My Thoughts on Comments

Reason vs. Irrationality

I will be analyzing the credibility of four comments on the article, "Crowds Scatter as Baltimore Curfew Takes Hold" from the New York Times website. Two of these comments are credible, and two are not. We go from the logical end of the spectrum all the way to blind fury, enjoy!

Reasonable

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/baltimore-riots.html

1. Chris seems to have a wish for the black community to denounce violent protest more vocally. He emphasizes the immoral act of using violence to justify criminal behavior.
2. This commenter seems to value peace, due process, and equality. Chris is mainly outraged by the violence in Baltimore. He validates the worries of the black community and the nation at large. Chris provides a summary of many people's opinions in a fairly objective manner, while also emphasizing his own opinion that police brutality cannot justify criminality.
3. The rhetoric, lack of aggression, and use of logic in Chris' comment make me see it as reasonable. This comment is definitely opinionated, but Chris isn't quick to offend: he clearly illustrates the concerns of the parties he discusses. The way he uses the differing perspectives of much of the black community and the general public to illustrate his point is difficult to argue with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/baltimore-riots.html

1. The commenter is definitely expressing the wish that the NYTimes and the media focuses on more groups related to the central ideas of the Black Lives Matter movement instead of characterizing their issue by reporting on an extreme reaction. She illustrates this in every paragraph by showing how this media trend is emphasizing the outlandish over the truth.
2. Lillian believes that the media should be exploring and reporting on all facets of an issue. Throughout her comment, she references the media's amplification of smaller, more radical and violent groups. She supports the black rights movement and cares about how it's represented in the media. That link she has connects to an article about the rest of the demonstration in downtown Baltimore that was ignored by the mass media.
3. The commenter comes across as reasonable because she includes a reference to an article about the larger meaning of that day that was completely ignored. This makes her argument for the change of the attitudes of mass media all the more credible, and adds to her points about how the radical actions of the few shouldn't be held above the rational majority.

Irrational

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/baltimore-riots.html

1. This commenter has no clear concern. There is no expression of a wish, nor of an anxiety. The comment's only purpose seems to be discrediting Rev. Bryant and the rioters. They make a quote (not specifying who he is), then make a couple short, misleading comments.
2. Mookie clearly believes that the rioters and Reverand Bryant aren't living up to the legacy of MLK. They plainly states this.
3. The commenter lacks credibility and reasonability because they do nothing to support their opinion, they just throw it out there. Sure, that opinion may or may not be credible, but the commenter must defend their opinion, otherwise it is worthless. This comment reminds me of the 'Hitler' comment we saw in class: it makes a comparison to a major historical figure, without explaining why.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/baltimore-riots.html

1. Ann obviously wishes that black people would be more appreciative of the things that they have and use them to their benefit. She illustrates this with many many many rhetorical questions.
2. The commenter seems to believe that all of the arrests and police shootings of African Americans are justified. She says that there's no way that they would be arrested unless they broke a law. She also seems to believe that black people use the race card for everything. "Not everything is because you are black." and that they are ignoring the great things that the government has given them.
3. Can I just say.... WOW. This is one of the most thorough overly aggressive and accusatory comments I have ever seen. She is way too emotional, and doesn't bother to calmly consider that there may be other things at play. She immediately ridicules a race. There may have been a couple valid points out of this biased rant if they were taken out of rhetorical question format and put into a detailed paragraph. 

Reflection: My peers' blog posts clarified how to analyze the emotions and purposes of comments. Michael and Mark showed that the attitudes of people are just as important as the specific content that they include in their comment. By combining the tone of the post with specific people and/or events mentioned, Mark showed that the commenter's opinion on certain issues is easily discernible. What I am more skeptical of is whether we can use the material in the comment to discern the exact nature of the commenter's life. I think that the insights into beliefs of a commenter can form a partial image of who that commenter is, but it isn't always possible to infer a commenter's race, party alignment, or location. Michael helped me to realize that when interpreting comments, I should be aware of whether I'm making a clear, traceable inference, or if I'm assuming without enough evidence.

       Resources:         Mark Lubniewski: English 109H

                                 Michael McMillin: 109H Sec14