Using data from user comments to the official social networking account of the Hubei Red Cross Foundation on a participatory web platform, this study attends to the offensive and hateful comments produced by ordinary Internet users to blame the elite authorities for their malfeasance in managing the donation during the COVID-19 in China. Drawing on Discursive Psychology, we focus on the rhetorical strategies that users employ to legitimise their actions as well-founded evidential blame against a norm-breaking act rather than radical extremist speech. The associated hatred among discussants are moral, social judgements. That said, hate speech also helps construct the moral standards of a normalised society.
AdelswärdVAronssonKLinellP (1988) Discourse of blame: Courtroom construction of social identity from the perspective of defendant. Semiotica71(3/4): 261–284.
2.
AlexanderMStokoeE (2020) Characterological formulations of persons in neighbourhood complaint sequences. Qualitative Research in Psychology17(3): 413–429.
3.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDA, et al. (2014) The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 373–387.
4.
AntakiCArdévolENúñezF, et al. (2006) ‘‘For she who knows who she is:’’ Managing accountability in online forum messages. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(1): 114–132.
5.
AssimakopoulosSBaiderFHMillarS (2017) Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective. Switzerland: Springer Open.
6.
AtkinsonJMDrewP (1979) Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
7.
AttenboroughFT (2016) A forgotten legacy? Towards a discursive psychology of the media. In: TileagăCStokoeE (eds) Discursive Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.224–240.
8.
AugoustinosMEveryD (2010) Accusations and denials of racism: Managing moral accountability in public discourse. Discourse & Society21(3): 251–256.
9.
AugoustinosMHastieBWrightM (2011) Apologizing for historical injustice: Emotion, truth and identity in political discourse. Discourse & Society22(5): 507–531.
10.
BaiderFConstantinouM (2020) A contrastive study of Greek and Greek Cypriot online discussions with an emphasis on irony. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict8(2): 262–287.
BaiderFMillarSAssimakopoulosS (eds) (2020) Introduction: Defining, performing, and countering hate speech. Pragmatics and Society11(2): 171–176.
13.
Ben-DavidAMatamoros-FernándezA (2016) Hate speech and covert discrimination on social media: Monitoring the Facebook pages of extreme-right political parties in Spain. International Journal of Communication10: 1167–1193.
14.
BickE (2020) Annotating emoticons and emojis in a German-Danish social media corpus for hate speech research. RASK – International Journal of Language and Communication, 52: 1–20.
15.
BrudholmTLangJ (2021) On hatred and dehumanization. In: KronfeldnerM (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Dehumanization. New York: Routledge, pp.341–354.
16.
CervoneCAugoustinosMMaassA (2021) The language of derogation and hate: Functions, consequences, and reappropriation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology40(1): 80–101.
17.
ChettyNAlathurS (2018) Hate speech review in the context of online social networks. Aggression and Violent Behavior40: 108–118.
18.
ChildsCHepburnA (2016) Discursive psychology and emotion. In: TileagăCStokoeE (eds) Discursive Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.114–128.
19.
CitronDK (2014) Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
20.
Council of Europe (1997) European convention on human rights. Available at https://rm.coe.int/1680505d5b (accessed 03 September 2022).
DahlbergL (2007) The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics3(1): 47–64.
23.
DahlbergL (2011) Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’. New Media & Society13(6): 855–872.
24.
DaiJZengFYuX (2015) Networked anti-corruption: Actors, styles, and mechanisms. In: ChenWReeseSD (eds) Networked China: Global Dynamics of Digital Media and Civic Engagement. New York: Routledge, pp.37–57.
25.
EdwardsD (1994) Script formulations: An analysis of event descriptions in conversation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology13(3): 211–247.
26.
EdwardsD (1995) Two to tango: Script formulations, dispositions, and rhetorical symmetry in relationship troubles talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction28(4): 319–350.
27.
EdwardsD (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: SAGE.
EdwardsDPotterJ (2005) Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In: Te MolderHPotterJ (eds) Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.241–259.
33.
FaircloughN (2013) Language and ideology. In: FaircloughN (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Routledge, pp.56–68.
34.
FaircloughNWodakR (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE, pp.258–284.
35.
FengDWuX (2018) Weibo interaction in the discourse of internet anti-corruption: The case of “Brother Watch” event. Discourse, Context & Media24: 99–108.
36.
GibsonWRoca-CuberesC (2019) Constructing blame for school exclusion in an online comments forum: Membership categorization analysis and endogenous category work. Discourse, Context & Media32: 100331.
