1
MORAL DISENGAGEMENT AND
POLARISATION AMONG
POLITICAL EXTREMES
Written by: Daniel Lukács ID: s1831089
Supervisor: Dr Leena Malkki
2nd Reader: Dr Jelle Van Buuren
Leiden University
Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs
Msc Crisis and Security Management
2 ABSTRACT
Tension amid heated debate over such issues as immigration policies have created extremes and motivated violence. This had effect across Europe, and the Finnish Security Intelligence Service warned of the increasing interest shown towards extremist groups such as the Finnish Resistance Movement. Much of the discourse within groups with extreme political views is taking place online. This paper analyses the online discourse following two violent incidents in Finland involving extreme groups. The analysis will include both extreme right and extreme left discourse. The content will be analysed using an analytical framework based on the moral disengagement theory and the group polarisation theory. It was found that despite the popular presumptions of the violence of the groups, as well as the polarising effect impact they have in each other are largely overstated. While attempts to justify, violence occurred, the violence was widely condemned on all sides. Furthermore, the groups did not polarise each other, although they had noticeably different narratives and different ideological backgrounds.
3 PREFACE
This thesis has been written as part of the MSc in Crisis and Security Management, at the Campus Den Haag at Leiden University.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Leena Malkki for guiding me through this process. This paper would have never been finished without her patience, knowledge and enthusiasm to help. I’m also grateful for the support of my family to whom I could always turn in times of despair. Furthermore, fellow students with whom I spent numerous coffee breaks and received encouragement and inspiration deserve a special mention.
4 CONTENTS
Moral Disengagement and Polarisation Among Political Extremes 1
Abstract 2
Preface 3
1. INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Research Question 8
2. Theory and Literature 8
2.1 Moral Disengagement 8
2.2 Group Polarization 12
3. Methodology 15
3.1 Cases 15
3.2 Qualitative Content Analysis 17
3.3 Applying the Methodology 20
3.4 Limitations 22
3.5 Hypothesis 22
4 Analysis 24
4.1 moral disengagement in jyväskylä 25
4.1.1 Hommaforum 25
4.1.2 Punk in finland 32
4.1.3 Takku.net 34
4.2 Polarisation after Jyväskylä 35
4.3 moral disengagement in the Helsinki Central Station 44
4.3.1 Hommaforum 45
4.3.2 Punk in Finland 49
4.3.3 Takku 51
4.4 Polarisation after the Helsinki Central station assault 51
5 Discussion and Further Research 61
5.1 Moral justification and attitude towards Violence 61
5.2 Polarization 62
6 Conclusion 65
5
1. INTRODUCTION
The rise of populism and heated public debate over immigration have been one of the defining political phenomena in Europe over the past decade. With the internet becoming available to nearly everyone in the EU, much of the relevant debate is taking place online (Eurostat, 2017). This has often been seen to create extremes that further radicalisation and might lead to spirals of violence (Macklin, Busher, 2015). However, this has also been questioned, as the “spirals of violence” that would be expected are not apparent (Macklin, Busher, 2015). After the peak of the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe, the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (SUPO) has warned that the large number of asylum seekers may be at risk of carrying out radical Islamic activities and activated the Finnish Resistance movement, an anti-immigrant, extreme right group to sabotage reception centres (SUPO, 2015). This was a controversial move, because the Finnish resistance movement was involved in two violent incidents that sparked significant public debate in Finland on whether extremist organisations should be outlawed (Liiten, 2016).
Finland, despite being one of the most stable and safest countries in the world, was shaken by these events. The first took place in the city of Jyväskylä in 2013. A group of men with connections to the Finnish Resistance Movement attempted to enter a book presentation, where the extreme-right in Finland was the topic. Their attempt to enter the Library in Jyväskylä was stopped by volunteering “bouncers” who did not hold the necessary paperwork to act as security guards (Yle News, 2013). The incident escalated into a stabbing, injuring one of the unofficial bouncers (Yle News, 2013). The second incident took place in Helsinki as the Finnish Resistance Movement were holding a demonstration in front of the Helsinki Central Station (Yle News, 2016). Jesse Torniainen, one of the activists with the Finnish Resistance Movement ended up assaulting Jimi Karttunen after a hostile exchange of words and spitting, leading to his death (Yle News, 2016).
To analyse the public reaction to these incidents, and to see how extreme right and left wing groups perceived these violent conducts, three discussion boards were selected, all of which discussed these events. Hommaforum.org is the forum selected from the extreme right side. From the extreme left, PunkinFinalnd.net and Takku.net were selected. The aim of this paper is to analyse the relevant discussion in the following three days after the original post introduced the incident to the discussion. The analytical framework will be primarily based on the moral disengagement theory by Bandura (2002) and the group polarisation theory by Sunstein (2002). In addition, the analytical framework will be completed using codes to capture more general attitudes towards violence and to better
6 understand the polarisation of certain groups. These will be “supporting violence” and “condemning violence”, to gain a better overall understanding on the forums relations to violence.
Both the stabbing at the Jyväskylä Library in 2013 and the assault at the Helsinki Central Station in 2016 sparked a significant reaction from the media and leading politicians. Unlike some other European states, Finland has few stories of political violence since the 1960s and 1970s (Malkki, 2015). Indeed, Finland is among the states least affected by global terrorism and political violence (Global Terrorism Index, 2016, Malkki, 2015). Indeed, Finland is mostly mentioned amongst the happiest and safest countries in the world (Levy, 2010, Helliwell, Layard and Sachs, 2016, Malkki, 2015). Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that homicide related deaths in Finland are among the highest in Europe, well above Western European averages (Malkki, 2015, Liem et al, 2012). Measuring other types of violence is more problematic. Homicides are easily categorised and in most cases the police are aware of these and statistics are made with relative ease (Malkki, 2015, p. 6). This is not the case with other types of violence, such as political violence, as the standards for categorisation varies by state (Malkki, 2015). However, recognised political violence has occurred only to a very small scale in Finland. Some cases, such as a bomb attack at the Myyrmanni bombing in 2002 and two school shootings in 2007 and 2008, are problematic and some political nature could be identified but the way they were framed in the media and the judicial system does not support this classification (Malkki, 2015).
The stabbing at the Jyväskylä Library and the assault at the Helsinki Central Station can therefore be an escalation of a rare phenomenon. Talking of trends and massive increases in political violence would be indeed premature, although radicalisation and extremist movements have been recognised by the Finnish Security and Intelligent Service as among the main security challenges in Finland (Koskinen, 2016). Meanwhile, the memberships of extremist groups have not grown significantly according to the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service, even if attempts at recruitment have been activated recently (Turtola, 2016). However, the strong reaction in the media and political events regarding these two events increases the relevance of the topic. Analysing the online discourse following the events can serve to shed light on general attitudes towards this form of violence, as well as the direction of these discussions.
