Criticism vs Bashing!!! - Page 4

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. 😊

 

Edited by souro - 17 years ago

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.
Edited by mermaid_QT - 17 years ago

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😉😉😉 Edited by chatbuster - 17 years ago

😊

Edited by souro - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: chatbuster

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, 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 😉

😆😆 and for those who are always who they are and don't quite care about being PC all the time, it doesn't matter.   Passion drives discovery and passion drives revolution.  perhaps it doesn't drive a great debate 😆😆

Originally posted by: mermaid_QT

One can argue that such a debater lacks passion / is more bothered about 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.

Mermaid, asking your 11 year old son not to smoke is not the same as asking him not to disrespectful to elders. Both are important, but if he is taking drugs, smoking, drinking, then that goes into entirely different realm of things. There, the worries of him being harmed far outweighs the thoughts of him not having some social graces. And hence the application of Prudence automatically changes.

What right now we are discussing are social graces, where there are certain outlines in every civilisation which are adhered to. And every culture has it's own outlines to be laid out and followed and within that boundary, it is accepted.

I do not believe that in order to get a point across about things I am passionate about I need to be impolite or rude. Now a pertinent question that you raised is whether it would be argued that I, the debater, lack the passion or that I am bothered about my image as a debater.........well, yes, why not. I cannot and should not stop anyone from forming an opinion about me as a debater. If that way I fail to get my point across, then in my opinion I would be consider myself a bad debator. But others are free to form the opinion. I would argue back the best way that I know. Whether that makes me good or bad, I am sure my fellow debaters can decide.

PS: The use of first person in the above para is an example, and not a reflection of myself as a debator......😳

Edited by Minnie - 17 years ago

Bashing is when sarcastic and spitelful personal references are made to people.... criticism is a plain fair comment... 😉 😉 😉

 

for example, would we say that Ronald Reagan's put down of Jimmy Carter with the famous "There you go again Jimmy" was not rude/ impolite? or Senator Lloyd Bentsen's remark to Dan Quayle as "You're no Jack Kennedy"? those were polite?

believe me, those lines got the point across far better than could perhaps have been accomplished otherwise.😊 

PS: Sorry this post has not beed edited. I messed it up by clicking edit instead of quote....so sorry. Chatbuster, please set it right...... Minnie

 

Edited by Minnie - 17 years ago