Comment section participants at news sites are funny. Many furiously express themselves from the safety of their homes while hiding behind a pseudonym where nothing that they say can ever be confirmed and they cannot be held accountable for any of their claims.
Most of the time, arguing with these people is an exercise in futility. Their opinions are based on their entrenched perceptions of their world, shaped and molded by the viewpoints they digest from the media they consume.
They are not there to debate, in fact seldom do they debate. They are there to argue their version of events as seen through the lens of their political disposition. This isn’t always the case, but for the majority it is.
Frequently they “know someone” who never has a name but is brought up to reinforce their claims, much like the mainstream media refers to “experts” or “sources”.
They are often authoritarian, as it is their perspective and their opinion that we all must abide with. Any disagreement usually unleashes the beast, and from the safety of their anonymity, they will attack in an attempt to discredit your dissent from their proclamations of subjective truths.
What, I often wonder, is the driving force behind their desires? For the most part, they often conjugate in places where their opinion, or comment, will be reinforced by an audience of like-minded individuals. A perfect example of this are political sites, where comments usually fall in line with a specific political narrative.
I believe that, for the most part, they are seeking reinforcement. A curious example of this is the comments section at the political news organization known as Breitbart. Breitbart is the extreme example of the prevalence of the political echo-chamber, where dissent is swiftly punished and assent is fervently rewarded by a plethora of “up-votes”.
The “up-vote” or “down-vote” mechanism (like and dislike) seems to be the reward and punishment system of the day. One can just imagine the intensity with which that “down-vote” is engaged via an aggressive mouse-click and a grunt. One can equally imagine the energy with which confirmation is made with the caress of the thumbs-up or up-vote coupled with a definitive nod of approval.
I have been notably “vote-stalked”. Curiously, an individual spent their time and energy making sure every comment I made on the KPRC comments section for a particular article was instantly down-voted. This person, seeking to somehow express their displeasure of my opinion, refused to engage me. They wanted to continually punish my viewpoint with this unique expression of their disapproval of me as a person with an opinion that is different than their own.
I even innocently registered this activity with a harmless attempt to engage my stalker with a “LOL” and a smiley face. I was instantly down-voted.
Why do I waste my time? What is it that I am seeking to accomplish? That is a good question, considering I began this entry with a direct reference as to the futility of this endeavor. If I am there, I am obviously one of them. I have dedicated my life to making an honest effort to raising the awareness of others with regards to the various schemes currently deployed against us by the future-makers who seek to reimagine our world to their benefit and their benefit alone. I think it is a worthy undertaking, and my own journey to this life task was one of supernatural and metaphysical events, as I have written about in the past.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that I need to engage others in the volatile arena known as the comments section. Not at all. But it is one way in which I can make a contribution toward achieving my stated goal, even if it isn’t the most ideal or constructive way to spend this energy. There is something deeper going on, perhaps. I would never exclude that possibility and it is quite part of the bargain when you have sufficient self-awareness to use that self-awareness to question your own reasons for the things that you do.
At the end of the day, we all have an opinion. We all express subjective truths. I wish we lived in a receptive world were a worthy expression of opinion was met with a worthy discussion, where ideas were expanded on or politely challenged for the constructive benefit to all involved, but for the most part we do not. Emotion is always involved, and we express that emotion in a myriad amount of ways.
In the end, however, it is a place where we can express our agreement or disagreement to the contents of an article. It is a place where we can suggest corrections, or point out falsehoods. It can be utilized for the greater good. It can be used to hold those who write articles accountable for their claims, such as here. One must honestly question the intent behind the absence of a comments section, such as the notable absence on CNN’s website. There, it is clear, that they do not want anyone to question the narrative nor do they seek to be held accountable for their claims.
If ever there was clear evidence to be cautious of the claims made by a publication, it is where the pseudonym warrior is unable to wield the power of their keyboard. I believe that everyone should have an avenue to express their opinion and, as the saying goes, while I may not agree with “Bob Ross the Boss” or “Tom Clancy on Prozac”, I will certainly fight for their right to be heard.
Oh, before you leave, don’t forget to reinforce my biases by ‘Liking’ this entry!
… Or not. 😉