respond and not worth the potential negative consequences. Others believed that responding would only escalate things and make it worse rather than resolve it. Some mentioned that they feel powerless to speak up in situations where their marginalized status is highlighted or reinforced and therefore prefer to avoid confrontation. Finally, some interviewees mentioned that they have worked to develop techniques to self-control because they believe this is the best strategy, especially as a way to handle hate speech when they encounter it face-to-face. Interpretations Many interviewees believed that hate-speech is driven by temporary emotions such as anger. This supported the view that it is most appropriate not to aggravate the situation by practicing self-control, even if the hate speech is directed to them. This could also be due to a preference for avoiding conflict and disagreement in general, which could be the case for both majority and marginalized group members. It is also interesting to note interviewees' perceptions that the burden of effective response should come from themselves instead of the original speaker; participants named “patience” and “self-control” as more preferable behaviors. Both Buddhist and Muslim participants quoted Buddhist values to say that, if the hate-speech is a result of individual anger, responding to anger with anger is not a good idea. Some participants also said that, because hate speech online has been intractable for so long without an effective method to counter it, it is better to distance oneself rather than think about it. While a few believed that hate speech will go away by itself when there are fewer social problems offline, this relationship between offline dynamics and online speech made others feel powerless to say anything. Hate-speech online as a reflection of deeper social issues and systems of inequality emphasized their feeling of powerlessness online. This could also relate to potential consequences, and emotional repercussions, especially when this belief is held by members of the minority group. Many participants mentioned many real-life situations when they “would not dare” to speak up in response to verbal abuse, especially when the speaker was someone in a position of authority, such as a teacher, an elder, or a religious leader. Most of the interviewees mentioned that they still look at the comment threads and feel angry at what people are saying, even though they chose not to respond. To cope with this, many developed their own techniques to either repress their feelings, like “swallowing anger or humiliation”, or practice self-calming, such as through listening to music, praying, or going to sleep. A few participants also mentioned that they stopped reading comments when the negativity became too much to bear. Implications Members of the majority group should consider constraints faced by marginalized group members; if they are not observed to speak out, it does not mean they agree or accept the hate 13