Patterns of Responses to Abusive Ad Hominem Attacks: The Case of Facebook News-commenting

Year 2020, Volume: 37 Issue: 2, 290 - 303, 31.12.2020

Yeliz Demir

https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.631015

Cited By: 1

Abstract

News-commenting in social media is a platform that offers an opportunity for online deliberation through argumentative discussion. Yet aggressive exchanges between commenters with clashing ideologies have become a prominent feature of online news-commenting. One example of the aggressive exchanges is the use of direct personal attacks among news-commenters, namely abusive ad hominem. In this paper, I aim to reveal the patterns of responses given to abusive ad hominem attacks by studying the comments to news items in Facebook. The reason is to shed light on how the discussion evolves after the ad hominem attack. The patterns that this paper illustrates are a summary of studying the responses to 20 ad hominem attacks that figure in the comments to news items topicalizing various social problems in Turkey. The examples were drawn from those that topicalise ‘violence against women in Turkey’. Three patterns were identified: (1) abusive ad hominem as a response to an abusive ad hominem attack; (2) refusing to carry on the discussion; and (3) critically evaluating the abusive ad hominem attack. These patterns show that the pragma-dialectical definition of the ad hominem fallacy proves to be functional in understanding its role in blocking the way to the resolution.

Keywords

abusive ad hominem, responses, Pragma-Dialectics, Facebook news-commenting

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK

Thanks

This article is an outcome of the post-doctoral research project carried out at the University of Amsterdam, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory, and Rhetoric, based on the International Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship Grant (BIDEB-2219) awarded to the author by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) between March 2015 and March 2016.

Adam Karalama Safsatasına Verilen Yanıtların Sav Modelleri: Facebook Haber Yorumlarından Örnekler

Abstract

Sosyal medyada haber yorumlama, kişilerin tartışarak çeşitli konuları çevrimiçi müzakere etmelerine olanak tanıyan bir platformdur. Ancak kullanıcılar arasındaki agresif iletişim, bu platformun önemli bir özelliği haline gelmiştir. Bu agresif iletişim örneklerinden biri yorumcuların karşıtlarına adam karalama safsatası yoluyla saldırmalarıdır. Bu çalışmada, Facebook haber yorumları incelenerek, adam karalama safsatasına verilen yanıtlarının argümantatif modellemesini yapmak amaçlanmaktadır. Bu sayede, bu tip saldırılardan sonra tartışmanın nasıl ilerleyebileceğine ışık tutulacaktır. Çalışmada 20 adet yanıt incelenmiştir. Bu yanıtlar, Türkiye’deki çeşitli sosyal problemleri konu eden haberlere yapılan yorumlardaki adam karalama safsatalarına verilen yanıtlardandır. Örnek vaka olarak, Türkiye’de ‘kadına yönelik şiddet’ haberlerine yapılan yorumlar kullanılmıştır. Analizler sonunda üç adet model ortaya çıkmıştır: (1) adam karalamaya yönelik saldırıya yine adam karalama safsatasıyla yanıt vermek; (2) tartışmaya devam etmeyeceğini belirtmek; ve (3) adam karalama safsatasını eleştirmek. Bu modeller, edimsel-eytişimsel yaklaşımın önerdiği adam karalama safsatası tanımının, bu saldırıların görüş ayrılığının ortadan kaldırılmasının önünde nasıl bir engel oluşturduğunu anlamak açısından işlevsel bir tanım olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

adam karalama safsatası, yanıtlar, Edimsel-Eytişimsel yaklaşım, Facebook haber yorumları

References

• Ad hominem. n.d. In Student Sources of Department of Philosophy of Texas State University. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: CUP.
• BTK-30/11/2007 tarihli 26716 sayılı Resmi Gazetede yayımlanan İnternet Ortamında Yapılan Yayınların Düzenlenmesine Dair Usul ve Esaslar Hakkında Yönetmelik [The Regulation on the Principles and Procedures of Regulating the Publications on the Internet, dated 30/11/2007 and published on the Official Gazette issue number 26716]: https://www.btk.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%2FCommunique%2FREGULATION%20ON%20THE%20PRINCIPLES%20AND%20PROCEDURES%20OF%20REGULATING%20THE%20PUBLICATIONS%20ON%20THE%20INTERNET.pdf
• Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 344-364.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa-London: The University of Alabama Press.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argument moves. In H.V. Hansen, et. al. (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground, CD-ROM (pp. 1-17). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
• Facebook commenting image was retrieved March 20, 2018 from http://www.prosar.com/inbound_marketing_blog/ bid/175896/NEW-Facebook-Updates-with-Reply-Button-and-Comment-Threads
• Facebook Terms of Service. (2015, January 30). Retrieved August 19, 2015 from https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
• Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation: Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159-1168.
• Hutchens, M. J., Cicchirillo, V. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2015). How could you think that?!?!: Understanding intentions to engage in political flaming. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1201-1219.
• Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 971-977.
• Lewiński, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. Amsterdam: SicSat.
• Neagu, M. I. (2013). Decoding political discourse: Conceptual metaphors and argumentation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Neurauter-Kessels, M. (2011). Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2), 187-214.
• O'Sullivan, P. B., & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Reconceptualizing “flaming” and other problematic messages. New Media & Society, 5(1), 69-94.
• Polat, R.K. (2005). The Internet and political participation: Exploring the explanatory links. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 435–459.
• Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138.
• Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18-33.
• Steenkamp, M., & Hayde-Clarke, N. (2014). The use of facebook for political commentary in South Africa. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 91-97.
• Upadhyay, S. R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 105-127.
• Vesnic-Alujevic, L. (2012). Political participation and web 2.0 in Europe: A case study of Facebook. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 466-470.
• Walton, D. N. (1987). The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation, 1(3), 317-331.
• Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982. Dordrecht: Foris.
• You, K. H., Lee, J. K., Kang, H., Go, E. (2015). Participatory or deliberative democracy? Exploring the mediation effects of perceived online deliberation and online interactive activities on social outcomes. Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 205-214.