For this blog, I was asked to analyze readers' comments from a Deadline article regarding the recent news about Donald Trump's Mexican immigrants comments. After reading the article, I had to answer a few questions regarding the tone of the readers' comments.
 |
| Hossiason, Francisca. "Donald Trump presenta su precandidatura para las presidenciales 2016 en Estados Unidos" 16 June 2015 via Duna FM 89.7. |
How would you describe the fears and anxieties being expressed in these comments? What are the comments afraid of specifically?
As for most people's comments from the Deadline article, I found that they were not particularly fearful of Donald Trump running for president. Some were either supportive of his decision to run for president, while others were irritated.
What kinds of beliefs and values are represented in these comments? How would you characterize the kinds of values and beliefs being expressed in these comments?
In particular, a comment from nerdrage explains how the person is not so much afraid of the San Francisco shooter's motive but instead explains how his motive was, according to nerdrage, "It probably means he's a mental patient who's gone off his meds." This person is more afraid of what people who are already citizens in this country can do due to their mental health issues, homelessness, and easy access to guns. I am assuming that this person, who is afraid of the amount of people who qualify for these issues, will be present if Trump were to become president. There are two sides to what people believe in these comments in Trump's presidential run. About more than half believe that Trump is a rich American who does not have sympathy for non-Americans. Others believe what Trump stated a correct representation of the issues the U.S. faces when it comes to the discussion of illegal immigration. People stick strongly to what they believe and they have every right to do so.
Which commentors came across as the most reasonable? What made them seem reasonable?
I find the user, Jake, to have a compelling act of speech. Since he was a former Federal Law enforcement officer, he was exposed to the problems that come with illegal immigration. His arguments are reasonable since he does not insult the Mexican people or the country of Mexico, he even states, "Other than corruption, the land and most of the people are beautiful." Jake rather focuses on the problems the country of Mexico brings to the U.S. He states, "But the criminal element and drug cartels control the country and politicians and the people don't see how this can change without a revolution. They don't have the organization and weapons to change it." What I believe makes his arguments seem reasonable is that he talks about the facts about what Mexico more than often brings to the U.S., ones that only bring problems.
Which commentors came across as lacking credibility or trustworthiness? Why didn't they seem trustworthy?
Perhaps the most untrustworthy and even offensive comment comes from Anonymous. The person talks about a type of Mexican cultural issue. They claim, "What I don't agree with is the Mexican cultural love for dog fighting, where these dogs are made to fight each other. These poor dogs have their faces and noses ripped up, ripped off even. They lose ears. Sometimes they kill the losing dog. Some of them are so badly hurt that they're just thrown out into the streets to fend for themselves. These people bring this awful dog fighting sport here, they come get the dogs here!" What this person could have said was that not just Mexican people but any other criminals or bandits would act with such violence. They could have mentioned a small minority of people that do are not law-abiding, but reckless with their actions. This person should have clearly stated that any person who acts this way, regardless of legal status, should be punished accordingly. Another ridiculous post created by Anonymous incites outrage not just by Mexican people, but Jewish people. He or she wrote, "Doesn't resemble like the comments Hitler made in Germany against the Jews? I could be wrong. Remember this is America land of the free home of the brave. Trumps opinions could be right, but truely Americans dont accpet racism." Not only is this person's spelling incorrect, but what they are comparing is far from correct. What Trump said in his speech may have angered many people, but we cannot compare his comments to what the Nazis did to the Jews. Trump never once mentioned exterminating the Mexican people. He never once brought up "The Final Solution", an insane idea no normal person can think of. These comments lack such credibility that the website should have deleted the comments altogether.
What I learned from classmates
I was able to read to Erick Hannah's and Mark Mellott's blog posts about this issue. Both I thought wrote their posts in a professional manner, not holding a bias opinion favoring one side over another. Erick brought up an interesting point in how both views of the argument favoring or not favoring Trump's comments have their merits. The people that only used negative stereotypes as their motive for their comment came across as a less credible source. Rather the commentors that targeted the misbeliefs of the assumptions made came across as the most credible sources. As for the individuals who were less credible, Erick made a good point in saying how those individual did not have concrete evidence to back up their claims, but only used their prejudicial opinions which were driven by racism. As a side note, Jason Wittler replied to blog post, "My Thoughts on Comments".
I felt like I was reading an informative discussion without bias or opinion. To me, this makes you much more creditable and allows me to make my own determinations from the information provided. I prefer this style much more than a rant about "liking this" or "hating that" and I enjoyed reading your comments. You also provided insight with comments focused on certain excerpts which brought me to a new way of thinking on the subject.
ReplyDeleteHello Brandon,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis of the anonymous poster. S/he seemed to only be dealing in broad generalizations and false opinions. They came off as both racist and tolerant in the same rant. I would say that the federal agent is more discussing the problems that Mexico has to face themselves vs. what they bring to the U.S. but to me that only enhances his credibility.