Clashes between extreme right groups and extreme left have received significant media attention in recent years. Although Finland is one of the most stable and safest states, recent years have seen more visible forms of extremism to which both the extreme right and left engage (Ministry of Interior, 2017). The attack in the Jyväskylä library in 2013 sparked a strong public reaction (Yle, Uutiset,
7 2013). The more recent assault in the autumn of 2016 in front of the Helsinki Central Station, leading to the death of a left-wing activist, led to further debate and forced the government to react both through speech and legislative changes (Yle Uutiset, 2016). Legislative changes in relation to fighting violent extremism and extreme groups in Finland were proposed shortly after the death of the victim (Sutinen, 2016). In 2015, in the aftermath of the refugee crisis, the Finnish Security Intelligence Service published a press release warning of the increased dangers of hate speech and right wing violence, partially caused or fuelled by the crisis (Supo.fi, 2015). It is evident that the issue of violence involving anti-immigrant groups or left-wing radicals is a widely-discussed topic in Finland, holding significant societal relevance.
The rising populist movements in Europe with anti-immigrant views are widely discussed in academia (Mudde, 2007, Widfeldt, 2011). Although the phenomenon is not new and populist movements have occurred in several phases in post-war Europe, the current context provides new challenges (Widfeldt, 2011). As mentioned above, anti-immigrant sentiments are increasing the danger of violence as well. Although immigration is not the focus of this paper, it divides the two groups of whose discussions will be analysed. The content which will be analysed is the discussion that is followed by the acts of violent conducts involving separate groups, for which Bandura (2002) provides a useful theory for the analysis. His work proves the academic relevance of understanding violence and the mechanism through which individuals or groups disengage from the moral norms of society. Group polarization, presented by Sunstein (2012), adds to the relevance of the researched data and phenomenon as there are groups involved both in their separate echo-chambers. The findings of this research will contribute to the understanding of both theories, while also providing potentially new information on the trends which online discussions are taking. Furthermore, this thesis could contribute to the ways in which different groups are referring to each other. One of the findings could, for instance, shed light on links between dehumanization and polarization in these discussions.
Overall, the research will provide a window into the attitudes and world views of the users on the discussion boards which are analysed. This will provide a better understanding of the extent and level of moral disengagement in the forums and how violence is justified. While this won’t help in the prediction of violence between groups or individuals, the results will provide crucial information regarding the nature of discussions in these discussion boards regarding the selected events. Once this is better understood, further research could be conducted through comparative studies between other events or contexts, analysing online discussions after similar events.
8 1.1 RESEARCH QUESTION
To what extent have right and left groups in Finland justified violence and polarised each other online in the aftermath of the stabbing at the Jyväskylä Library in 2013 and the assault at the Helsinki Central Station in 2016?
2. THEORY AND LITERATURE
Both the concepts of moral disengagement and group polarization originate from the school of social psychology, which has made its way into academic scholarship for the purposes of researching and explaining phenomena such as radicalization (Borum, 2011, p. 20). Gordon Allport provided a definition of this field of research, describing social psychology as “an attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling and behaviour of individuals is influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others” (Borum, 2011, p. 20). Within the school of social psychology, the moral disengagement and group polarization theories provide helpful frameworks to analyse the discourse in the selected discussion boards relating to the Jyväskylä stabbing and the Helsinki Central Station assault. Albert Bandura provides a detailed description of the mechanisms of moral disengagement, providing useful categories for the qualitative content analysis used to analyse the discourse presented on the discussion boards (Bandura, 2002). Meanwhile, Cass Sunstein has written on group polarization, identifying trends and mechanisms in which groups and individuals within them shift their positions towards one extreme or another (Sunstein, 2002). While discussing radicalization and violent extremism, Randy Borum (2011) recognises group polarization and moral disengagement both as parts of the set or processes leading to violence. Indeed, the two will be used in the analysis to gain a better understanding of the discussions following the 2013 stabbing in Jyväskylä and the assault in front of the Helsinki Central Station in 2016. This section will present the theories and the literature used in the analysis.
2.1 MORAL DISENGAGEMENT
Calvete (2008) discusses the justification of violence and how violent individuals’ “Self-centred distortions consist of thinking that one’s own viewpoints, expectations, desires, and rights are so important that one is indifferent to those of others, which is consistent with the grandiosity schema, whereas minimizing/mislabelling includes the belief that antisocial behaviour is acceptable or even admirable, which coincides to a good extent with the content of the justification of violence schema”
9 (p. 1992). As the discussion regarding the violence practiced by both the extreme right and the radical left is analysed, the ways these acts are justified and discussed within the boards will play a crucial role in the research. As the discussion on both sides will be discussed, it will be expected that the narratives of the events will differ. Although in popular discourse violent extremism is often associated with religious groups, Borum (2011) highlights the importance of moving beyond these assumptions to understand the whole process of radicalization (pp. 30-31).
Albert Bandura has studied the phenomenon over the past decades and offers a prominent theoretical framework. In the social cognitive theory, he argues that “moral reasoning is translated into actions through self-regulatory mechanisms through which moral agency is exercised” (Bandura et al., 1996, p. 364). The moral disengagement theory is derived from the broader theoretical concept of Social Cognitive Theory to which Bandura provided significant contributions (Bandura, 1989, 1991). Indeed, the two concepts are inseparable as Bandura (2002) states that “social cognitive theory adopts an interactionist perspective to morality in which moral actions are the products of the reciprocal interplay of personal and social influences” (p. 101).
Figure 1 Mechanism through which moral self-sanctions are selectively activated and disengaged from detrimental behaviour at different points in the self-regulatory process (Bandura,2002, p. 103)
The above figure visually displays the mechanism through which moral disengagement takes place. In his article in 2002 Bandura described each step briefly.
10
Moral Justification
The first step in the process of moral disengagement is to justify the actions and behaviour that lead to the violence. As Bandura argues, “people do not usually engage in harmful conduct until they have
justified, to themselves, the morality of their actions” (Bandura, 2002, p. 103). He is also quoting
Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe in absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” (Voltaire cited in Bandura, 2002, p. 103). Religious groups, justifying violence against other groups such as the crusades or the jihad, are provided as examples of events where the violence is justified through dehumanizing a group or constructing the violence as self-defence (Bandura, 2002, pp. 103-104). The claim stating that much of the destructive conduct has been carried out over the centuries by “righteous ideologies, religious principles and nationalistic imperatives”, might have a provoking tone to it, however, it aligns with Bandura’s overall arguments (Bandura, 2002, p. 103).