37.
GilesDStommelWPaulusT, et al. (2015) Microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of “digital CA”. Discourse, Context & Media7: 45–51.
38.
GuoBJiangY (2015) Analyzing the coexistence of emerging transparency and tight political control on Weibo. The Journal of International Communication21(1): 78–108.
39.
HalpernDGibbsJ (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 1159–1168.
40.
HardakerC (2010) Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research6: 215–242.
41.
HarlowS (2011) Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society14(2): 225–243.
42.
HaslamNLoughnanSSunP (2011) Beastly: What makes animal metaphors offensive?Journal of Language and Social Psychology30(3): 311–325.
43.
HepburnA (2000) Power lines: Derrida, discursive psychology and the management of accusations of teacher bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology39, 605–628.
44.
HepburnAWigginsS (2007) Discursive research: Themes and debates. In: HepburnAWigginsS (eds) Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–28.
45.
HerringSC (1999) Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication4(4): JCMC444.
46.
HerringSCDainasAR (2017) “Nice picture comment!” Graphicons in Facebook comment threads. In: 15th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-50), Hilton Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, 4–7 January 2017, pp.2185–2194. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41419
47.
HoJ (2021) Metaphors, powerlessness and online aggression: How Wuhan lockdown escapees were dehumanised during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict. Epub ahead of print 2 December 2021. DOI: 10.1075/jlac.00073.ho.
48.
HodgesA (2017) The paranoid style in politics: Ideological underpinnings of the discourse of Second Amendment absolutism. In: KopytowskaM (ed.) Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.129–148.
49.
HumaBAlexanderMStokoeE, et al. (2020) Introduction to special issue on discursive psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology17(3): 313–335.
50.
JaidkaKZhouALelkesY, et al. (2022) Beyond anonymity: Network affordances, under deindividuation, improve social media discussion quality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27(1): 1–23.
51.
JaneEA (2015) Flaming? What flaming? The pitfalls and potentials of researching online hostility. Ethics and Information Technology17: 65–87.
52.
JonesRHChikAHafnerC (2015) Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.
53.
KeipeiTNäsiMOksanenA, et al. (2017) Online Hate and Harmful Content: Cross-national Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
54.
KhosraviNikM (2017) Social media critical discourse studies (SM-CDS). In: FlowerdewJRichardsonJE (eds) Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge, pp.582–596.
55.
KopytowskaM (2017) Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism Across Space and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
56.
KopytowskaMBaiderF (2017) From stereotypes and prejudice to verbal and physical violence: Hate speech in context. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics13(2): 133–152.
57.
KopytowskaMGrabowskiŁWoźniakJ (2017) Mobilizing against the other: Cyberhate, refugee crisis and proximization. In: KopytowskaM (ed.) Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalization across Space and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.57–97.
58.
KruseLMNorrisDRFlinchumJR (2018) Social media as a public sphere? Politics on social media. The Sociological Quarterly59(1): 62–84.
59.
LahtiE (2022) The joint construction of hate speech in online discussions. In: MonnierABoursierASeoaneA (eds) Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations. Switzerland: Palgrave, pp.165–185.
60.
LamerichsJte MolderHFM (2003) Computer-mediated communication: From a cognitive to a discursive model. New Media & Society5(4): 451–473.
61.
LeaMSpearsRde GrootD (2001) Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletins27(5): 526–537.
62.
LeeE-J (2007) Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: The role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication57: 385–403.
63.
LesterJNPaulusTM (2011) Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Studies13(6): 671–686.
64.
LongZ (2016) Managing legitimacy crisis for state-owned non-profit organization: A case study of the red cross society of China. Public Relations Review42(2): 372–374.
MafezaF (2016) Preventing genocide by fighting against hate speech. International Journal of Advanced Research4(3): 117–132.
67.
McGannonKRMcMahonJGonsalvesCA (2017) Mother runners in the blogosphere: A discursive psychological analysis of online recreational athlete identities. Psychology of Sport and Exercise28: 125–135.
68.
MengB (2011) From streamed bun to grass mud horse: E Gao as alternative political discourse on the Chinese Internet. Global Media and Communication7(1): 33–51.
69.
MeredithJ (2021) Using conversation analysis and discursive psychology to analyse online data. In: SilvermanD (ed.) Qualitative Research. London: SAGE, pp.245–261.
70.
MeredithJPotterJ (2013) Conversation analysis and electronic interactions: Methodological, analytic and technical considerations. In: LimHLSudweeksF (eds) Innovative Methods and Technologies for Electronic Discourse Analysis. Hershey: Information Science Reference, pp.370–392.
