"Commenting" On: About Those Banners at Old Dominion (The Atlantic)

'"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." The frat bros should be ostracized and ignored from the ground up because they're jerks. ' Comments similar to these spark the heated, and reflective debates amongst public individuals whom strive to assert their opinions within the realm of the internet. In the present age, when word of a controversy spreads, most people reach for their laptop, and "google" the topic at hand, in order to "educate" themselves about the pressing issue. However, with comments as zealous and one-sided as the one above, how do we know if the information we are getting is opinionated or strictly factual? 

The controversy spectacled by the commenters ignites the underlying moralistic values each has embedded within themselves. For example, "I think flagging this sort of behaviour is an attempt to tackle rape culture, which undeniably exits in such places. How else would you propose progress be made than to highlight such incidences ?" The subconscious distress towards societal conflicts, like rape culture, produce a response in which the public utilizes somewhat comical articles, like one about university "frat" boys, as outlets to express the fear that their personal values are becoming undermined. This reaction results in emotional debates,ranging from  agitation, to aggression, to a cry of peace. 

Ultimately, the excessively personal connections condemn the factual interpretations of these articles- exaggerations should not form the basis of knowledge. However, personal assertions do not necessarily decrease one's credibility, as every individual holds the right to intellectual freedom of expression. Thus, as one's opinion appears credible in comparison to one's own values, a degree of validity is present within one's rationale. 

When assessing the validity of each argument, I searched for the well-composed, somewhat unbiased opinions. Although argumentative aspects are important in forming one's own opinion, they do not culminate to a basic understanding of a controversy. For instance, the user matterovermind commented "There's nothing "overblown" about this story for the reasons outlined by the author in this piece. Those banners were offensive and an insult to women. " When I first read this assertion, I saw only facts. The Frat boys specifically degraded women, which is a clear predecessor of sexual assaults and sexual harassment. But, as I read on, this user lost credibility. Their hostile tone created an agitated statement, which made me assume they were just searching for an argument ("...How can you not understand that?"). 

Overall, the comments provided new insights and perspectives on both sides of the argument that I hadn't before considered. The comments strengthened some of my personal opinions against the actions of the frat boys, but certainly did not open my opinions to defending the culprits. Most of the comments seemed belligerent and overly-personal, which created somewhat of a battle as opposed to an analysis of the situation. To conclude, I would say the comments stand for free entertainment, but should not be used to form intellectual responses.