Made For CiF?

Inspiration struck, picking the worst time possible as usual. I decided to have a little fun, even if this will likely never grace the pages of CiF...


'Why Comment is most certainly not free'


Theoretically, you can say what you like over a page of the prestigious Guardian. But who really reads the paper editions that much any more? If you want to be heard, you'll submit your words online. Then stand back and watch your free comment become encumbered by the foamings and slobberings of a million (or more like 200 if you're doing well) half-wits.

The most astonishing aspect of the whole comment-submitting process is also how ultimately pointless your little comment will make you feel. Depending on the topic of your comment and exactly what you said, you'll get a whole range of commenters. Comment on big political issues tends to have straight-forward ideological smack-downs, with people essentially arguing over the fact that neither can convert the other to their point of view. Of course, it won't be that obvious - nit-picking over facts, spelling, grammar, punctuation or layout could be (and usually is) the way to do this. These commenters will usually spell correctly, come across as terrifyingly tuned-in and sneeringly haughty, and are at the high end of the intelligence level. Presumably some of these people don't mean to present themselves that way, but the Internet's faceless wonders come at a price, and that is of sounding as distinctly mechanical as the computer you're channelling your thoughts through.

After that come the quasi-loons. These are usually people who can, for the most part, manage syntax, grammar and spelling enough for you to believe that they might well be a real person. Then they go and spoil it all by showing that they haven't really read the comment, or if they have, have completely misunderstood and decided to plough on regardless without even a second glance. These are probably the sort of people who, in the real world, would tell you that Margaret Thatcher is worthy of respect because she was the first female British Prime Minister, but wouldn't be able to tell you much else about her or even why they agree with that particular sentiment. One fine example would be a commenter on a very recent CiF article about alcohol consumption and rape, who claimed that 'Rape can be less harmfull (sic) than serious assault.'

Another type of quasi-loons is the variety who doesn't actually say anything directly, but strings together a bunch of vaguely nonsensical sentences to hint at something. Another example is offered by the article I just mentioned, where a commenter insinuated that what Britain needed were 'common sense rules' regarding drinking so that 'It is understood, (not condoned) what may happen to women who get drunk and behave drunkenly', just like India where s/he is apparently from. Considering that that ran counter to the whole point of the article, such a misappropriation of the information presented therein was almost impressive.

Last but not least are the out-and-out trolls. These are the 'eye-swivelling nutrags' as Charlie Brooker once put it in his own 'Screen Burn' column for the Guardian. These 'people' (can they honestly be real?) have the barest grasp of language, which is fitting as their comments will have all the intellectual complexity of a child's storybook. They will be the ones who immediately resort to ad hominem insults in order to convey, with all the finesse and discretion of a steam-roller, that they don't agree with the comment. What stating this achieves is a mystery to most, but presumably it is simply a way for the troll to get what they desperately need: attention. Guardian readers are stereotypically renowned for their 'liberal guilt' and didactic tendencies, but trying to explain things to a troll is akin to punching yourself repeatedly in the face.

Saving for the best for last, in amongst the rubble of cybergabble will be some real and proper commentators. Whether they be people who offer intelligent and informed critique of the piece at hand, or simply polite and supportive readers who try and engage, they're rare but useful, and definitely appreciated. Considering how damaging the comments of one particular type of commenter can be for a 'new' writer (let alone the multiplied effect of accumulated lunacy), these are what we need more of. The types of commenters I've listed above aren't generally good for much other than helping 'new' writers develop a thick skin. Comment is free, facts are sacred, but debate is essential and something that we are SORELY in need of considering that authoritarianism seems to be increasingly fashionable all over the world. So, to the sane among you, I urge - bring it on.