Abstract

AbstractIn this paper, I examine argumentative strategies that social movements can follow to counter hate speech. I begin by reconstructing the disagreement space of the abortion debate in Argentina as a polylogue, identifying the protests of the social movement Pañuelos verdes as argumentative contributions. I then describe two different forms of hate speech used in response to the movement’s protests. I argue that hate speech discredits the position of Pañuelos verdes in the abortion debate and depicts their protests as social threats. Subsequently, I discuss three argumentative strategies that social movements can implement to address hate speech: arguing with hate speakers; advocating for a dialogue with restrictions; and opting for argumentative disobedience. Arguing with hate speakers aims to make hate speakers retract hate speech by exposing the undesirability of using hateful messages in argumentative exchanges. Advocating for a dialogue with restrictions aims to impose limited bans on public speech in order to ensure equal participation of arguers in argumentation. Finally, I propose the notion of argumentative disobedience to describe communicative responses to hate speech that aim to bring bystanders in line with the position of social movements in public debates.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-024-09642-z
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (9)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
Show all 9 →
  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
Also cites 39 works outside this index ↓
  1. Allen, A. 2012. The unforced force of the better argument: reason and power in habermas’ political theory. Co…
    Constellations  
  2. Assimakopoulos, S. 2020. Incitement to discriminatory hatred, illocution and perlocution. Pragmatics and Soci…
    Pragmatics and Society  
  3. Bessone, P.G. 2020. Debates about the legalization of abortion in Argentina: the catholic church and its rela…
    Apuntes  
  4. Bolinger, R. 2017. The pragmatics of slurs. Noûs 51 (3): 439–462.
    Noûs  
  5. Brown, D.K., and S. Harlow. 2019. Protests, media coverage, and a hierarchy of social struggle. The Internati…
    The International Journal of Press/politics  
  6. The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy
  7. From Lying to Perjury
  8. Celikates, R. 2016. Democratizing civil disobedience. Philosophy and Social Criticism 42 (10): 982–994.
    Philosophy and Social Criticism  
  9. Cepollaro, B., M. Lepoutre, and R.M. Simpson. 2023. Counterspeech. Philosophy Compass 18 (1): e12890. https:/…
    Philosophy Compass  
  10. The Routledge Handbook of Social and Political Philosophy of Language
  11. Domínguez-Armas, Á., and Soria-Ruiz, A. 2021. Provocative insinuations. Daimon 84: 63–80. https://doi.org/10.…
    Daimon  
  12. Domínguez-Armas, Á., Soria-Ruiz, A., and Lewiński, M. 2023. Provocative Insinuations as Hate Speech: Argument…
    Topoi  
  13. Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the D…
  14. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discuss…
  15. Fricker, E. 2012. Stating and Insinuating. Aristotelian Society Supplementary 86 (1): 61–94.
    Aristotelian Society Supplementary  
  16. Fumagalli, C. 2021. Counterspeech and Ordinary Citizens: How? When? Political Theory 49 (6): 1021–1047.
    Political Theory  
  17. Gascón, J.Á. 2023. The inferential meaning of controversial terms: the case of “terrorism.” Topoi 42: 547–559.
    Topoi  
  18. Gelber, Katharine. 2012. ‘Speaking Back’: The Likely Fate of Hate Speech Policy in the United States and Aust…
  19. Howard, J.W. 2021. Terror, hate and the demands of counter-speech. British Journal of Political Science 51 (3…
    British Journal of Political Science  
  20. The Routledge Handbook of Social and Political Philosophy of Language
  21. Krabbe, Erik C. W., and Jan A. van Laar. 2021. Be reasonable! How to be an optimist in the ‘Age of Unreason.’…
    Journal of Argumentation in Context  
  22. Kukla, R. 2014. Performative Force, Convention, and Discursive Injustice. Hypatia 29(2): 440–457. https://doi…
    Hypatia  
  23. Lepoutre, M. 2017. Hate Speech in Public Discourse: A Pessimistic Defense of Counterspeech. Social Theory and…
    Social Theory and Practice  
  24. Lepoutre, M. 2019. Can “More Speech” Counter Ignorant Speech? Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 16 (3):…
    Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy  
  25. Lewiński, M. 2017. Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy. Informal Logic 37 (2): 85–113.
    Informal Logic  
  26. Lewiński, M. 2021. Conclusions of practical argument : a speech act analysis. Organon 28 (2): 420–457.
    Organon  
  27. Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech
  28. Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech
  29. Just words: On speech and hidden harm
  30. Social Movements: Identity, Culture, and the State
  31. Oswald, S. 2022. Insinuation is committing. Journal of Pragmatics 198: 158–170.
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  32. Picazo, C. 2022. Distorted debates. Topoi 42 (2): 561–571.
    Topoi  
  33. A theory of justice
  34. Searle, J.R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5 (1): 1–23.
    Language in Society  
  35. Silva, A., and R.M. Simpson. 2022. Law as counterspeech. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. https://doi.org/1…
    Ethical Theory and Moral Practice  
  36. Everyday Revolutions: Horizontalism and autonomy in Argentina
  37. Tirrell, L. 2018. Toxic speech: inoculations and antidotes. Southern Journal of Philosophy 56: 116–144.
    Southern Journal of Philosophy  
  38. The Harm in Hate Speech
  39. The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument