My Thoughts on Public Comments

On the Public Comments Section

1. The comments below expressed a fairly diverse spectrum of fears and anxieties. While some users expressed no anxiety, discrediting Trump as a foolish or outlandish, others expressed frustration or anxiety at the accusation that all immigrants are criminals - one commentator in particular expressed his disgust at Trump's remarks because he himself was the son of an illegal immigrant. He expressed fear that others would agree with Trump and characterize immigrants as lazy or violent. Others agreed with Trump, and also feared that illegal aliens are a potential threat to Americans and the economy. They expressed fears of illegal aliens committing murder, such as the incident in San Francisco. Others feared that hiring immigrants is a type of job outsourcing and could potentially undermine the economy. 
2. Some commentators shared the belief that Donald Trump was trying to do what is most beneficial for the country. They share the belief that illegal immigrants can characterized as one whole, homogeneous group, with a largely negative stereotype. On the opponent side, the passion-fueled arguments are driven by patriotism and a fear of violent crimes, while the logic-driven arguments center around the issue of the economy. The comments that disagreed with Trump also can be categorized as passion-fueled and logic-fueled. The passion-fueled arguments tended to attack Trump personally and accused him of being a fool or even a crook. The logic-driven arguments also tended to discredit Trump but also provide evidence as to why the statements about immigrants were overgeneralized or untrue.
3. The person that seemed to have the most credibility was user Al'n because this argument was logical, articulate, coherent and ultimately well-reasoned. Part of the credibility was due to the fact that he did not attack Trump, swear or use poor language. Another small but noticeable feature of this post was that he used proper spelling, grammar and punctuation. For me personally, this always makes a piece of writing seem more credible, and makes the writer seem more intelligent, and thus I feel more persuaded to read on, even if I do not agree with the opinion itself. I am often turned off by commentators who use unnecessary capitalization because it comes across as heavy handed and punctuation errors make the post simply annoying to read. By using proper conventions, Al'n's post seemed well thought out, and thus, the most credible.
4. The user that seemed the least credible was user Anonymous. While many users used poor conventions (which as I mentioned above, can discredit a writer), Anonymous' post was completely off topic and had no explicable bearing on the topic at hand. The phrase "talking just to hear myself talk" comes to mind. While I too hate the cruel sport of dog-fighting, I do not agree with the crass generalization that all Mexican people somehow share the "cultural" desire to fight dogs. As a person of Hispanic descent. I know this to be untrue. This and the off-topic nature of the post really discredits the author for me.

Reflection:

    I learned a lot from other's posts. One user, Nicole Nelson, mentioned how usernames are another piece of information that the author gives to establish credibility - she points out the difference between "Gina Genochio" and "BongBong", and how the professional nature of your username can add to your perceived authority, which is something that I had not yet considered.

   Another user, Eric Hannah, pointed out how some users reverted to stereotypes instead of using facts as evidence. I thought this was also really important to revealing whose opinion is well researched and whose is not.