Least Credible:
This commenter has absolutely no credibility with me because he clearly lacks any scientific understanding of climate change and the impacts that it will likely have on people and ecosystems. Not only is his comment completely out of touch with reality, but he also provides no supporting evidence. I wouldn't describe this as expressing fear/anxiety, or a fantasy/wish. I guess it could be expressing the fantasy that climate change will be good for Alaska because it will make it warmer. I feel like most climate change deniers are in denial partly out of fear.
This commenter comes across as lacking credibility because his whole comment consisted in personal insults and they are clearly writing out of fear. They're scared that Obama will have a negative impact on the US, and hope that Trump will get elected.
Most Credible:
This commenter seems credible because they clearly lay out their understanding of the science, and don't come across as angry, scared, or unreasonable. It's also noteworthy that they are able to write coherently. This commenter seems to be fairly informed on the science (they use appropriate jargon), and I would guess that they're not in favor of more drilling in Alaska and the Arctic.
I chose this as my second credible comment because I honestly couldn't find a single other comment that had any credibility in my mind. This commenter is simply stating that Alaska is probably nice this time of year -- a claim that I'm willing to believe. They're not writing out of fear or any fantasy.
Reflection:
I read Jovanka's and Lia's blog posts about comments. Some of the comments highlighted in Jovanka's post about the police brutality article amazed me. I live in such a progressive bubble because of being on a college campus and the political views of my friends. Sometimes I forget that there are people in the United States who advocate for more police violence or for cutting funding to Planned Parenthood's services not even including abortion. It's a good way to get a little perspective on this country.
With good and bad comments there are clear distinctions. For instance, the good comments do not pour an absurd amount of emotion into them. They also have evidence to back up their position, in this situation it is science. The bad comments seem to lead their argument with anger. They also do not have evidence to back up their claims.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is very interesting that you chose comments with varying lengths of writing. Some people might think that the longer a comment is, the more in depth it is but that's not always the case. Often times you can have comments that are concise and to the point while other times it takes longer to completely get a point across. I think your analyzation of the different comments is very accurate due to the evidence within the comments and your analyzation of them.
ReplyDelete