Euphemistic Labelling
Language plays a major role in the framing of different events and actions, being a powerful tool in labelling a harmful conduct in a more favourable way for the offender (Bandura, 2002, pp. 104-105). The examples provided include how soldiers “waste” people rather than kill them or how military attacks are called “servicing the target” instead of just bombing a village (Bandura, 2002, p. 104). Using a similar line of logic, a WWII veteran pilot could have preferred to call enemy planes “targets” rather than individuals flying the plane or journalists could describe a road accident involving a suicide by describing the event avoiding the terms ‘suicide’ and emphasising the use of more common road accident related terminology.
Advantageous Comparison
This step in moral disengagement refers to the way violent actors are identifying themselves or their actions against more favourable groups or events, such as selfless martyrdom (Bandura, 2002, p.105). Terrorists comparing themselves to martyrs or the US military justifying their actions in Vietnam by claiming that they are saving the population from Communist enslavement are given as examples of this step (Bandura, 2002, p. 105). Exonerating comparisons are key to this process and they rely heavily on moral justification by utilitarian standards (Bandura, 2002, p. 105). This can be achieved by two sets of judgements. First, one could state that non-violent options are unlikely to achieve the desired outcomes, hence violence is justified (Bandura, 2002, p. 106). Similarly, one could state that the use of violence would prevent further suffering, making their usage of violence the lesser evil (Bandura, 2002, p. 106).
11 Drawing partially on the famous obedience experiment conducted by Milgram, displacement of responsibility refers to the transferringof responsibility to external actors rather than being personally responsible for any harmful outcomes (Bandura, 2002, 106). The crimes occurring under Nazi rule during World War II is a commonly used example, where personnel involved in mass executions divested themselves of personal responsibility, claiming they were merely carrying out orders (Bandura, 2002, p. 106). However, Bandura (2002) argues that in everyday life, notable differences occur in the displacement of responsibility as responsibility is rarely assumed openly and authorities act in ways to keep themselves intentionally uninformed (Bandura, 2002, pp. 106-107). Furthermore, authorities assuming responsibility is vital for their reliability, therefore two levels or responsibility can be identified: “a strong sense of duty to one’s superiors, and accountability for the effects of one’s
actions” (Bandura, 2002, p. 107). Individuals honouring their obligations to the authorities without
feeling personal responsibility for the caused harm would be the most suitable for carrying out violent conducts (Bandura, 2002, p.107). Continuing drawing on the example of war crimes committed during World War II, it has been argued that the German genocide infantry were more than willing executioners, making it easier for authorities to give orders leading to violent outcomes (Bandura, 2002, 107).
Diffusion of Responsibility
Immoral behaviour carried out in groups can lead to the diffusion of responsibility, as responsibility is shared, making the individual feel less responsible as an individual (Bandura, 2002, pp. 107-108):
Disregard or Distortion of Consequences
Pursuing activities with the potential of harming others, claiming that the harm was in fact smaller than what was caused plays a vital role in justifying the actions (Bandura, 2002, p. 108). If this fails, the evidence of any harm being caused can be discredited, ignored, distorted or disbelieved, minimizing the reasons for the self-censure to be activated (Bandura, 2002, p. 108). In other words, “it is easier to harm others when their suffering is not visible or when destructive actions are
physically and temporally remote from their injurious effects” (Bandura, 2002, p. 108). In the era of
drone attacks and cyber bullying, one could argue that this step is especially relevant and requires further attention. On the other hand, Bandura uses the famous picture of the girl without clothes after a napalm attack in Vietnam as an example of the role of these images and the humanisation of such events affecting the perceptions regarding events (Bandura, 2002, p. 108). This is a powerful example of the way the media can humanise and bring events to the attention of the public, leading to more criticism. Social media, as much as it can be a tool for cyber bullying, can also be a tool for exposing such conducts, humanising the victims.
12 The core idea in dehumanisation is to shape the way victims are perceived, making them appear as sub-human objects (Bandura, 2002, p. 109). Portraying people as “savages” or “gooks” or other dehumanising terms affects the way they are perceived (Bandura, 2002, p. 109). Bandura refers to Gibson and Haritos-Fatouros by stating that “it is easier to brutalise people when they are viewed as
low animal forms, as the Greek torturers referred to their victims as worms”, providing an example
of perhaps the most brutal extents of dehumanisation (Bandura, 2002, p. 109).
Attribution of Blame
In the last dimension of moral disengagement, the blame is shifted onto the victim, by making claims of provocation that the victim brought suffering on themselves. “Mistreatment that is not clothed in righteousness makes the perpetrator, rather than the victim, blameworthy…” (Bandura, 2002, p. 110). In other words, the attribution of blame refers to a phenomenon where the victim is held at least partially responsible for their suffering. Referring to self-defence is a primary example where the violent conduct is merely seen as an act of self-defence, provoked by the victim. Perceiving an event as an assault or as self-defence can often be subjective, meaning that who is morally responsible can be difficult to determine, at least purely based on the statements of those involved.
2.2 GROUP POLARIZATION
In an article for the New York Times, Cass Sunstein (2012) discussed the echo-chamber effect, pointing out how liberals and conservatives in the USA regard different sources as trustworthy, while disregarding the arguments and sources not aligning with their views. In other words, discussion, even when balanced in terms of presenting all views equally, tends to polarize the groups and lead to individual’s beliefs to harden (Sunstein, 2012). In research conducted by Sarita Yardi and Danah Boyd, twitter comments following the shooting of George Tiller, a late-term abortion doctor in the USA, it was found that individuals do indeed prefer to block opposing views and interact more with people sharing their position (Yardi and Boyd, 2010). Indeed, group polarization is the phenomenon where group members tend to shift towards more extreme positions in their opinion after engaging in discussions within a group (Chen, 2013, Sunstein, 2002). The phenomenon is by no means newly found as the likes of Sanders and Baron (1977) and Kaplan (1977) already draw on existing literature and studies when laying the groundwork for the social comparison and persuasive argument theories (Chen, 2013). The Internet, and earlier the television, allowed information and discourse to spread on a very large scale which explains why many of the contemporary literature on group polarisation focuses on these relatively new technologies. Beyond these technologies, previous research has investigated a large variety of fields from political decision making to investment decisions (Chen, 2013). A study found that “people who prefer to view entertainment shows and otherwise avoid
13
political information are disproportionately affected by the content they would prefer not to view, while people who choose to watch political news craft judgements far less influenced by it” (Arceneaux et al., 2012, p. 183). Nonetheless, they also conclude that the polarized media
environment provides individuals with the choice not to follow media that they perceive to conflict with their beliefs (Arceneaux et al., 2012, p. 174). Sunstein (2012) suggested in his article that hearing information from a source they consider reliable, even if opposing their beliefs, makes people more prone to consider these views. While the study of Arceneaux et al (2012) focuses on TV news channels in the USA, the proposed research intends to focus on online discussion boards in Finland. Sunstein, one of the most prominent scholars on the topic, raises the concern that “when society is
fragmented in this way, diverse groups will tend to polarize in a way that can breed extremism and even hatred and violence” (Sunstein, 2007, p. 44). Indeed, the concept of group polarization is a
subject of research when it comes to violent extremism, radicalization and terrorism (la Corte, 2007).
