The offensive language which is used by persons verbally attacking hunters on the Internet and the arguments used by authors of such entries clearly indicate that the knowledge about sustainable hunting management practice in Poland and the role of hunting is none or extremely limited. The fact that the messages are mostly filled with the emotions such as hatred, aggression, contempt and the mer-its are not taken into account make such messages instances of cyberbullying.
Additionally, the argument for treating them as such is the fact that we may find threats against hunters and descriptions of tortures that that they should be sub-jected to.
The language used indicates that hunters are considered deviants. They are called psychos, sadists, psychopaths, mentally ill, etc. As sustainable wild life management is mostly not known to common people, we may draw a conclusion that limited knowledge on environment, rights of nature and the impact of human activities on environment is extremely limited. Offensive signs and vulgarisms mostly serve the purpose of offending and humiliating (impressive function).
We may also encounter threats. The intensity of hate-based rhetoric varies, but in general the messages containing vulgarisms are the examples of explicit hate-based rhetoric, whereas the ones which resort to irony mostly feature implicit hate-based rhetoric. The intensity of hate based rhetoric is stressed by claiming that hunters are not human beings, they do not deserve to be called human beings, using animalization of hunters (e.g. calling someone’s face a snout, etc.). In fact, the majority of examples can be classified as expressions advocating incitement to harm and foster a climate of prejudice and intolerance. Stigmatization is one of the techniques of expressing explicit intolerance and hostility towards hunters.
The problem of verbal aggression which is not stigmatized and considered unacceptable is more complex. Some authors investigate how to stop it and what sort of deterrents may be effective [17, 47]. There is no denying the fact that verbal aggression acceptance may lead to the escalation of anger. That may have disastrous consequences in the form of acts of physical violence, aggression and other undesirable actions. They may include violent protests, leading to scaring decision-makers who may be prompted to make decisions which are not best in a given situation. In Poland the actions include destroying the property, setting
deathly traps (a bomb planted on a hunting stand) [48, 49] and using fake news to defame some people or groups.
It seems that the increasing aggression on the Internet directed at hunters is due to the tacit consent to such activity. It is supported by activists and some celebrities with a passive attitude of hunters. As a consequence, the phenomenon is escalating, there are protests and actions blocking hunting. In recent years, the first symptoms of ecoterrorism directed against hunters have been noted. It has included undercutting the hunting stands in such a way that they would overturn when hunters would be on top of them, digging in beams with nails to pierce the tires and cause the hunter’s car to collide. However, the climax of this escalation occurred at the end of last year. As reported in a local daily titled Gazeta Pomor-ska of December 28, 2019 [49], a mortar shell with attached wires was installed on one of the hunting stands. Tossing explosives at hunting facilities is a proof of the direction in which the form of aggression being analyzed can develop. Its pur-pose is to intimidate hunters and make them abandon their statutory obligations.
The phenomena described above should stimulate the entire community to une-quivocally oppose the aggression on the Internet and encourage to take effective actions aimed at its elimination. Today, it is directed towards hunters, but there is a greater activity of activists fighting foresters, farmers, fishermen, etc. [50]. This, in turn, stimulates aggression on the Internet also against these professional groups.
Additionally, it should be borne in mind that there is research proving that the mar-ginalization of verbal aggression and its escalation may have dire consequences.
Verbal aggression frequently transforms into bullying, bullying into various acts of physical aggression and in extreme circumstances the acts may lead to lynch or even genocide [51]. Thus, counteracting cyberbullying is extremely important.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Jacek Banaszek, Miłosz Kościelniak-Marszał and Diana Piotrowska for providing authentic research material.
Author Contributions Aleksandra Matulewska conceptualized and designed the study, collected, selected and interpreted linguistic data, wrote the abstract, parts 2, 3, 4, 5 (co-written with Dariusz Gwiadowicz as stated below), 6, as well as edited, translated and reviewed the final manuscript. Dariusz Gwiazdo-wicz collected and analyzed data on reasons for hunting misperception, found illustrative material (fig-ures 1-3), wrote part 1, and co-wrote parts 5.1 and 5.3 (collected examples 18-33 and described facts and circumstances concerning their appearance on the Internet) as well as 6.
