Since the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan, millions have fled the country due to fear of retribution, systematic discrimination, widespread repression, poverty, and unemployment. This mass migration has triggered a profound crisis of individual and collective identity among the displaced. Those remaining in Afghanistan, struggling under the brutal oppression of the Taliban, hoped that the diaspora would become a unified voice for justice, enlightenment, and resistance against the group. However, contrary to expectations, the behavior of the diaspora on social media reveals that virtual spaces have become battlegrounds for intense ethnic, linguistic, gender, and political conflicts among migrants. This, intentionally or not, benefits the Taliban and bolsters their continued rule.
Nevertheless, researchers in philosophy and sociology argue that this hate speech reflects the societal defeat inflicted by the Taliban. They note that hate propagators lack genuine social bases and seek legitimacy by creating tense virtual environments. These researchers add that hate speech has become a mechanism for venting anger and trauma stemming from social collapse. They argue that without meaningful dialogue, individuals perceive differences and diversity as threats to their identity rather than embracing them.
Following the collapse of the previous government, elites from various fields fled the country to escape the Taliban’s oppressive rule. Some in exile, instead of fostering unity, constructive dialogue, critique, and exposure of the Taliban’s repressive nature, attack one another on social media with harsh language and ethnic, linguistic, and gender labels.
Dr. Mohammad Amin Ahmadi, a religious affairs researcher and member of the former government’s negotiation team with the Taliban, in an interview with the Hasht-e Subh Daily, addressed the diaspora’s hate speech on social media, stating: “It stems from our defeat by the Taliban. This defeat led to widespread collapse, and the process of disintegration continues. The prevailing perception is that the Taliban represent a specific ethnic group, coming to power through a deal between the presidential palace and the West, which is seen as an ethnic victory. This bleak perception has further poisoned the moral atmosphere.”
Ahmadi elaborates: “The initial expectation was that this defeat and the Taliban’s system, rooted in religious fanaticism, ethnic and gender discrimination, and comprehensive repression of every citizen of Afghanistan, would foster a deeper understanding of justice and equality, strengthening solidarity around these values. I even thought the late martyr Abdul Ali Mazari’s stances during the mujahideen government would become more comprehensible to many thinkers and writers.”
He adds that the absence of a unified program, shared political vision, and effective opposition has turned ethnic identity into a tool for intra-ethnic cohesion and emotional release.
On the other hand, Sayed Hussain Eshraq, a researcher in philosophy and sociology, notes that many hate propagators lack real social support and attempt to gain virtual legitimacy by stoking ethnic sentiments. He states that these individuals typically lack scientific, ethical, or rational solutions to existing crises. Eshraq explains that they generalize individual behaviors, oversimplify issues, and frame them ethnically to mask their shortcomings.
He further notes: “The political and moral failures of some figures, particularly those previously in power, have fueled frustration, especially among young people without direct historical experience. These figures exploit this to cover their failures through hate speech. More critically, this crisis is rooted in cultural underdevelopment, a phenomenon prevalent even among the educated, as education has not translated into intellectual or civic maturity. Instead of tolerating differences, identity is weaponized to deepen divisions.”
Eshraq adds that, psychologically, hate speech serves as a mechanism to release anger and trauma from social collapse. Philosophically, the absence of meaningful dialogue about differences and the dominance of “othering” have led individuals to view diversity as a threat rather than an asset. He warns that this inadvertently strengthens Taliban dominance, as the discourse of civil resistance is undermined internally. To overcome this, he emphasizes the need to rebuild dialogue spaces, strengthen civic education, and redefine social media as a platform for cultural coexistence. The ethical role of intellectuals, influential social media activists, cultural and civic institutions in the diaspora, families, and small social networks is crucial.
Eshraq stresses that rebuilding dialogue spaces depends more on cultural actors, ethical elites, and informed ordinary people than on politicians. He asserts that ethical responsibility is not the sole burden of any single institution but is shared horizontally among all. “Those who remain silent are part of the crisis,” he adds.
Meanwhile, some social media users argue that hate speech online, beyond reflecting historical grievances and complexes, also highlights identity crises and the inflexibility of refugees in host societies. They suggest that resistance against oblivion and rootlessness in host countries drives some users to produce hateful content online to gain visibility and assert their presence.
Social media users identify past grievances, cultural and educational backwardness, socio-political collapse, unhealed ethnic wounds, psychological issues, lack of direction, and feelings of inferiority and powerlessness as key drivers of hate speech among the Afghanistan diaspora. They emphasize that such individuals use these pretexts to grapple with their oblivion, seeking to prove their existence.
Many users also believe that ethnicity in Afghanistan is a serious issue that requires healthy, hate-free dialogue to find solutions, rather than allowing such discussions to become new sources of tension and hate.
Afghanistan is not the only country grappling with ethnic, linguistic, gender, and political hate speech online. Other nations that have experienced civil war, ethnic discrimination, mass migration, and identity crises have faced similar digital hate phenomena.
In Rwanda, where ethnic hate speech fueled one of the 20th century’s most catastrophic genocides, media and social networks post-conflict transformed into tools for national reconciliation, dialogue, and constructive convergence. Before the genocide, state and local media played a key role in inciting ethnic hatred, paving the way for the tragedy. However, post-genocide, the media shifted to broadcasting survivors’ stories, facilitating dialogue between victims and perpetrators, and promoting empathy and tolerance, becoming instruments for national reconciliation and social reconstruction. Rwanda’s younger generation has leveraged social media to promote ethnic convergence, reinterpret history through a lens of peace, and empower communities.
Conversely, during the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, Facebook became a platform for widespread hate speech against the minority group, poisoning the social environment and legitimizing ethnic cleansing. The United Nations accused Facebook of playing a “determining role” in escalating ethnic tensions and violence.
In the former Yugoslavia, hate speech surged online among younger generations without direct war experience, who, instead of promoting reconciliation and coexistence, reproduced prejudiced and ethnic narratives on social media.
You can read the Persian version of this report here:
نفرتپراکنی آوارهگان در فضای مجازی؛ طالبان فربهتر میشوند | روزنامه ۸صبح