The emergence of the internet provided a platform where group polarization and the echo chamber effect could potentially intensify, as Sunstein discussed in his article (Sunstein, 2012). Indeed, already in 1998, Selnow feared that unlike the television has done in the prior decades, the internet would fail to provide a similar shared cultural experience, hence eroding the “community hearth” (Selnow, 1008, p. 184). Considering the more recent findings and discussion by the likes of Sunstein (2009, 2012), Selnow’s observations and predictions were nearly prophetic. Psychological research has been concerned with the topic as well, finding that individuals desire to be perceived in a positive light in groups, therefore being prone to shift towards more extreme positions (Warner, 2010, p. 432). Yardi and Boyd (2010) found similar results when analysing Twitter comments, emphasising the importance of exchanging ideas instead of a single majority view dominating (p. 326).
Sunstein (2002) recognises the limited argument pool and social influence behaviour as the two mechanisms driving group polarization (p. 12-13). Later, Chen (2013) uses these mechanisms in her analysis as well, referring to them as social comparison theory and persuasive argument theory. These theories, or mechanisms, originate from the 1970s. Sanders and Baron (1977) argued that social comparison is indeed relevant when producing choice shifts (p. 311). In short, the theory assumes that individuals assess themselves in comparison to other people (Chen, 2013). People tend to be careful in adopting extremist positions to avoid negative labels (Sanders and Baron, 1977, p. 304). However, if others, who are deemed trustworthy within a group the individual identifies with present more extreme views, moderate individuals could shift towards the extreme as the fear of negative labelling vanishes (Sanders and Baron, 1977, p. 304). This connects the theory with the persuasive argument theory, which assumes that “individual decisions are determined based on how he/she
14
weighs the pro and con arguments” (Chen, 2013, p. 188). Sunstein (2002) regards the existence of a
“limited argument pool” as the key of this mechanism (p. 14).
Persuasive Arguments
Groups tend to be already inclined in a certain direction and have a disproportionate number of arguments leaning in the same direction (Sunstein, 2002, p. 14). Therefore, the discussion is likely to shift individuals towards the directions of the initial inclination of the group and most individuals within group towards an extreme (Sunstein, 2002, p. 14). Chen (2013) proposes novelty and validity as the determinants of the persuasiveness of the argument (p. 188). The novelty of the argument refers to how interesting, original or new the argument is perceived to be (Chen, 2013, p. 188). The validity of the argument refers to the correctness of each argument (Chen, 2013, p. 188). Measuring the persuasiveness of arguments is considered more challenging in online communities (Chen, 2013, p. 188). Sunstein (2002) connects the mechanism to the cascade effects, in which one moving piece triggers several others to move, much like in a domino effect, where the fall of one “domino” starts a chain reaction pushing a chain of other dominos to fall as well. (p. 15).
Social Comparison
Individuals compare their own position in relation to others to be viewed favourably both by themselves and the group they associate themselves with (Sunstein, 2002, p. 13). This causes individuals to move towards a more extreme position in one direction or another (Sunstein, 2002, p. 13). This requires some individuals to express their position for others to adjust theirs accordingly (Sunstein, 2002, p. 13). Indeed, if individuals find that their position differs from the group’s average, they tend to shift towards the consensus of the group, compromising between their own preferences and the group’s (Chen, 2013, p. 187). In the case of discussion boards, this can arguably provide individuals posting the first comments the power to set an agenda and steer the discussion to a certain direction. However, the forum used in the analysis of this paper hold a certain position already which presumably sets expectations and pressures of the direction of the discourse from the beginning, following the logic of “social comparison” provided by Sunstein (2002, p. 13). In online discussion forums, this occurs when individuals interact, comparing and compromising their positions (Chen, 2013, p. 187).
Despite these mechanisms of group polarization, it is crucial to remember that not all group polarize and there are also mechanisms and variables that can deter or reverse group polarization (Sunstein, 2002, pp. 15-17). The friendliness, likeability and similarity of the group members presenting the arguments plays a significant role in the direction of the shifts in the group’s position (Sunstein, 2002,
15 p. 15). Similarly, the confidence in which the arguments are articulated influence the effectiveness of the argument in shifting the group’s position (Sunstein, 2002, pp. 15-16). The extent to which individuals see themselves as part of the group further influences the extent to which they polarise, if they shift at all (Sunstein, 2002, p. 16). It has been found that polarization occurs most under circumstances where group membership is salient and individuals have a high degree of anonymity (Sunstein, 2002, p. 17).
It is important to understand the context in which these mechanisms take place. As the forums used in the analysis are not neutral in their position to begin with, group polarization and shifts in individual opinions are likely to have occurred before the selected discussions began. However, the events that are discussed in the selected content are fresh when they are discussed, therefore the group participating in the discussion and individuals within these groups must form a position on these events.
3. METHODOLOGY
The aim of the research is to study three discussion boards in Finland, namely “hommaforum.org”, “takku.net” and “Punk in Finland”. Hommaforum.org is a forum commonly used by anti-immigrant groups and individuals with similar assimilations (Hatakka, 2016). Similarly, Takku.net and Punk in Finland is used by the extreme left and anarchists (Leppänen, 2017). This thesis aims to study the attitudes towards violence and views about the ideological opponents expressed via social media platforms. It focuses on the discussion around violent confrontations between the extreme right and anarchist/extreme left actors. A violent confrontation in front of the Helsinki Central Station, which led to the death of one person will be used as a salient case due to its unusually serious consequences and the public attention it received (Bäckgren. 2016). Earlier, in 2013, a lecture held in the Jyväskylä library was attacked causing a clash between the individuals (Yle Uutiset, 2013). In addition, clashes on the Finnish Independence Day between the groups demonstrates the rising tensions between the groups and the increasing visibility of their actions (Jokinen, 2016). The research will implement qualitative content analysis as its methodology, studying the content of the three discussion boards mentioned above.
3.1 CASES
On the 30th of January in 2013, a group of young men, referring to themselves as “patriots”, attempted
16 at the event stopped the men entering, which led to a brawl (Yle News, 2013). One of the volunteering ‘bouncers’ was stabbed, resulting in minor injuries (Yle News, 2013). Vesa Puuronen, a researcher from the University of Eastern Finland, stated that the incident did not come as a surprise, referring to the recent rise of anti-immigration populism in Europe (YLE News 1, 2013). Sauli Niinistö, the president of Finland stated that the attack was an “act of violence against all”, condemning the attack and stressing the importance of freedom of speech (Isoniemi, 2013). The Finnish PEN, an international association of writers promoting freedom of expression demanded a thorough, just and quick handling of the incident, underlining the importance of freedom of expression and the symbolic and practical role of libraries in ensuring this (Hienola, 2013).