Funding Not applicable.
Code Availability (Software Application or Custom Code) Not applicable.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest Not applicable.
Availability of Data and Material (Data Transparency) The data has been obtained from public posts and victims of cyberbullying with their consent.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/.
References
1. Elisabeth, Engelberg, and Lennart Sjδberg. 2004. Internet Use, Social Skills, and Adjustment.
Cyber Psychology & Behavior 7 (1): 41–47.
2. Lorenz, Konrad. 1971. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3. Schneider, Avie. 10 January 2013. Agreed, Baby Pandas Are Cute. But Why? National Pub-lic Radio. https ://www.npr.org/secti ons/thetw o-way/2013/01/10/16905 7467/agree d-baby-panda s-are-cute-but-why?t=15887 55357 352. Accessed 17 January 2019.
4. Borgi, Marta, Cogliati-Dezza Irene, Brelsford Victoria, Meints Kerstin, and Cirulli Franc-esca. 2014. Baby Schema in Human and Animal Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Gaze Allocation in Children. Frontiers in Psychology 5 (411): 1–12. https ://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg .2014.00411 .
5. Sherman, Gary D., Jonathan Haidt, and James A. Coan. 2009. Viewing Cute Images Increases Behavioral Carefulness. Emotion 9 (2): 283–285.
6. Etcoff, Nancy. 1999. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. New York: Anchor Books.
7. Konieczny, Andrzej. 2018. Report on the State and Condition of Forests of 2017 (Raport o stanie lasów w Polsce 2017). Warszawa: Państwowe Gospodarstwo Leśne Lasy Państwowe.
https ://www.bdl.lasy.gov.pl/porta l/Media /Defau lt/Publi kacje /rapor t_o_stani e_lasow _2017.pdf.
Accessed 25 March 2019.
8. Donegan, Richard. 2012. Bullying and Cyberbullying: History, Statistics, Law, Prevention and Analysis. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications 3 (1): 33–42.
9. Le Bon, Gustaw. 2006. Psychologia tłumu. Logos: Warszawa.
10. Chisholm, June F. 2014. Review of the Status of Cyberbullying and Cyberbullying Prevention.
Journal of Information Systems Education 25 (1): 77–87.
11. Cyber Bullying Law and Legal Definition. https ://defin ition s.usleg al.com/c/cyber -bully ing/.
Accessed 5 April 2019.
12. An Explanation of the Growing Phenomenon of Cyberbullying. https ://www.ncpc.org/resou rces/
cyber bully ing/what-is-cyber bully ing/. Accessed February 20, 2018.
13. Patchin, Justin W., and Sameer Hinduja. 2006. Bullies Move Beyond the Schoolyard: A Prelimi-nary Look at Cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4 (2): 148–169.
14. Ybarra, Michele L., and Kimberly J. Mitchell. 2004. Online Aggressors/Targets, Aggressors, and Targets: A Comparison of Associated Youth Characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 45: 1308–1316. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004.
15. Law, Danielle M., Jennifer D. Shapka, Shelley Hymel, Brent F. Olson, and Terry Waterhouse.
2012. The Changing Face of Bullying: An Empirical Comparison Between Traditional and Internet Bullying and Victimization. Computers in Human Behavior 2: 226–232. https ://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004.
16. Patchin, Justin W., and Sameer Hinduja. 2006. Bullies Move Beyond the Schoolyard: A Prelimi-nary Look at Cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4: 148–169.
17. Bo, Xu, Xu Zhengchuan, and Dahui Li. 2016. Internet Aggression in Online Communities: A Contemporary Deterrence Perspective. Info Systems Journal 26: 641–667.
18. Brendan, Kennedy, Drew Kogon, Kris Coombs, Joe Hoover, Christina Park, Gwenyth Portillo-Wightman, Aida Mostafazadeh, Mohammad Atari, and Morteza Dehghani. 2018. A Typology
and Coding Manual for the Study of Hate-Based Rhetoric University of Southern California.
