others, but you can control your response.

These suggestions may help keep our discussions focused on ideas rather than attacking people’s humanity. Small, consistent choices like these can have a ripple effect to make Prescott’s conversations more constructive and connected. Courtesy can be contagious!

Together, we can rebuild the respectful Prescott we all cherish. Together, we can turn the tide.