Although the attack was no surprise according to Puuronen, the wide attention it received from organizations and leading politicians highlights that the incident was indeed unique in many ways in Finland and sparked heavy discussion (Yle News 1, 2013). Indeed, the discussion forums used in this analysis contained long discussions on the events.
On the 10th of September in 2016, a demonstration by the Finnish Resistance Movement was held in front of the Helsinki Central Station (Väntönen, 2016). During this event Jimi Karttunen, a 28-year-old man walked past the demonstration, engaged in an exchange of words that eventually lead to one of the demonstrators kicking Karttunen with significant force (Autio, 2016). Although he walked away from the scene by himself, he needed treatment in the hospital later where he discharged himself against recommendations of the medical staff on the 15th of September (Autio, 2016). On the 16th of
September, Jimi Karttunen died in the hospital of Meilahti (Autio, 2016). The offender, Jesse Eppu Oskari Torniainen, had a criminal record of engaging in previous instances of violent crime (Halminen, Nieminen, 2016).
Politicians reacted strongly to the events, similarly to the events in Jyväskylä three years earlier (Väntönen, 2016). The Head of the Finnish Police, Seppo Kolehmainen, stated in an interview that symbols used by extreme groups should be banned by law (Väntönen, 2016). Furthermore, the Minister of Finance Petteri Orpo, suggested that organizations involved in violence should be under stricter scrutiny and banned (Väntönen, 2016). Both the President and the Prime Minister made statements as well, condemning violence and racism in all forms (Väntönen, 2016).
This paper will analyse the discussion in some of the main forums representing the extreme right and extreme left in Finland relating to these events. The data was gathered from significant online forums, more precisely from discussion following violent incidents in Jyväskylä in 2013 and Helsinki in 2016.
17 3.2 QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS
Regardless of the type of data and the research, certain required steps are the same in all approaches to qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1258). These include 1. formulating the research question, 2. selecting the sample (data), 3. defining categories to be applied, 4. outlining the coding process, 5. implementing the coding process, 6. determining trustworthiness, and 7. analysing the result of the coding process (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1258). However, depending on the content which is being analysed, the process might slightly differ (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1285-1286). These differences are outlined in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Major Coding Differences Among Three Approaches to Content Analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1286).
Hsieh and Shannon (2005) describe three different approaches that all require slightly different processes, as the Figure 2 above outlines. Although the three approaches are based on concepts and examples used primarily in health studies, they provide useful information on the method used in this paper as well.
In conventional content analysis, existing theory or literature of the phenomenon is often limited. Therefore, the data determines the codes instead of a theory (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1279). In practice this would mean that the content of the data determines the categories, based on words, images or other distinguishable features in the content. This works particularly well with interviews in which questions tend to be open-ended (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1279). The words that appear to capture the key thoughts are highlighted and the text analysed, eventually creating distinct categories which can be compared and the relations analysed (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1279). Some dangers occurring within this approach are a failure to identify key categories due to a lack of
18 understanding of the context and a lack of theoretical relationship (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1280- 1281).
The second approach is named “directed content analysis” by Hsieh and Shannon (2005, p. 1281). In comparison to the conventional approach, content analysis conducted in this way is guided by a more structured process (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1281). This approach uses a theory in creating the codes prior to the data being analysed (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1281). Using the theory, operational definitions are then given to each category (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1281). Two strategies are outlined, depending on the goals of the research. First, identifying and categorising instances of the phenomenon being studied, followed by analysing the highlighted messages using the predetermined codes (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1281). The second strategy would begin with coding the predetermined codes immediately (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1282). The data that was not coded will then be further analysed and it will be determined if new codes are needed or if it would be sufficient to create a sub category for any of the existing codes (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1282). The subcategories can represent nuances in the main categories. Hsieh and Shannon use anger as an example, and subcategories would then represent the target of this anger (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1282). This could be applied to the data used in this paper, by analysing reactions towards public institutions or how and what kind of references are made to other discussion boards. One way of doing so is not using codes, but highlighting relevant texts for later analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1282). This can be done by “In Vivo” coding in Atlas.ti. Using a mixture of coding and highlighting without codes might increase the trustworthiness of the research as the content of individual comments would not be lost in numbers. However, this also limits the quantity of the data that it is feasible to analyse. Therefore, mixing codes that are set based on existing theories, with additional codes and additional highlighted texts without codes can often produce the most balanced outcome. Three main challenges are recognised with this approach: 1. using a theory might lead to a strong bias towards the assumptions of the theory, 2. in the case of interviews, the questions might be leading towards certain answers, regardless of the actual experience of the interviewed people and 3. the theory can lead to disregarding contextual aspects of the research (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1283).
The third and final approach is called “summative content analysis” (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1283). In this approach, the quantitative sides of qualitative content analysis are more highlighted than in the previous approaches. This is particularly useful when the research is determined to explore the usage of certain words or content instead of inferring the meaning (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1283). The quantitative analysis, however, is only the first step in the summative approach followed
19 by a later analysis of the coded content (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1283- 1284). The first part, quantifying words or content, is conducted by searching for occurrences of the identified words or predetermined categories, coding them by hand or through a computer programme (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1285). Although in the article of Hsieh and Shannon (2005) the example provided uses the occurrence of words, the same can be conducted by content, coding sentences or paragraphs as well. The quantitative side however is the simplest using words, leaving less room for biases or interpretations of the researcher, hence increasing the trustworthiness of the research.
Overall, all three approaches share the same basic idea. While differences do occur, such as whether there is a theoretical framework or whether the analytical framework is constructed based on the findings in the data, all belong to the family of qualitative content analysis. The coding process is the most crucial part in all three approaches as this allows the researcher to organize large quantities of data into clear categories for the qualitative analysis, which is the next step. This was confirmed by Margit Schreier (2012), outlining key requirements for the use of qualitative content analysis.
One of the central theme in Schreier’s (2012) book is the core nature of qualitative content analysis and a mythology which combines qualitative and quantitative elements in conducting research. When the meaning is not standardised enough for quantitative research, qualitative content analysis can ‘fill the gaps’ by adding the qualitative dimension (Schreier 2012, p. 2)
“Qualitative content analysis comes into its own when you are dealing with meaning that is less obvious. If you were interested in finding out whether women in magazine advertisements are more
often placed in trivial contexts than men, for instance, you would be dealing with much less standardised meaning… …When you are engaged in qualitative research, your data will usually be
of the type that requires some interpretation” (Schreier, 2012, p. 2).
In her book, Schreirer (2012) offers a checklist for when QCA can be applied (p. 3).
