Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
