causes are, and what the solutions should be. After the Manchester Arena Bombing, a repeated theme could be paraphrased as “[*if Muslims were not allowed in the country, there would be no terrorist incidents*]{}.” A proposed solution was e.g., “[*stop Islamic immigration before it is too late*]{}." Some messages went further, linking the event to immigration more broadly. We also found posts framing the event (and what happened after) as a lesson on what Islam is, and what it stands for, e.g., “[*Islam only wants to kill and rape, \[Q\]uran is a manual of evil*]{}." Yet, other messages tried to push back on this framing by suggesting a counter-narrative.

Four Dimensions of Online Hate Speech {#subsec:dimensions-hate-speech}
-------------------------------------

Based on prior work and our exploration of post-event messages, we derive four main dimensions of hate and counter-hate speech: **stance**, **target**, **severity**, and **framing**. While these are useful, we recognize these dimensions are unlikely to capture all aspects of online expressions of hate.

[**Stance.** ]{} \[subsec:stance\]  @magdy2016isisisnotislam make a distinction between online speech that [*attacks*]{} and blames, speech that [*defends*]{}, and speech that is [*neutral*]{} towards Islam and Muslims following a terrorist attack. @benesch2016counterspeech introduce a taxonomy for spontaneous expressions of counter-hate 