1. When you are dealing with rich data that requires interpretation
➢ The data dealt with in this research is rich indeed, with much need on interpretation. The data includes hundreds of pages of PDF files from the discussion boards analysed, containing multiple times more comments.
2. On Verbal Data
➢ The data includes comments on discussion boards, primarily in verbal form 3. On Visual data
20 ➢ The discussions may contain visual data in the form of shared images on the board. Although this does not make up a significant part of the data, comments and messages sent in the form of images can hold significant meaning.
4. On data that you have sampled from other sources (documents, internet, etc.)
➢ The source of the content for this research is comments from discussion boards online relating to certain events
5. On data that you have collected yourself (interviews, focus groups, etc.)
➢ The data is collected from the forums manually, saving each page from the selected timeframe and topic.
The content will be coded, using Atlas.ti to create clearer categories and to analyse larger quantities of data. Comments shall be categorised into groups.
3.3 APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY
Direct content analysis comes closest to the way the methodology will be applied in this paper. As the data consists of comments made in online discussion boards, individual comments will be coded into the desired categories. The moral disengagement and group polarization theories are used to determine the first sets of codes. This aligns with the direct content analysis approach. Furthermore, further codes have been recognised after the coding used by the theories, as the direct approach also suggests.
Despite the helpfulness of these categories and the “check list” provided by Schreier (2012), the methodology shall be applied with careful consideration of the requirements of the data used in this paper. The need of further categories was recognised while creating the first set of codes. First, as is described in the direct content analysis, codes will be determined based on existing theories (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). These will be the moral disengagement theory and group polarization theory, reviewed earlier in the paper. The moral disengagement theory consists of eight parts that make up the mechanism through which “moral self-sanctions are selectively activated and disengaged from detrimental behaviour at different points in the self-regulatory process” (Bandura, 2002, p. 103). The categories are 1. moral justification 2. euphemistic labelling, 3. advantageous comparison, 4. displacement of responsibility, 5. diffusion of responsibility, 6. disregard or distortion of consequences, 7. dehumanisation and 8. attribution of blame (Bandura, 2002).
To better understand the attitudes towards violence, additional codes will be created to analyse comments that condemn or support violence. These will be 1. Condemning violence and 2.
21 Supporting violence. The goal of this analysis will be to see if direct support for violence occurs or if the general attitudes are against it. Together with the codes created directly based on the mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002), this should provide the necessary content to draw conclusions regarding the way violence is discussed, as well as if it is supported.
This will be followed by codes deriving from the group polarization theory. It was assumed prior to the coding and analysis that this set of codes would be especially difficult to measure, as shifts in long discussions would require tools to measure comments on a scale showing shifts in the positions of the groups. Despite the limitations and difficulties involved with this approach, two distinct mechanisms were found in the literature that are befitting for creating codes. These are persuasive
argument and social comparison (Sunstein, 2002). These categories will be used to recognise
comments that 1. represent a persuasive argument, which attempts to measure the arguments given shifting the discussion to a certain direction and 2. social comparison which measures shifts in opinions of individuals closer to the group consensus. The social comparison code will attempt to capture comments where comparison is made to other members of the group, as one of the later constructed codes shall be capturing comments where references or comparisons are made to the discussions in other forums. Social comparison will focus on how members of the forums refer and compare their narrative and position to others, especially between the analysed forums. Persuasive arguments will be searched for particularly in comments that bring new information into the discussion and/or clearly attempts to shift the discussion towards the extreme or the centre. As the data that is being analysed consists of many comments, yet it does not include the end of the whole discussion, micro-discussions will be analysed within the forums.
In addition to the persuasive argument and social comparison codes, comments referring to the police will be analysed as part of the polarisation analysis. The aim will be to recognise possible differences in the way the police are referred to in the discussion boards, hence revealing polarised attitudes. The goal will be to search for differences and similarities in attitudes towards the police.
In conclusion, the codes will be used to recognise relevant content in the discussion boards, which will then be analysed. In addition to the codes created directly based on the theories of moral disengagement and group polarisation, further analytical frameworks will be used to better understand the researched phenomena.
22 3.4 LIMITATIONS
Unlike in the experiments described by Sunstein (2002), the data was not collected from a controlled group, but from a more spontaneously emerging online discussion. Although there was a clear topic for the discussion, there were multiple simultaneous discussions. This made it difficult to identify, follow and analyse developments regarding certain issues being discussed. Therefore, the focus was placed upon individual arguments and some responses that fit the persuasive argument or social comparison mechanisms. While the experiments presented in Sunstein’s (2002) paper were useful, and indeed necessary in order to theorise group polarisation as a phenomenon, applying it to the type of data used in this paper runs into these inevitable difficulties. Online discussions also tend to consist of a large amount of comments given over the course of a long period. Furthermore, the discussion is not being organised or led by anyone. Thus, studying these online discussions is a significant challenge. This paper is humble in its ambition, realising that studying such large numbers of comments would be beyond its limitations. Regardless of these limitations, the findings are rather clear, providing crucial information of the nature of the discussions and some of the key differences between the different groups.
The seriousness and the genuine emotions and opinions behind the comments are near to impossible to confirm, therefore tight criteria during the coding process will be maintained to minimise the inclusion of potential jokes or ‘trolling’ attempts. Trolling refers to the act of provoking on online discussion boards, drawing participants into fruitless arguments (Herring, Job-Slouder, Scheckler, 2002, p. 371). The quantity of the data available should largely account for the difficulty in determining the background of individual comments, helping the identification of recurring phenomena.
The final, yet not least, limitation is that the discussions analysed capture merely a fraction of a larger phenomenon and include vast issues such as immigration, populism, radicalisation, polarisation and attitudes towards violence. Further research is needed to improve the understanding of these phenomena, both in terms of going deeper into smaller details as well as taking a more distant, overall perspective of the issues.
3.5 HYPOTHESIS
This section will present the key hypotheses of this paper. While no prior research is available of the positions of these groups on the issues that will be analysed, it is difficult to outline clear expectations. Indeed, the research is rather exploratory. However, certain findings can be expected despite the lack
23 of prior knowledge of the data. These will be outlined here, and further discussed and compared with the findings after the analysis has been completed. The hypotheses are primarily based on the prior research and frames that are offered by the theories reviewed earlier, the events that sparked the discussion and prior knowledge of the overarching positions and political ideologies represented in the discussion boards. Assumptions regarding the findings of each theory will be outlined, as well as some more general ones.