(preprint) The Gab Hate Corpus: A Collection of 27 k Posts Annotated for Hate Speech.
19. Bartmiński, Jerzy. Podstawy lingwistycznych badań nad stereotypem — na przykładzie stereo-typu matki”. In Język a kultura. T. 12: Stereotyp jako przedmiot lingwistyki. Teoria, metodolo-gia, analizy empiryczne, eds. Janusz Anusiewicz and Jerzy Bartmiński, 63–83. Wrocław: Towar-zystwo Przyjaciół Polonistyki Wrocławskiej.
20. Chlebda, Wojciech. 1998. Stereotyp jako jedność języka, myślenia i działania. In Język a kultura.
T. 12: Stereotyp jako przedmiot lingwistyki. Teoria, metodologia, analizy empiryczne, ed.
Janusz Anusiewicz and Jerzy Bartmiński, 31–41. Wrocław: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Polonistyki Wrocławskiej.
21. Nikitina, Serafina F. 1998. Stereotypy jako bariery kulturowe. In Język a kultura. T. 12: Stereotyp jako przedmiot lingwistyki. Teoria, metodologia, analizy empiryczne, ed. Janusz Anusiewicz and Jerzy Bartmiński, 155–159. Wrocław: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Polonistyki Wrocławskiej.
22. Hinduja, Sameer, and Justin W. Patchin. 2008. Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Fac-tors Related to Offending and Victimization. Deviant Behavior 29 (2): 129–156. https ://doi.
org/10.1080/01639 62070 14578 16.
23. Battistella, Edwin L. 2005. Bad Language. Are Some Words Better Than Others?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. McEnery, Tony. 2006. Swearing in English. Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Pre-sent. New York: Routledge.
26. Rozporządzenie Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji z dnia 23 czerwca 2005 w sprawie kwali-fikowania audycji lub innych przekazów mogących mieć negatywny wpływ na prawidłowy fizyczny, psychiczny lub moralny rozwój małoletnich oraz audycji lub innych przekazów przeznaczonych dla danej kategorii wiekowej małoletnich, stosowania wzorów symboli graficznych i formuł zapow-iedzi. http://www.krrit .gov.pl/bip/Porta ls/0/prawo /rozpo rzadz enia/roz05 0623_ochr.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2018.
27. Gagliardone, Iginio, Danit Gal, Thiago Alves, and Gabriela Martinez. (2015). Countering Online Hate Speech. Paris: Unesco Publishing. https ://unesd oc.unesc o.org/ark:/48223 /pf000 02332 31.
Accessed 22 January 2019.
28. Gwiazdowicz Dariusz J. 2018. 1.1. Prehistoria. 1.2. Starożytność. 1.3. Za panowania królów w Polsce. In Kultura łowiecka, ed. Dariusz J. Gwiazdowicz, 10–37. Jóżefów: Wydawnictwo Forest.
29. Gwiazdowicz, Dariusz J. 2020. Przedmowa, czyli historia łowiectwa kołem się toczy. In Łowy i his-toria, ed. Dariusz J. Gwiazdowicz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Łowiec Polski, Warszawa. (in print).
30. Ustawa z dnia 13 października 1995 r. Prawo łowieckie. Dz.U. 1995 nr 147 poz. 713, tekst jednolity (The Act of 13 October 1995 Hunting Law, Polish Official Journal of Laws of 1995, no. 147, item 713 as amended, uniform text). http://prawo .sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDe tails .xsp?id=WDU19 95147 0713. Accessed 25 February 2020.
31. Bartmiński, Jerzy, and Wojciech Chlebda. 2003. Problem konceptu bazowego i jego profilowania–
na przykładzie polskiego stereotypu Europy. Etnolingwistyka 25: 69–95. https ://doi.org/10.17951 / et.2013.25.69.
32. The Birds’ Directive [Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds]. https ://eur-lex.europ a.eu/legal -conte nt/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX %3A320 09L01 47. Accessed 20 September 2018.
