Pré-publicação
Artigos

Como combater o discurso danoso: O uso de reformulações como contradiscurso

PDF
  • Eduarda C. Barbosa
Eduarda C. Barbosa
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brasil.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1166

Publicado 2026-02-24

Palavras-chave

  • Counterspeech,
  • Silencing,
  • Rephrasing,
  • QUD,
  • Harmful Speech
  • Contradiscurso,
  • Silenciamento,
  • Reformulação,
  • QUD,
  • Discurso danoso
Creative Commons License

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Resumo

É amplamente aceito que o discurso intolerante e preconceituoso não tem lugar na comunicação democrática. Mas, como combatê-lo? Uma resposta natural é recorrer ao contradiscurso negativo, no qual o ouvinte resistente refuta o que foi dito pelo preconceituoso; e.g., negando um estereótipo negativo, como ‘mulheres são submissas’. Ultimamente, contudo, este tipo de estratégia vem sendo tratada com certo pessimismo por parte de filósofos que ressaltam que negar estereótipos reforça sua saliência e amplifica sua influência cognitiva.  Isso pode fazer com que tentativas de refutação simplesmente saiam pela culatra como contradiscurso. Além disso, também já se argumentou, contra as refutações, que é injusto exigir deveres de resistência das vítimas típicas do discurso intolerante, já que sua fala costuma sofrer com silenciamentos e/ou lacunas hermenêuticas. Meu objetivo aqui é questionar essa visão pessimista sobre o contradiscurso negativo, argumentando que responder negativamente ao intolerante continua sendo uma opção adequada, desde que o falante resistente consiga mudar a QUD (Question Under Discussion) — que representa os objetivos da conversa — ou os termos problemáticos usados na interação. Proponho que as reformulações in situ, que são respostas essencialmente negativas, constituem boas alternativas às refutações. Sustento também que as reformulações realizadas na comunicação do Estado têm menos probabilidade de serem silenciadas, o faz delas ferramentas úteis para evitar problemas relacionados a questões deônticas. Por fim, analiso um caso prático de uso de reformulação no âmbito do contradiscurso estatal.

