Supporting and challenging hate in an online discussion of a controversial refugee policy

Abstract

Online hate is a serious problem affecting a range of minoritised people. Existing theories suggest that poor behaviour online is due to anonymity but fail to explore how such discussions unfold. This is where a discursive and rhetorical psychological approach is appropriate as it offers a micro-level analysis. In this research paper, a discursive/rhetorical approach is applied to an online debate about a controversial refugee policy in the UK containing 586 comments, to address the question: How are arguably hateful arguments, or those challenging hateful arguments, supported and challenged in the context of an internet discussion about a controversial refugee policy? Analysis demonstrated that support for posts is shown to come in the form of additional points to bolster existing ones. Opposition to posts took the form of simple rejections and counterpoints, sometimes taking a three-part structure of (a) simple rejection, (b) counterpoint and (c) upgrade, but also included insults, ridiculing and name calling. Discursive and rhetorical analyses have been shown to have potential to understand online behaviour offering more detail than relying on anonymity to explain controversial and hateful speech.