I strongly believe that the use of emotionally charged language, like what was contained on stellareddy.com and connaughtpublicschool.com, can have a detrimental effect on the credibility and perceived objectivity of a website written anonymously by one individual about another.
Yes, I admit I did this myself, especially in the beginning, I am not in denial about that! I was emotionally charged! Learning to regulate my emotions, and tell the difference between a response and a reaction, took time for me to figure out. I am still not perfect at it, but I am getting better. As I mentioned before I am an emotional person and they sometimes get away from me. I try hard to pause and reflect before responding to any new content written and shared online.
When domain contents contain intensely biased terminology, it becomes evident that the primary aim is condemnation rather than balanced reporting. This lack of impartiality greatly diminishes the website’s credibility. The implied meaning is to prejudice audiences against me and others through unverified accusations and a lack of procedural fairness, calling my credibility and actions into question in an unfairly one-sided manner for potentially retaliatory purposes.
In addition, emotionally charged language manipulates the emotions of the audience, often appealing to anger or outrage rather than reason and facts. I would know as it happened to me every time I read new content on stellareddy.com in the beginning! This manipulation of emotions is a clear indication that the written content is utilizing propaganda techniques instead of engaging in credible fact-finding. By relying on emotions rather than objective evidence, the written content fails to provide a well-rounded perspective and inhibits the audience’s ability to understand complex realities fully.
The domain contents never did present definitive evidence to directly support the claim that I am a “compulsive liar”. Some key points:
- – It states I am willing to “throw anyone under the bus” and “deliberately lie” but provides no examples or evidence of proven lies.
- – It notes I deny being a property manager, but denials alone do not prove lying – my view is based on my job contract.
- – The evidence presented aims to contradict my denials of the property manager title, but contradictions are not the same as proving intentional deceit/lying.
- – My social media posts are cited as a counter to my statements but do not absolutely prove I was lying about my title versus how I presented myself.
- – Motivations of trying to “save herself” are asserted but not backed by evidence demonstrating this is my sole or primary motivation.
- – The repetitive nature of my denials is argued to show “foolishness” but repetition alone does not equate to deliberate deceit or compulsive lying.
While the written content attempts to undermine my credibility and paint my statements as untruthful, it does not present clear evidence that directly proves I met the definition of a “compulsive liar” through demonstrated patterns of intentional deceit, as opposed to differences in perspective or interpretation. The claim relies more on implication than definitive evidence.
Personal bias/grievance: The anonymous author’s negative perspective of me stems from my part in their eviction from the apartment they rented where I worked, influencing how they portrayed me. This bias did colour their analysis and prevented them from presenting an objective viewpoint on the situation.
Lack of impartiality: Instead of maintaining a neutral stance, the anonymous author approaches the topic with a clear agenda against my personal position. Their goal is not to provide an objective analysis of the facts, but rather to condemn my stance.
Seeking confirmation: Rather than presenting evidence and engaging in open-minded consideration, the anonymous author relies on implications and appeals to preexisting negative perceptions they have that I am a racist person and acted in a racist manner towards them. This adversarial approach does not encourage a fair examination of the issue.
Defensiveness: Instead of calmly addressing perceived attacks, the anonymous author responds with aggression and hostility. They fail to rise above the conflict and instead contribute to a disrespectful discussion. This was also where I went wrong at times, as I became defensive too.
Retaliation: The hostile language used in the text suggests that the anonymous author may have underlying motivations of seeking revenge for past grievances rather than genuinely resolving the conflict at hand. If these tenants had any real interest in resolution, they would have attended the HRTO hearing in January 2020. They also would be totally honest about their own actions that contributed to this situation and what it became.
In the beginning, I too wanted to get back at them for what they did, but over time my actions made me uncomfortable and I set about learning another way.
Lack of verification: The one-sided adversarial approach does not seek to establish reliable facts through corroborating neutral perspectives. Instead, it aims to prejudice opinion and manipulate the narrative. All they show is their own perspectives, not any evidence.
Character damage: The anonymous author’s strong attacks on credibility, such as accusing me of lying or racism, serve to undermine my reputation rather than engaging in a balanced fact-finding dialogue. The fact they created these domains and posted them on the internet, showed definitively they are looking to cause harm.
The reliance on personal perspectives, lack of impartiality, defensiveness, and retaliatory aims explain why the anonymous author adopts a combative rather than objective and balanced approach in discussing their issues.
The use of emotionally charged language also preempts the interpretation of information by introducing loaded terms that decide conclusions without allowing for an open examination of multiple interpretations. Terms like “racist” or “sexist” immediately label individuals or actions as such, without providing the opportunity to explore alternative perspectives or contexts. This leads to a lack of nuance and understanding and inhibits the progress of productive and meaningful discussions.
Furthermore, emotionally charged language dismisses alternative views by labelling them as insignificant or unworthy of consideration. By using phrases like “paper thin” to describe opposing perspectives, the written content suggests that these views do not merit fair analysis. This dismissal of alternative views undermines the very essence of open dialogue and critical thinking that is crucial for a well-informed and inclusive society.
Another concerning aspect of emotionally charged language is the presentation of opinions as facts. Statements such as “she refuses to acknowledge racism” treat subjective views as indisputable truths. This blurring of the line between opinions and facts further erodes the written content’s credibility, as it fails to distinguish between objective information and personal beliefs.
Moreover, the use of highly emotive and propagandistic language raises questions about the truthfulness of the claims made in the written content, especially when they leave so much out! It becomes increasingly difficult to trust the information presented when it is presented in a sensational and biased manner. This skepticism is detrimental to the overall credibility of the written content and can lead to its dismissal as unreliable or unverifiable.
Additionally, relying on emotional manipulation instead of empirical evidence and reasoned argument demonstrates a lack of integrity. It showcases a disregard for the rigorous process of seeking truth and providing well-supported information. When written content fails to present empirical evidence and reasoned arguments, it becomes evident that its primary purpose may be to sway emotions rather than inform and educate.
In conclusion, the use of highly biased and emotionally provocative language severely damages the credibility of the written content of smear campaign domains. It undermines the domain’s claim to be a credible and facts-based account interested in truth over agenda. The use of emotionally charged language signals an agenda, manipulates emotions, lacks nuance, prejudges interpretation, dismisses alternative views, presents opinions as facts, invites skepticism, and undermines rigour.
It is important for written content to strive for objectivity, balanced reporting, and accurate representation of the complex situation to be a credible and respected source of information on the topic.