Whereas the amount of hostility found online increases, scholarly interest in online hostility is decreasing. In this paper, I discuss three questions central to the study of online hostility, namely 1) what role the text, the speaker’s intention and the targets’ perception should play in definitions of hostility; 2) whether hostility is always destructive or if it can also be productive in public debate; and 3) how to distinguish between destructive and productive hostility. I demonstrate the difficulties in defining online hostility and argue that rather than aiming for specific definitions, we should acknowledge the situatedness of rhetorical practice and, consequently, that the effects and ethical implications of utterances depend on given situations. In doing so, I aim to encourage renewed academic interest in flaming and trolling.
What does it mean to argue well? This is one of the central questions asked in studies of rhetoric. This article contributes to this discussion. Seeing the domain of rhetoric argumentation as questions discussed in the public sphere, and considering its main function being to enable citizens to make well-informed choices in these matters, I discuss which rhetorical devices that can be seen as legitimate in political debates. In order to do this, I enter into a dialog with Christian Kock's perspectives on acceptable argumentation. His contribution is well suited for scrutinizing rhetorical practices that obscure the debate. However, tried against concrete examples from political debates in the Norwegian election campaign in 2013, some of Kock's thoughts on what good rhetoric is, turns out to be inexpedient: 1) in order to discuss where to go one has to agree on the current position, 2) arguments have to be acceptable for most of the citizens, and 3) speculations in the hidden motifs of the opponent are irrelevant. In this article I will therefore propose a couple of remarks that can contribute to a further development of this sort of reflections on political communication. Sammendrag Hva det vil si å argumentere godt er et av retorikkens sentrale spørsmål. Denne artikkelen er et bidrag i denne diskusjonen. Med utgangspunkt i tanken om at retorikkens domene skal vaere spørsmål som diskuteres i offentligheten, og dens funksjon å sette borgerne i stand til å ta stilling i disse spørsmålene, drøfter jeg hvilke retoriske midler som kan regnes som legitime i politisk debatt. Dette gjør jeg ved å gå i dialog med Christian Kocks krav til saklig argumentasjon, formulert blant annet i De svarer ikke. Fordummende
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.