Criticism vs Bashing!!! - Page 3

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Its really doesnt make sense to differentiate the two. perfect criticisms can be made to look like bashings...saying that a "pig stinks" would not be clear is more offensive to the pig or an animal activist... Unless there is a clear mature understanding you can only have debates with Mod's interference..... where simple innocuous words are termed as bashing....calling americans lack culture is bashing...(?)...there is a veri fine line.. I think bashing is just extreme incessant criticism which may not be wrong... 😊 Its like this criticism with 2-3 sentences is criticism but with 20-30 sentences is bashing... 😆

Yes, generalising a whole group of people by demeaning their way of life reeks of superiority complex and would be bashing. Instead pointing out the aspects which could do with improvement without demeaning the americans in general would be criticism.

Example: Their ready acceptance of pre marital sex especially in the teens can be criticised, but for that their 'whole' culture cannot be demeaned becuase their culture also has many aspects which the other cultures could learn from, for example, their discipline, their integrity, their practical approach to life's problems and their desire to surmount difficulties no matter what etc etc.

Originally posted by: Minnie

Maya I can

I can criticise Bansali's bad direction in this particular movie. But I don't have to say 'oh what a rotten director Bansali is !' or 'Bansali is such a crap'.....that is bashing.

This film is one of Rani's worst acting efforts, and that is strictly my opinion, but if I go on to say she is such a horrible actress, does not know how to act.....in short, dissecting Rani rather than her acting in THIS movie or the character, then it would be bashing. For criticism, I need to stay focussed on the subject, not the persons involved in it. And the focus here would be on the performances of the individuals involved related strictly to the film, and not their personal life or generalising anything.

Minnie, That is exactly what I meant. In the previous post you mentioned that you can dissect the film without criticising Bansali or Rani or Big B and I was wondering how is it possible. This reply clears my doubt. It is impossible to not criticize lead actor's performance or direction or the story when we dissect a film.

When you dissect Rani's acting it is also like dissecting Rani, the actress which means that she failed to do her job well. But Rani Fans and the ones who love Black would take offense to our critiquing Rani and if there is ever a debate like that then it would be termed as Rani bashing by them. The example I gave was Sanjay Dutt's verdict GA where many gave unbiased opinion about his verdict but his fans just blamed everything on media and Indian judiciary.

In short what I mean is that it depends upon each person's perspective. People are going to term a counterattack as bashing or criticism but as long as we don't use offensive words or get too personal and follow a basic decorum it should be fine.

Originally posted by: Minnie

Yes, generalising a whole group of people by demeaning their way of life reeks of superiority complex and would be bashing. Instead pointing out the aspects which could do with improvement without demeaning the americans in general would be criticism.

Example: Their ready acceptance of pre marital sex especially in the teens can be criticised, but for that their 'whole' culture cannot be demeaned becuase their culture also has many aspects which the other cultures could learn from, for example, their discipline, their integrity, their practical approach to life's problems and their desire to surmount difficulties no matter what etc etc.

👏👏👏 I completely agree.

[quote]Reeps you quoted three of us at once, so it'll be a li'l helpful if you can clarify which one of us you meant. [/quote]

Oh, my bad! It was meant for you, souro. 😃 😆

Originally posted by: Maya_M

Minnie, That is exactly what I meant. In the previous post you mentioned that you can dissect the film without criticising Bansali or Rani or Big B and I was wondering how is it possible. This reply clears my doubt. It is impossible to not criticize lead actor's performance or direction or the story when we dissect a film.

When you dissect Rani's acting it is also like dissecting Rani, the actress which means that she failed to do her job well. But Rani Fans and the ones who love Black would take offense to our critiquing Rani and if there is ever a debate like that then it would be termed as Rani bashing by them. The example I gave was Sanjay Dutt's verdict GA where many gave unbiased opinion about his verdict but his fans just blamed everything on media and Indian judiciary.

In short what I mean is that it depends upon each person's perspective. People are going to term a counterattack as bashing or criticism but as long as we don't use offensive words or get too personal and follow a basic decorum it should be fine.

As I agree with both of you here, I think the one who made a generalized opening statement should realize it as bashing and expect a bit of bashing from the other side in return instead of making a big deal out of it. As Maya summed up, decorum of forum is utmost important, but yet one can be receptive of Karma rule of what goes around comes around.. and both sides should end the matter there if it gets offensive IMO.
BB forum in IF was amazing in terms of so many contestants being supported by so many individuals. Yes, there was stepping on tows every now and then, but it was a fun forum at all times.. again, this could be just my opinion. Not everyone was poltically correct, but just more TOLERANT..

