How Nigeria's Online Culture Normalises Cruelty

Hannah Arendt’s view on Adolf Eichmann makes us think about how ordinary people can ignore the harm they help cause. In Nigeria's online space, we see this issue clearly. When we cheer for a killing, defend a mob, or avoid a victim based on their identity, what are we making acceptable? No fears, anger, or beliefs should determine who gets justice.

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” , Hannah Arendt

In 1961, Hannah Arendt went to Jerusalem to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who played a major role in the Nazi deportation of Jews. She expected to see a monster. Instead, she noticed how ordinary Eichmann seemed and how he used common phrases to distance himself from his actions. Arendt later looked deeper into this shocking gap between normal behavior and great harm in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.

Arendt’s story raises an important question: How do people accept cruelty while thinking they are good? In Nigeria, we see this question in how people react online to killings and public violence.

A country might show signs of progress like a growing economy, better technology, modern buildings, and good human development scores, but it can still be very sick. Like a body with a serious illness, a society can look fine while its moral health remains damaged.

In social sciences, a “sick society” is one where norms and behaviors harm people or threaten its future. Instead of collapsing suddenly, it usually weakens slowly across four main areas.

The Four Pillars of Societal Sickness

1. Structural and Anthropological Maladaptation

In his book Sick Societies, anthropologist Robert Edgerton points out cultural practices that can harm a society’s wellbeing. Some examples are:

• Chronic internal conflict: Ongoing ethnic, religious, or political issues that stop collective action and block solutions;
• Institutionalised despair and alienation: Systems that keep large groups feeling permanently left out, leading to rebellion, apathy, or despair;
• Maladaptive resource management: Practices that harm the economy, damage the environment, or ignore hunger and disease.

1. The Inverse Burden Transfer: Exporting Pain

A sick society can seem stable by shifting unresolved problems down the social ladder. The term “inverse burden transfer” describes this process of “exporting pain.” The burdens shift in three ways:

• From institutions to citizens: Failures in administration and policing become individual problems, forcing people to deal with institutional breakdown alone;
• From the powerful to the vulnerable: Economic shocks, security threats, and environmental issues hit poor and marginalised groups the hardest;
• From the present to the future: Short-sighted leaders leave systemic debt, crumbling infrastructure, and ecological damage for future generations.

1. Hyper Conformity to Corrupted Norms

Using Erich Fromm’s ideas in The Sane Society, when dysfunction becomes normal, traditional ideas of health lose their meaning, and people start to follow bad social norms:

• Pathologising dissent: Those who show outrage at state failure or mass violence may be seen as unstable, while violent actions are justified;
• Escapism over well being: Anxiety and depression become normal, while consumerism, substance abuse, and excessive online engagement distract from real problems.

1. The Legitimisation of Lovelessness

The last stage of societal decay happens when empathy disappears, and cruelty, indifference, or revenge become acceptable. This idea is rooted in Hannah Arendt’s thoughts on the banality of evil. It shows how slogans and blind obedience lead ordinary people to support or take part in terrible actions without seeing themselves as bad. Empathy shrinks to just one’s own group, and the rights of others are ignored.

After terrible murders, empathy on social media often depends on ethnic, regional, religious, or political identities. Online chats can quickly turn into identity-based attacks. Before showing sympathy, people may judge victims based on their names, ethnicities, beliefs, or where they come from. If a victim belongs to an “out group,” reactions can range from indifference, like “they asked for it,” to open celebration.

Mass Unreason and Social Media
In present-day Nigeria, the fourth pillar, the legitimisation of lovelessness, is clear in online spaces, especially Facebook. Some say X (formerly Twitter) is worse. Facebook connects many groups and shows everyday public opinions. Reactions to extrajudicial killings, mob actions, kidnappings, and murders reflect a society's moral state. As trust in government protection and justice fades, online spaces may celebrate, defend, or justify public cruelty. Reports or videos of extrajudicial killings often get justifications in the comments. In this climate of mass unreason, people may overlook the human cost of the violence they support, along with due process and proper justice.

Selective Empathy and Dehumanisation
Fear and group loyalty narrow people's compassion. Showing care for someone outside their group or calling for fair trials for someone accused from a rival group can feel like betraying one’s own group.

Digital Mobs, Slogans and the Avoidance of Conscience
Social media algorithms reward strong emotions, creating spaces for digital mobs where extreme reactions get attention. As Arendt’s work shows, repeated phrases can turn complex moral issues into simple scripts. Cheering for an extrajudicial killing from behind a phone can create a sense of belonging and moral purpose. This response sanitises the act and keeps people from facing their role in a sick society.

Reclaiming Shared Humanity
I have avoided giving specific examples of our societal sickness to keep the focus on the main message. A society does not become cruel overnight. It changes when a victim’s identity decides if their life matters. Each excuse makes the next act of cruelty easier to accept.

Arendt’s view on Eichmann asks us to think about how ordinary people can distance themselves from the harm they help cause. In Nigeria’s digital public square, this question is urgent: When we cheer a killing, excuse a mob, or ignore a victim because of their identity, what are we normalising? No fear, anger, or ideology should decide who deserves justice.

To stop this slide into mass unreason, we need a strong, united effort from the government, digital platforms, and community groups. First, the Federal Ministry of Justice and state attorneys general must enforce strict laws by prosecuting those who incite mob violence and extrajudicial killings. This will help dismantle the “cynical realism” that claims formal courts are useless.

Second, social media companies, especially Meta, must change algorithms that reward emotional intensity, use local languages for moderation, and introduce prompts to disrupt mob mentality and dehumanising speech on platforms like Facebook.

Finally, religious leaders and community groups must work to remove harmful beliefs and promote fairness, restraint, and empathy as essential moral duties, ensuring that no fear, grievance, or political belief takes precedence over the rule of law.