Attacking Substance or Credibility (Part 1 of 2)
In Part 1, read how online comments attack the substance of the content
There are no shortage of haters, especially online, that have every intention of knocking you down so that they get lifted up…or at least feel like they get lifted up. Haters come in subtle ways where they attack the substance of the content, and in more vulgar ways where they attack the credibility of a person.
In Part 1, I want to share a breakdown of online comments that attack the substance of the content or in other words, criticize personal views and ideas.
Below are online comments made to our 24Hour Journal Creator and 24Hour Investing Instructor/Advisor, Anna Rubešová, after she made some posts in a few Facebook groups.
Example 1 of Attacking the Substance of the Content
In the Facebook group, Cesi a Slovaci Zijici v USA (Czech and Slovak People Living in the USA), Anna posted two images along with the message sharing her story of moving out of her parent’s home and learning to become financially independent by learning to invest.
The image below will be referred to as Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1 — An image of Anna’s stock watchlist and an image of her in Playa del Carmen, Mexico…along with a message sharing her story of moving out of her parent’s house, learning to be financially independent by learning to invest, and encouraging other like-minded individuals to do the same.
The first comment challenges Anna’s stock watchlist, and says:
“Cozpak o to! Poftfolio to je hned, ale kde sehnat ty penize na nakup tech investic” (translation — What about that! Now there is a portfolio but where do you get the money to buy the investments)
As you can tell from the ending emoji, this comment is intended to be sarcastic but still to challenge the substance of the post. The stock market year-to-date has been down, and many investors have lost a lot money. Additionally, while wages have increased, so has inflation, which doesn’t make the wage increase as impressive. The Commenter seems to convey reluctance on a post that advocates for others to be financially independent by learning to invest.
Anna’s response to the Commenter is:
samozřejmě, že se na to musí našetřit, ale mít plán je stejně tak důležité (translation — of course you must save money, but it is also important to have a plan.)
And the Commenter’s final response is to ask her thoughts on strategies for a bear market.
Even if you were to assume the worst intentions of the Commenter, attacking the substance of the content is undoubtedly a more productive way to engage with someone’s social media post and his/her ideas. Anna’s response may not have assuaged the Commenter’s views on her watchlist, or her idea of becoming financially independent, but when attacking the substance of the content, attacks are perceived to be more constructive and fair.
Example 2 of Attacking the Substance of the Content
In the FB Group, Foreigners in Brno, Anna posted again sharing her love of learning new languages and the benefits afforded as a result. In this post, learning a new language like Spanish allows her to live and work in Mexico, and learning English has led her to learn a new skill, that being investing. Specifically, she cites that the pension benefits eventually provided to her by the Government will not be enough, and as such, investing in a company like Airbnb will supplement her retirement income.
The image below will be referred to as Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2 — A selfie of Anna with roses in the background as she shares her love of learning new languages and how learning these languages have opened new doors and opportunities, one of which is investing in her retirement.
In what follows below is a back-and-forth discussion between two commenters as they debate the idea of a government pension system.
None of these comments are directed at Anna specifically. They do address Anna’s presumption that a government pension system is not sufficient enough for her retirement. As you read through these comments, any one person can learn how either Anna’s original post or the commenters’ responses provide better information to the reader.
Attacking the substance of the content is absolutely fair game, and in this manner, a more productive dialogue is created in order to better educate readers to make better financial decisions.
Read Part 2 where I contrast these comments of Exhibit 1 and 2 with comments that attack the credibility of the author.
24Hour Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and join the adventure of a lifetime, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.