ERA is in the process of being migrated to Scholaris, a Canadian shared institutional repository service (https://scholaris.ca). Deposits and changes to existing ERA items and collections are frozen until migration is complete. Please contact erahelp@ualberta.ca for further assistance
- 41 views
- 35 downloads
The Rhetoric of Opposition: An Exploration of Far-Right Narrative Strategies and LGBTQ+ Advocacy
-
- Author(s) / Creator(s)
-
This study investigates the contrasting rhetorical approaches employed by social media platforms and content creators when moderating and framing ideologically charged content, specifically focusing on LGBTQ+ issues as a case study. Through comparative analysis of far-right media outlets and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations, this research identifies distinct stylistic patterns that reflect deeper paradigmatic differences in how controversial content is presented, justified, and moderated online. Applying Walter Fisher's communication theory, we demonstrate that far-right platforms predominantly employ narrative paradigm strategies—characterized by moral storytelling, emotional appeals, and identity-based framing—while LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations primarily utilize rational world paradigm approaches relying on empirical evidence, statistical analysis, and structured argumentation. These stylistic differences manifest across platform policies, content moderation decisions, and user engagement patterns, creating what Fisher termed "conceptual incommensurability" between opposing viewpoints. The study reveals how digital platforms' moderation approaches often reinforce these paradigmatic divisions, as engagement-driven algorithms typically favour emotionally resonant narrative content over rational deliberative discourse. Using thematic, semiotic, and discourse analysis methods, we document how these stylistic choices influence content visibility, audience reception, and the broader digital public sphere. Our findings suggest that effective content moderation strategies must account for both narrative and rational elements when addressing controversial ideological content, as purely technical approaches to moderation often fail to address the underlying narrative structures that make controversial content compelling to specific audiences. This research contributes to understanding how rhetorical style shapes digital discourse around contentious social issues and offers insights for developing more nuanced approaches to content moderation that can foster meaningful dialogue across ideological divides.
-
- Date created
- 2025-04-11
-
- Subjects / Keywords
-
- Type of Item
- Report