PDF

Referências

  1. Anderson, L., Haslanger, S., & Langton, R. (2012). Language and race. Em The Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 753-767). Routledge.
  2. Austin, J. L. (1962/1990). Quando dizer é fazer: Palavras e ação (D. Marcondes de Souza Filho, Trad.). Artes Médicas.
  3. Barbosa, E. C. (2023). Code words and (re) framing. Manuscrito, 46(3), e-2023.
  4. Barbosa, E. C., & Fernandes, M. T. (2024). Resistência conversacional e as variedades de contradiscurso. Principia: An international journal of epistemology, 28(3), 5.
  5. Bartlett, J., & Krasodomski-Jones, A. (2015, 19/12/2024). Counter-speech: Examining content that challenges extremism online. https://www.dangerousspeech.org/libraries/counter-speech-examining-content-that-challenges-extremism-online
  6. Benz, A., & Jasinskaja, K. (2017). Questions under discussion: From sentence to discourse. Discourse Processes, 54(3), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1316038
  7. Brettschneider, C (2012). When the state speaks, what should it say?: How democracies can protect expression and promote equality. Princeton University Press.
  8. Brown, A. (2017a). What is hate speech? Part 1: The myth of hate. Law and philosophy, 36(4), 419-468.
  9. Brown, A. (2017b). What is hate speech? Part 2: Family resemblances. Law and Philosophy, 36(5), 561-613.
  10. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Caponetto, L., & Cepollaro, B. (2023). Bending as counterspeech. Ethical theory and moral practice, 26, 577-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-022-10334-4
  12. Cepollaro, B., Lepoutre, M., & Simpson, R. M. (2023). Counterspeech. Philosophy Compass, 18(1), e12890. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12890
  13. Dorst, K. (2020, Mar 12). The rational question. The Oxonian Review: https://www.oxonianreview.com/articles/the-rational-question
  14. Eisterhold, J., Attardo, S., & Boxer, D. (2006). Reactions to irony in discourse: Evidence for the least disruption principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1239-1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.003
  15. Fraser, R. (2023). How to talk back: Hate speech, misinformation, and the limits of salience. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 22(3), 315-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231167593
  16. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
  17. Gelber, K. (2002). Speaking back: The free speech versus hate speech debate. John Benjamins.
  18. Gelber, K. (2021). Differentiating hate speech: A systemic discrimination approach. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 24(4), 393-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2019.1576006
  19. Goffredo, P., Basile, V., Cepollaro, B., & Patti, V. (2022). Counter-TWIT: An Italian corpus for online counterspeech in ecological contexts. In K. Narang, A. Mostafazadeh D., L. Mathias, B. Vidgen & Z. Talat (Eds.), WOAH 2022-6th Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms, Proceedings of the Workshop (pp. 57-66). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
  20. Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377-388.
  21. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Em Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Brill.
  22. Haslanger, S. (2010). Ideology, generics, and common ground. Em C. Witt (Ed.), Feminist metaphysics: Explorations in the ontology of sex, gender and the self (pp. 179-207). Springer.
  23. Hornsby, J., & Langton, R. (1998). Free speech and illocution. Legal Theory, 4(1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1352325200000902
  24. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420-1436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420
  25. Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2016). Evaluating an expectation-driven question-under-discussion model of discourse interpretation. Discourse Processes, 54(3), 219-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1169069
  26. Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1387-1411, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00182-0
  27. Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22(4), 293-330.
  28. Langton, R. (2010). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. By Miranda Fricker. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007. Hypatia, 25(2), 459-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01098.x
  29. Langton, R. (2018). Blocking as counter-speech. Em D. Fogal, D. W. Harris & M. Moss (Eds.), New work on speech acts (pp. 144-164). Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198738831.003.0006
  30. Lepoutre, M. (2017). Hate speech in public discourse: A pessimistic defense of counterspeech. Social Theory and Practice, 43(4), 851-883. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201711125
  31. Lepoutre, M. (2019). Can more speech counter ignorant speech. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 16(3), 155-191. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v16i3.682
  32. Lepoutre, M. (2021). Democratic speech in divided times. Oxford University Press.
  33. Lepoutre, M. (2023). Discursive optimism defended. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 22(3), 357-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231179665
  34. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
  35. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Em R. Bauerle, U. Egli & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view (pp. 172-187). Springer.
  36. Maitra, I. (2009). Silencing speech. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(2), 309-338. http://doi.org/10.1353/cjp.0.0050
  37. Maitra, I. (2012). Subordinating speech. Em I. Maitra & M. K. McGowan (Eds.), Speech and harm: Controversies over free speech (pp. 94-120). Oxford Academic.
  38. Marques, T. (2023). The expression of hate in hate speech. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 40(5), 769-787.
  39. Mason, R. (2021). Hermeneutical injustice. Em The Routledge Handbook of social and political philosophy of language (pp. 247-258). Routledge.
  40. Matsuda, M. J., Iii, C. R. L., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. W. (2018). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment. Routledge.
  41. McGowan, M. K. (2019). Just words: On speech and hidden harm. Oxford University Press.
  42. McGowan, M. K. (en prensa). On constitutively harmful speech, the riskiness of in situ counter-speech, and silencing. Em S. Haslanger, L. Schroeter, K. Jones, G. Restall, & F. Schroeter (eds.), Mind, language, and social hierarchy: Constructing a shared social world. Oxford University Press.
  43. Medina, J. (2013). The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and the social imagination. Oxford University Press.
  44. Medina, J. (2023). The epistemology of protest: Silencing, epistemic activism, and the communicative life of resistance. Oxford University Press.
  45. Mills, C. (2007). White ignorance. Em S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 11-38). State University of New York Press.
  46. Moon, J. D. (2014). Well-ordered society. Em J. Mandle & D. A. Reidy (Eds.), The Cambridge Rawls Lexicon (pp. 874-877). Cambridge University Press.
  47. Orlando, E., & Saab, A. (2019). Términos peyorativos de grupo, estereotipos y actos de habla. Crítica, 51(153), 31-58.
  48. Popa-Wyatt, M. (2023, Jul 27). The challenges of regulating online speech. https://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2023/07/the-challenges-of-regulating-online-speech/
  49. Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1-69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6
  50. Roberts, C. (2015). Accommodation in a language game. Em B. Loewer & J. Schaffer (Eds.), A companion to David Lewis (pp. 345-366). Wiley Blackwell.
  51. Romdenh-Romluc, K. (2017). Hermeneutical injustice and the problem of authority. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2017.3.1
  52. Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I., & Yoon, C. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 127-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39003-X
  53. Simpson, R. (2013). Un-ringing the bell: McGowan on oppressive speech and the asymmetric pliability of conversations. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91(3), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2012.704053
  54. Strawson, P. F. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. The philosophical review, 73(4), 439-460.
  55. Tirrell, L. (2012). Genocidal language games. Em I. Maitra & M. K. McGowan (Eds.), Speech and harm: Controversies over free speech (pp. 174-221). Oxford University Press.
  56. Tirrell, L. (2017). Toxic speech: Toward an epidemiology of discursive harm. Philosophical topics, 45(2), 139-162.
  57. Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press.