71.
MeredithJRichardsonE (2019) The use of the political categories of Brexiter and Remainer in online comments about the EU referendum. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology29(1): 43–55.
72.
MusolffA (2017) Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. In: KopytowskaM (ed.) Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.41–56.
73.
Paasch-ColbergSStrippelCTrebbeJ, et al. (2021) From insult to hate speech: Mapping offensive language in German user comments on immigration. Media and Communication9(1): 171–180.
74.
PohjonenMUdupaS (2017) Extreme speech online: An anthropological critique of hate speech debates. International Journal of Communication11: 1173–1191.
75.
PomerantzA (1978) Attributions of responsibility: Blamings. Sociology12(1): 115–133.
76.
PomerantzA (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies9: 219–229.
77.
PostmesTSpearsR (1998) Deindividuation and antinormative behaviour: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin123(3): 238–259.
78.
PotterJ (1998) Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology9(1): 233–266.
79.
PotterJEdwardsD (2013) Conversation analysis and psychology. In: SidnellJStiversT (eds) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.701–725.
80.
ReisiglMWodakR (2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
81.
RiggsDWDueC (2010) The management of accusations of racism in Celebrity Big Brother. Discourse & Society21(3): 257–271.
82.
SchegloffEA (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83.
ShaoL (2018) The dilemma of criticism: Disentangling the determinants of media censorship in China. Journal of East Asian Studies18: 279–297.
84.
SneijderPte MolderHFM (2005) Moral logic and logical morality: Attributions of responsibility and blame in online discourse on veganism. Discourse & Society16(5): 675–696.
85.
SneijderPte MolderHFM (2006) Disputing taste: Food pleasure as an achievement in interaction. Appetite46(1): 107–116.
86.
SørensenMP (2016) Political conversations on Facebook: The participation of politicians and citizens. Media, Culture & Society38(5): 664–685.
87.
StiversT (2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction41(1): 31–57.
88.
TaoY (2021) Who should apologize: Expressing criticism of public figures on Chinese social media in times of COVID-19. Discourse & Society32(5): 622–638.
89.
TechnauB (2018) Going beyond hate speech: The pragmatics of ethnic slur terms. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics14(1): 25–43.
90.
TileagăCStokoeE (2016) Introduction: The evolution of discursive psychology: From classic to contemporary themes. In: TileagăCStokoeE (eds) Discursive Psychology: Classic to Contemporary Issues. London; New York: Routledge, pp.1–12.
91.
Van DijkTA (1992) Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society3(1): 87–118.
92.
Van DijkTA (1993) Denying racism: Elite discourse and racism. In: SolomosJWrenchJ (eds) Racism and Migration in Western Europe. Oxford: Berg, pp.179–193.
93.
WarnickB (2007) Rhetoric Online: Persuasion and Politics on the World Wide Web. New York: Peter Lang.
94.
WigginsSMcQuadeRRasmussenS (2016) Stepping back from crisis points: The provision and acknowledgment of support in an online suicide discussion forum. Qualitative Health Research26(9): 1240–1251.
95.
WigginsSPotterJ (2003) Attitudes and evaluative practices: Category vs. item and subjective vs. objective constructions in everyday food assessments. British Journal of Social Psychology42: 513–531.
96.
WigginsSPotterJ (2008) Discursive psychology. In: WilligCStainton-RogersW (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: SAGE, pp.73–90.
97.
WodakR (2003) Discourses of silence: Anti-Semitic discourse in post-war Austria. In: ThiesmeyerL (ed.) Discourse and Silencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.179–209.
98.
WodakR (2006) Blaming and denying: Pragmatics. In: BrownK (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp.59–64.
99.
WuX (2018) Discursive strategies of resistance on Weibo: A case study of the 2015 Tianjin explosions in China. Discourse, Context & Media26: 64–73.
100.
WuXFitzgeraldR (2021) ‘Hidden in plain sight’: Expressing political criticism on Chinese social media. Discourse Studies23(3): 365–385.
101.
YangG (2009) The Power of the Internet in China: Citizen Activism Online. New York: Columbia University Press.
102.
ZhaoYLinZ (2020) Political irony as self-censorship practice? Examining dissidents’ use of Weibo in the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Executive Election. Discourse & Communication14(5): 512–532.
103.
ZhouY (2006) Historicizing Online Politics: Telegraphy, the Internet, and Political Participation in China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