The moral disengagement theory outlines several mechanisms through which moral responsibility is displaced. In both cases that will be analysed, the attacker(s) had connections to the extreme right. Of the forums analysed, Hommaforum.org leans towards as similar direction politically. However, the Finnish Resistance Movement is a separate movement/organisation. It is assumed that the similar political ideology and the somewhat shared agenda on an anti-immigration platform will be evident from the discussion. It will be expected that several comments will be found within the moral disengagement frame, attempting to present the victim in a negative light and to some extent, protecting the assaulter. This will be tested by the codes created based on the moral disengagement theory and the additional codes on the condemnation and support towards the violence. Therefore, the first hypothesis is that Hommaforum.org will not condemn the violence as clearly as the two other forums and there will be clear attempts to justify the violence through the mechanisms of moral disengagement.
The group polarisation theory assumes that individuals discussing certain issues in a group with likeminded people will result in a shift towards a more extreme position. This paper analyses discussion board where members are discussing events from their own perspectives. The data is limited and therefore the final position of the groups cannot be measured, as discussed earlier. Furthermore, measuring the shift during the whole discussion would go beyond the scopes of this paper. Therefore, the aim will be to search for persuasive arguments and signs of social comparison. In addition, attitudes towards the police will be analysed to recognise differences between the groups, reflecting polarisation. It is assumed that several comments qualifying as persuasive arguments will be found during the analysis, as well as comparisons and references between the groups. This is because of what can be learned from Sunstein (2002), where the assumption derives that polarisation is a natural development in these environments. However, as mentioned in the limitation, the difference between the experiments conducted in controlled environments and In relation to the attitudes towards the police, it is assumed that PunkinFinland.net and Takku.net will show more hostile attitudes. Since the assaulter(s) in both cases is associated with the extreme right, it is assumed
24 that the forums in the extreme left will identify themselves with the police and therefore show more negative attitudes.
In conclusion, it is expected that clear differences will be found in terms of perception of the violent conducts in both cases between the extreme left and extreme right. Hommaforum.org is assumed to take a position to defend the violence to some extent. There are no clear expectations regarding the nature of the moral justification nor the overall extent of the defensive attitudes towards the violence and/or the assaulter(s).
4 ANALYSIS
This section presents the findings as well as analyses the content of the comments that were coded according to the methods highlighted in the methodology section. While the analysis was conducted and comments were coded, new findings forced some changes in the categories. While the codes based on Bandura’s (2002) moral disengagement theory were used as intended in the beginning, codes to analyse the polarisation of the groups provided some additional challenge. Findings during the first round of coding with the moral disengagement theory, as well as the realisation of both the limitations as well as the large quantity of the data, resulted in some adaptation to generate the codes used in the end. The discussion included several smaller discussions and debates. This occurred by commenters either presenting opinions or sharing news containing new information to the discussion (persuasive argument). Following this, the other commenters reacted to the opinion or news presented. Certain news was shared both in Hommaforum.org and PunkinFinland.net, which provides an excellent opportunity for comparing the positions of the two discussion boards. The most significant one was the news that told about both sides being armed, which received different reactions in the two discussion boards. A similar case occurred regarding a radio discussion between Juho Eerola and Li Anderson, two members of the Finnish Parliament, which was discussed in both forums. These will be used to capture group polarisation, as these hold the potential to shift the groups further apart from each other.
The following section will include a subsection for both the Jyväskylä Stabbing and the Helsinki Central Station Assault. Both sub-sections will include further sections, first to analyse moral disengagement and second the polarisation of the groups.
25 4.1 MORAL DISENGAGEMENT IN JYVÄSKYLÄ
The first section will be analysing the comments that justify violence. It came as no big surprise that Hommaforum.org contained significantly more comments justifying the violence than PunkInFInland.net or Takku.net. However, the volume of this was rather significantly smaller than expected. Furthermore, the clear majority of the comments were coded as “attribution of blame”. This means that the justification of violence occurred in a very specific manner.
Meanwhile, moral justification was not significantly present in either PunkInFinland.net nor Takku.net. Although some comments contained positive remarks on violence, the difference to Hommaforum.org was significant. The aim of this section is to analyse the content of the comments justifying violence. This will be done by presenting some of the most typical comments from the forums and analysing the content against the framework provided by Bandura (2002).
4.1.1 HOMMAFORUM
In this section, the discussion in Hommaforum.org will be analysed regarding the stabbing that took place in the Jyväskylä Library in 2013. The analysis will be carried out by a qualitative analysis of the coded content. The Attribution of Blame code represented the clear majority when analysing the forum from through the moral disengagement theory. Indeed, while the discussion did not idolise nor support violence, several commenters attempted to shift the blame towards the stabbed.
The first reactions in the Hommaforum.org discussion board were questioning the validity of the news and speculating over the possibility of a false flag attack aiming to gain publicity for the book which was being presented in the Library’s lecture hall. These false flag accusations were coded in as persuasive arguments towards the extreme for later analysis as they clearly shifted the discussion towards an opposite direction from that of the discussion in PunkinFinland.net, although in the later stages of the discussion the false-flag accusations reduced in number significantly. These accusations concentrated on the first pages of the discussion. The most likely explanation for this is that in the beginning, there was less information available which gave room for speculations and conspiracy theories. It is worth noticing however, that during the discussion, the false flag accusations were opposed and even the moderators made decisive statements condemning these speculations.
Comments that were coded following the mechanisms in the moral disengagement theory were found in some numbers. The clear majority of the findings were coded in as “attribution of blame”. The forum is moderated, and during the discussion moderators made some comments referring to deleted
26 messages containing comments that could well be analysed through the moral disengagement theory (junakohtaus, 01.02.2013, 11:10 in Hommaforum.org, 2013)
One comment was found that qualified for the “dehumanisation” code. The first one makes a remark on both the extreme right and left participants of the book publishing in the library, stating that “why any normal people would even attend the event” (Rokka, 30.01.2013, 19:48 in Hommaforum.org, 2013). As Bandura described, dehumanising can occur in portraying people as “savages”, or in other ways below other “normal” human beings (Bandura, 2002, p. 109). In the euphemistic labelling code, eight comments were found in total.
Figure 3 (Melbac, 30.01.2013, 19:25 in Hommaforum.Org, 2013) “Sounds more like some teenagers messing around drunk than an organized attack by neo-Nazis”
The first comment provided an excellent example of how the event was reduced to some mere trouble-making of some intoxicated teenagers, rather than as a politically motivated act of violence. Although at this early stage of the discussion, the information available regarding the event was naturally limited, the comment serves as an example of Bandura’s theory, labelling something severe in a less serious light. Just as a “reactor accident “can become a “normal aberration”, an example offered by Bandura (2002, p. 105), an act of political violence can become a less severely perceived act of some teenagers under the influence of alcohol. Another comment made by “nuiv-or” (Hommaforum, 31.01.2013, 22:25) refers to the young age of the participants in a similar manner.
