My Thoughts on Comments

The comment thread of an article is often a place on the Internet where ordinary people, much like you and I, go to express their opinions and ideas regarding a particular piece of writing. This is the place where people contribute to discussions, tell their own personal anecdotes, and even add seemingly random bits of information, all in the hopes that they will have their voices heard. This post will discuss some comments from an article published by The Independent, titled "International Yoga Day controversy as India is accused of pushing 'Hindu agenda' on Muslims."

The Credible Comments

Some commenters came across as more credible than others for a variety of reasons. Whether it was the experience they contributed, the facts they added to the discussion, or even just the way they articulated themselves through the comments section, they each were able to come across as credible and reasonable. For instance, let's take a look at Nasir Khan's comment below: 

Khan, Nasir. Screenshot from my computer. 08/29/15 1:16pm.

In his comment, Mr. Khan voices some concern that yoga is becoming a campaign in order to reach a certain religious or political end. He does not seem to identify with either group in this comment; rather, he identifies as a Humanist, who does not practice yoga for any religious purpose.

Because he has established himself as a Humanist who practices yoga in a secular manner, Khan's credibility increases. As I was scrolling through pages of comments, his contribution was like a breath of fresh air for me, as he neither establishes himself as a Hindu nor as a Muslim. He merely speaks from personal experience when he says that he practices yoga for "physical fitness and mental balance," and thus, in his experience, yoga is not an entirely religious practice. In this case, Khan's credibility increases because he has no apparent bias and he contributes his own personal experience through his comment.

Another relatively credible comment was voiced by Ezsasa here:

Ezsasa. Screenshot from my computer. 08/29/15 1:18pm.

In this comment, Ezsasa worries that this controversy is in fact a "manufactured controversy." She seems to believe that the views that are described in the article are not held by all Muslims in India. By saying this, she does not seem to truly take anyone's side in the controversy; rather, she is of the opinion that people are intentionally making this event a controversy.

In this case, I felt that Ezsasa's comment was credible. She backed her opinion by speaking about the "over whelming participation from kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, and Bengal" and then went on to explain that these places usually consist of a large majority of Muslims. Although I do think that she would have sounded a bit more credible if she had cited a source for this information, her factually based argument did make her sound more credible.

The Not-So-Credible Comments

In this section, I will write about some of the comments that did not seem to be reasonable or credible. These are the comments that made me shake my head furiously, roll my eyes, and even, on occasion, voice my disagreement out loud. One comment that I did not find credible was contributed by Angel Eyes:

Angel Eyes. Screenshot from my computer. 08/29/15 1:23pm.

Angel seems to be voicing some fear about the government's apparent inability to curb poverty in India, but it is unclear where exactly this fear is coming from. Her comment does not seem to be directly related to the article, so it is difficult to even understand what her viewpoint is on the controversy that the article is written about. It is completely possible that 80 percent of Indians do "live on under a dollar a day," but the irrelevance of the comment completely undermines Angel's credibility. Due to the arbitrary nature of her comment, Angel lacks credibility in this case.

This next comment also completely lacks credibility:

Bosnianbob. Screenshot from my computer. 08/29/15 1:28pm.

Bosnianbob contributes to the comment thread merely by throwing around insults. He seems to be angry about something, but the vague use of "these people" does not even let the reader know whom he is referring to. Based on these insults, I can only presume that he finds some group of people, either the government or the Muslim dissenters, "bewildered" and "retarded," but it is nearly impossible to tell where his opinion lies. Rather, by spouting off these seemingly random insults, he shows that he is neither a reasonable nor trustworthy source.

Reflection

My classmates' posts showed me that, even if our choice in controversies are different, the underlying qualities that make comments credible or un-credible remain consistent. 

Casey's post about scientific fraud was very interesting and analytic. I was really intrigued by the fact that scientific fraud is such a controversial issue, and I generally agreed with Casey's analysis regarding the comments. The credible comments actually contribute fact-based information to the discussion, which increases the authority of the writer. In addition, even if they are opinionated, they do not let their judgements negatively influence the way they come across in the comments thread. However, the un-credible comments often come across as ignorant or irrelevant, and the authors often let their bias negatively influence the tone of their comments.

Sam's analysis again mirrored the way I analyze comments in comment threads. The commenters that use logic to back up their claims increase their own authority by doing so, which makes their comments seem credible. However, the un-credible comments are clouded by bias, which makes the commenters seem unreliable. Even if I do agree with any of these comments, the tone of the commenters makes their entire viewpoint seem un-credible.