There are people, who, if you kick them into the ditch, will lay there thinking, "I must have done something to deserve this."

and then a few moments later they might concievably go "oh wait, this was simply unprovoked violence, and I am now going to be taking steps to protect myself and others from this threat to society"

This is certainly true to some degree, or else all advertising expenditure is wasted.

Right. But curiously enough, advertising, broadly speaking, tries to either 1) make you lust for something the advertised good/service claims to provide, or 2) makes you fear something the advertised good/service claims to mitigate. I'm yet to see any advertisement try to get you to buy something under threat of repercussions, or threat of being dehumanized. This last category is what GP is asking about, so advertising can serve at best as weak evidence that it doesn't work (or else it would be used in ads).

I don't know of any advertisement that made me buy something I didn't want. Has any done that to you?

But, of course, the purchase comes after the want, which comes after the ad. So I don't see how you've offered a counterpoint at all.

See my parallel reply to GGP.

It's push vs. pull. Ads pull you by creating a want (either lust-driven or fear-driven) and conveniently pointing to something that can fulfill it. The followers of oppressive and hateful ideologies instead push you to do something or adopt some belief, under threat of being labeled the enemy should you not comply.

Put another way, the difference between this threat-based persuasion and fear-based advertising is that the ads are just bullshitting you into believing you're in some danger, so you'll buy the advertiser's "solution", while threat-based approach is that the other party will put you in danger unless you comply with them.

If they adjust their speech and their behavior, it doesn't matter anymore what they actually think but dare tell no one.

That's the exact kind of thinking used by various oppressive and totalitarian movements and governments in the past. Sooner or later, it ends in physical violence.

It's just sad that those self-proclaimed anti-oppression activists don't see they're using the very same methods for their supposed goals.

Yes, as the lies build upon lies and more and more people flock to enter the parasitic class by corruption instead of being part of the host class, the inevitable end is war or one-sided killing.

Since you cannot shine truth on a small lie without exposing bigger lies, the lies snowball into unmanageable levels, inhibiting all creativity, science and business. This happens in any corrupt people, even without any violence or even threat of violence. But the violence is inevitable in the end.