27 Figure 4 (”The motivation could have been revenge. have they not attacked against these patriots in other events? ..I would qualify both of these groups as extreme left.. Kaappihommailija, 31.01.2013 in Hommaforum.org, 2013) Another example of Euphemistic labelling is to label the attackers and the participants of the book publishing as part of the “extreme left”, attempting to portray the events as an internal struggle rather than a violent attack across political borders. Although this might not directly justify the violence, it is a clear attempt to label the events in a more favourable way, making the violence somewhat less severe.
The largest number of ‘hits’ were in the attribution of blame category. A total of 55 comments were found in this code. This is a significant finding which allows some conclusions to be drawn regarding the nature of the discussion in Hommaforum.org, following the incident in the Jyvaskyla library. This finding also provides an example of the strengths of the Qualitative Content Analysis, allowing some quantitative findings as well, while the focus remains on analysing the coded content qualitatively.
The very first comment found in this, made in an early stage of the discussion following its start, states that “it would be nice to hear about the role of the so called opposite side regarding the events” (Enni, 30.01.2013, 18:58 in Hommaforum.org, 2013). This clearly refers to the possibility and suspicion that the claimed attackers would have been provoked in some ways, shifting the responsibility towards the other group. Another example of comments found in this category include claims or conspiracy theories regarding the attack being a ‘false flag ‘attack, meaning that it would have been organized internally to make the other group look bad and to promote their own political agenda. Indeed, a comment made under the profile of Pöllämystynyt, speculates with this possibility, referring to the timing and context of the event which increases the possibility of such an attempt (Pöllämystynyt, 31.01.2013, 20:07, in Hommaforum.org, 2013). This, although not making a claim of a possible provocation, transfers the moral responsibility of the events to the victims. The
28 comments included in the ‘attribution of blame’ code vary quite significantly, from claims of false flags to blaming the other side for provoking the attack and shifting the attention from the attack to the threat of violence posed by left-wing anarchists (Hommaforum.org, 2013). One comment referred to Europol statistics, stating that left-wing related terrorism is a significantly bigger threat than right wing related terrorism (elven archer, 02.02.2013, 19:29 in Hommaforum.org, 2013). While this statement is technically correct as it is based on Europol (2011, 2014, 2017) statistics and reports, it does attempt to shift the discussion away from the attack in question to a larger and longer term trend. It is therefore an example of an attribution of blame, where the opposite side is blamed even though they might be the victims in the particular act of violence in question. This is somewhat connected to the ‘false flag’ and provocation claims as one of the comments suggests that the purpose of the attack was to be a propaganda stunt in which the extreme right is being made to look like a threat (Mika.H, 02.02.2013, 12:45 in Hommaforum.org, 2013). One comment even made a reference to “Shelling of Mainila”, where the Soviet Union shelled the town of Mainila on their side of the border, attributing the blame to Finland, eventually leading to the Winter War in 1939 (Durham, 2014, pp. 185-186). This reference to one of the most significant events in Finnish history and suggestion that the extreme left could have been “shelling their own territory and people” points the finger away from the right-wing attackers.
Although there were several comments that were justifying violence, especially by attributing the blame, it was somewhat of a surprising finding that straight forward support for violence did not occur in the discussion (Hommaforum.org, 2013). Instead, 36 comments were found that very clearly condemned the violence that took place in the Jyväskylä Library (Hommaforum.org, 2013). While the violence was condemned, many of the comments simultaneously attempted to distance themselves and the group from both the attackers, as well as the extreme-left. Similarly, while condemning the violence, many were concerned how this would affect their anti-immigration agenda (Hommaforum.org, 2013).
29
Figure 5 “Unfortunate. Hopefully serious injuries were avoided. This shows once again, that it is wise to stay away from both the extreme left and the right. Seems to be constant fights between the two. Not good (Olli Immonen in Hmmaforum.org, 2013).
Among the first comments, the commenter condemns the violence and simultaneously distanced himself, as well as the discussion board from both sides of the conflict. Similar statements are made throughout the discussion.
Figure 6 “Hopefully the police catches these people, whoever they are. This kind of fooling around only offers an unnecessary martyrdom for the lefties and increases, in some people’s eyes, the credibility of the “Nazi stories by Dan (Finnish politician) and his friends” (kekkeruusi in Hommaforum.org, 2013).
Another comment made not much later condemns the violence as well but this time shows concerns over the fact that this might add sympathy towards the leftists, who were holding the event. Much like the previous comment made by Olli Immonen, this comment is simultaneously condemning the actions while also showing an agenda.
30
Figure 7 “Work of idiots. And they will be blaming all the Finns (referring to the political party) (SimoMäkelä in Hommaforum.org, 2013).
A third example shows that there is a major concern that the event would undermine the political agendas represented in Hommaforum.org. Several other commenters showed concerns in the same area, that the attackers would be associated with the forum and its political agendas. Much of this concern is connected to the lack of trust towards the media, as one of the commenters cynically states that the news will soon be shouting “racism” and “hate speech”, tying the events to the people in Hommaforum.org (Suvaitsija in Hommaforum.org, 2013). Some of the comments suggested that the violence occurred because the three men coming to the event were stopped from entering, which led to the fight (starsailor in Hommaforum.org, 30.01, 20:40, 2013).
The main goal of coding in comments that condemn or support violence was to add additional value to the analysis and to gain a better picture of the acceptance of violence in the forum. This did indeed lead to an interesting finding, namely that even though the blame was attributed in several occasions during the discussion, it cannot be said that violence was supported directly. The matter is not clear cut, however. For this reason, the group polarisation section is expected to provide further answers.
Figure 8 “Unfortunate. Hopefully serious injuries were avoided. This shows once again, that it is wise to stay away from both the extreme left and the right. Seems to be constant fights between the two. Not good (Olli Immonen in Hmmaforum.org, 2013).
31 The above comment was presented earlier as an example of an attempt to distance the group from the Finnish Resistance Movement and the violent attackers, but also the extreme-left that is classified here into the same group. However, the comment also condemns the violence that took place. This also provides an example of how the condemnation of violence is not quite that simple, but it includes critique directed to the political opponents as well. Similar overlaps were observed throughout the discussion.
Figure 9 “Without doubts, as stupid and judgeable as anything can be” (Junakohtaus in Hommaforum 2013)
The comment given by Junakohtaus is another example of condemning violence, this time without any critique towards political opponents nor any attempts to justify the act. These occurred regularly throughout the discussion, however most the comments found condemning violence did also include overlapping codes. It is, however, important to recognise that several commenters did condemn the violence without expressing any additional opinions regarding the events.
Figure 10 “Idiots at work. And Now all the Finns (political party) will be blamed” SimoMäkelä in Hommaforum.org, 2013).
As mentioned before, several overlaps were observed when analysing comments condemning violence. While the first example included a comment condemning violence while attacking their political opponent, the above comment victimises their own group and political party, claiming that they will be blamed for the incident.