Originally posted by: Maya_M

Minnie, That is exactly what I meant. In the previous post you mentioned that you can dissect the film without criticising Bansali or Rani or Big B and I was wondering how is it possible. This reply clears my doubt. It is impossible to not criticize lead actor's performance or direction or the story when we dissect a film.

When you dissect Rani's acting it is also like dissecting Rani, the actress which means that she failed to do her job well. But Rani Fans and the ones who love Black would take offense to our critiquing Rani and if there is ever a debate like that then it would be termed as Rani bashing by them. The example I gave was Sanjay Dutt's verdict GA where many gave unbiased opinion about his verdict but his fans just blamed everything on media and Indian judiciary.

In short what I mean is that it depends upon each person's perspective. People are going to term a counterattack as bashing or criticism but as long as we don't use offensive words or get too personal and follow a basic decorum it should be fine.

Maya, in every field there are people who would take an extreme view of everything, even criticism. They would consider even a minor question over whatever they hold supreme in their view as blasphemous. So we also need to take into account whom we are referring to.

Now we call a passionate discussion on a subject between two logical parties as debate. That same subject discussed between two other parties in a mohalla can actually become fighting because they bring their personal feelings into it. So here the assumption would be that the people the poster asked this question to would know the difference between debate/discussion and mindless unreasonable biased quarelling.

The basic point is, while it is impossible not be personally motivated for each subject, it is imperative to present in a neutral manner which does not insult someone for having an opinion. As I said, fight the opinion, not the person, inspite of knowing that opinions make people what they are. There is the fine line and the prudent debator will know it.

Originally posted by: reeps

[quote]Reeps you quoted three of us at once, so it'll be a li'l helpful if you can clarify which one of us you meant. [/quote]

Oh, my bad! It was meant for you, souro. 😃 😆

Reeps look up the IF Addict List and then let me know if you still believe I'm involved with the govt.😆 Since this discussion involves only me, it doesn't actually belong on this thread. I'll PM my responses to you. Remember something, everyone is involved in playing some part for his/ her country, however small that part maybe. If you're a person who is doing her 9-5 job you can still do your part when you do your job perfectly, resist corruption, helping others on a professional level. Doing your bit doesn't always mean to dedicate your life to social work like Medha Patkar. They are playing a bigger role than us and people will remember them for that but that doesn't mean you and I are doing nothing.😊

One more thing, since I don't remember what all I said about working women, you can go to that thread, quote me and point out why you think that was wrong, I assure you I won't be offended or take it personally. 😊

Oh, and add to it, bashing is also the tone in which a matter is conveyed. Sometimes an extreme view can be expressed in a polite manner ( sometimes a poster might not even realise it)and though it can be termed as bashing, often it is not unless the debator has the tone in which attack is evident, in which case retorting in a rude and a personal manner would definitely mean bashing.

So a debator might have a misconception which can be addressed to in a polite manner without resorting to attacking the person who has the misconception.

Originally posted by: Minnie

The basic point is, while it is impossible not be personally motivated for each subject, it is imperative to present in a neutral manner which does not insult someone for having an opinion. As I said, fight the opinion, not the person, inspite of knowing that opinions make people what they are. There is the fine line and the prudent debator will know it.

One can argue that such a debater lacks passion / is more protective of his / her image as a debater than the point he / she really needs to get across.
If my kid is caught smoking a cigarette, it is okay for me to be more than a a prudent parent. I think I need to get his thought process straightened out. If you believe in what you are talking about, and if you have warned the other debater on multiple occasions before non-prudent exchange of words happens, IMO is just letting your PASSION over ride your prudence momentarily.

one man's healthy criticism is another man's bashing. i just think people can be too quick to bring up the dreaded "b" word when they are cornered though i also agree with Minnie's distinctions between the two in a technical sense.

btw, ever seen the proceedings in the House of Commons or the Lok Sabha? now that's bashing, i mean literally. 😉 mocking, jeering, drowning out the other guy's speech by creating pandemonium, showing the finger, throwing slippers. 😆 the stuff here is tame by comparison.

moral of the story- thick skin's needed if you're gonna be a politician 😉 or play with the big bad boys😉😉😉