33. The European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity. http://www2.nina.no/lcie_new/pdf/63499 15047 14143 702_Hunti ng_Chart er%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2018.
34. Natura. 2000. Networking Program. http://www.natur a.org/about .html. Accessed 14 September 2018.
35. Recommendation No. 128 (2007) of the Standing Committee on the European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity. https ://rm.coe.int/16807 4652a . Accessed 14 September 2018.
36. Grochowski, Maciej. 2008. Słownik polskich przekleństw i wulgaryzmów. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
37. Markowski, Andrzej. 2005. Kultura języka polskiego. Teoria. Zagadnienia leksykalne. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
38. Płóciennik, Iwona, and Daniela Podlawska. 2001. Słownik wiedzy o języku. Bielsko-Biała:
Wydawnictwo Park Sp. z.o.o.
39. Halina, Zgółka, and Zgółka Tadeusz. 2001. Mówię, więc jestem. Podręcznik języka polskiego dla licealistów. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Od Nowa.
40. Kowalikowa, Jadwiga. 1994. Znaczenie i funkcja wyrazów tzw. brzydkich we współczesnej polszczyżnie mówionej. In Współczesna polszczyzna mówiona w odmianie opracowanej (oficjal-nej), ed. Zofia Kurzowa and Władysław Śliwiński, 107–113. Kraków: Universitas.
41. Mikołajczyk, Beata. 2008. Wyrażenia znieważające jako leksykalne środki realizacji aktów zagrażających twarzy na przykładzie języka niemieckiego i polskiego. Studia Germanica Gedanen-sia 17: 186–197.
42. Kowalikowa, Jadwiga. 2000. Wulgaryzmy we współczesnej polszczyźnie. In Język a komunikacja 1. Zbiór referatów z konferencji Język trzeciego tysiąclecia, ed. Grzegorz Szpila, 121–132. Kraków:
Tertium.
43. Siemaszko, Andrzej. 1993. Granice tolerancji. O teoriach zachowań dewiacyjnych. Warszawa:
44. Sutherland, Edwin Hardin. 1947. Principles of Criminology, 4th ed. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co.PWN.
45. Niech Żyją! Kampania o Żywe Ptaki. https ://niech zyja.pl/kampa nia/co-chcem y-osiag nac/. Accessed 5 April 2020.
46. Borowicz, Adam. 2020. Społeczna ocena aktywności myśliwych. In Łowy i historia, ed. Dariusz J.
Gwiazdowicz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Łowiec Polski, Warszawa (in print).
47. Yates, Roger. 2011. Criminalizing Protests About Animal Abuse. Recent Irish Experience in Global Context. Crime, Law and Social Change 55: 469–482. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1061 1-011-9298-1.
48. Bombiarz polował na myśliwych. Szaleniec miał w domu arsenał. https ://www.fakt.pl/wydar zenia / polsk a/warsz awa/bombi arz-polow al-na-mysli wych/9trxy m5. Accessed 5 April 2020.
49. W ambonie powiesili niewybuch pocisku. Atak na myśliwych w Jeziornie? https ://pomor ska.pl/w-ambon ie-powie sili-niewy buch-pocis ku-atak-na-mysli wych-w-jezio rnie/ar/c1-14682 551. Accessed 5 April 2020.
50. Ecological Business Report. 2020. [Raport “Biznes ekologiczny”] 2020. Fundacja Polska Ziemia.
51. Minton, Stephen James. 2016. Marginalisation and Aggression from Bullying to Genocide. Critical Educational and Psychological Perspectives. Berlin: Springer.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Affiliations
Aleksandra Matulewska1 · Dariusz J. Gwiazdowicz2
Dariusz J. Gwiazdowicz
dariusz.gwiazdowicz@up.poznan.pl
1 Collegium Novum, Faculty of Modern Languages and Literatures, Adam Mickiewicz University, al. Niepodległości 4, Block A Room 107, 61-874 Poznan, Poland
2 Department of Forest Protection, Collegium Maximum, Faculty of Forestry, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznan, Poland