IMPOLITENESS STRATEGY BY HATERS AND SUPPORTERS OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON THE INSTAGRAM: A CYBER PRAGMATICS APPROACH

This research examined impoliteness strategies employed by both haters and supporters of presidential candidates on Instagram during Indonesia's Third Presidential Debate. Drawing on Culpeper's (2010, 1996, 2011) and Beebe's (1995) theories, the study analyzed impoliteness strategies, their anifestations, and underlying motivations. Used a descriptive-qualitative approach, data source were taken from comments on the @suaraanies Instagram account. Employing a documentary technique, the findings indicated that among supporters, Negative Impoliteness was the most prevalent strategy (43 instances), whereas Bald on Record Impoliteness was the least frequent (3 instances). Conversely, haters predominantly employed Positive Impoliteness (35 instances), with Bald on Record Impoliteness and Sarcasm or Mock Impoliteness occurring least frequently (8 instances each). The analysis further identified 12 forms of impolite utterances among haters, most commonly Condescend, Scorn, or Ridicule (17 occurrences), and 11 forms among supporters, primarily Insult (20 occurrences). In terms of reasons for impolite utterances, haters most frequently cited “To Vent Negative Feelings” (29 instances), while “To Mock Someone” was less common (7 instances). Supporters commonly used impolite language “To Clarify Something” (17 instances), with “To Show Disagreement” being the least cited reason (2 instances). The absence of 'withhold impoliteness' strategies may be attributed to the anonymity of online interactions, potentially reducing users' sense of accountability for their comments. Notably, taboo words were not employed as a manifestation of impoliteness by supporters, likely reflecting an effort to maintain respectability while defending their chosen candidate and engaging in reasoned debate.