Whether we actually have or not,
all of us have had the urge to voice our thoughts on the internet, convinced
that world had to hear what we had to
say. As I continued to delve into the
American flag desecration controversy, I examined the ways in which people
choose to express their opinions on the World Wide Web. It became quickly evident that few people
knew how to create any sort of convincing argument, and thus immediately lost
their credibility for me. Let’s take a
look...
| Applegate, Chris. "filter arguments" 04/10/2012 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic |
Michele seems to have a fear of a
larger issue. As it is clear from her profile
picture that she is a supporter of the presence of the Confederate flag, it can
be inferred that she is trying to protect herself from people that don’t agree
with her beliefs. Thus, she tells her
opposition to leave country so she doesn’t have to hear the “wrong” opinions.
This commenter lacks a lot of
credibility. When people are forced to
resort to name calling, it means they have no sound facts to back their
argument and are simply just raging.
Most people don’t want to listen to a rant.
Bobby also seems to be hiding
behind an anxiety that causes her to call for immediate removal of those
burning the flag. Her use of excessive exclamation
points suggests that she is asking for attention and demanding that her
thoughts be noted. People who have to
work that hard at being noticed usually have little of value to say.
She is very adamant that punishment
is the only way the situation may be “corrected.” However, when she decides to use crude language
and include facts that are incorrect, she loses all credibility. (It actually is not a crime to burn the
American flag, as later pointed out in a comment below.)
Despite these
ranting complaints, some people actually made sound arguments that seemed very
credible.
“Fearless Leader” begins his comment
with a fact, and better yet, a correction to a previous comment. This quickly establishes his credibility,
that, if nothing more, he knows a little bit about the court decision regarding
this debate. He then draws a conclusion from
this fact, and finally states his opinion.
I am more inclined to listen to his argument as he has proven to me that
he has background knowledge and can make reasonable interpretations.
“Fearless Leader” subtly mentions
his wish in this comment by mentioning what he believes the flag means. It is clear that he values the freedoms
America offers by this statement, but he also conveys that he desires to
educate the ignorant. He shows this by
not being infuriated, but rather simply presenting the facts.
Paul is much more vocal about his
opinions and what he believes, but it is done in a manner that is easy to
listen to. He does not threaten his audience,
as that would break all trust with the reader.
Rather, he lays out what he believes leaving it to the audience what
emotion to feel.
Paul presents his wish that those
who live in America should respect the country and all it has to offer, and if
someone does not like it, they can find some place they do respect. He believes that everyone has free choice,
but that your choices should not impede someone else’s free choice. His desires are clearly laid out in a calm
manner, making it easy to agree or disagree without feeling scolded.
Reflection
Viewing others' posts on how people gain or lose credibility on comment threads helped open up a wider perspective. Stef Antonopoulos' blog included a comment from a PhD., adding an authoritative figure that I did not get to assess. It was interesting to see how their comments differed greatly from the other comments in the language used and the tone of voice carried.
You did a great job of structuring your Blog post. Loved your introductory paragraph, as well as the photo you added at the top. Also, you organized the body of your post in a very clear and understandable way, which went very well with your screenshots as well. Your content was solid, and you analyzed the comments very well. I can learn lots stylistically from you, so thank you.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your assessments of credibility. There really is something about people starting in with name calling that really makes them seem quite juvenile. Aside from the content of the post itself, you also have given me a very good example of how to make sure to introduce your topic. You do a really nice job transitioning from comment to comment, and this is all together a really well done post in general.
ReplyDelete