IMPORTANT: “Criticism” that starts with “All *…” or is obviously insulting, or defaming beyond verified facts is excluded.
You might be thinking “no shit, Sherlock”, but it is really common that legitimate criticism is dismissed as anti-* or *-phobic, or because of political or religious ideology.
Watching the newest Internet Comment Etiquette video yesterday, with the topic being Two Sentence Horror, one of the first posts looked at had a reply just correcting some improper grammar, and they were getting dogpiled for not their comment not being constructive criticism. If politely correcting a technical error is not constructive criticism, what the hell is? 🤨
The fact that this is assumed “unpopular” is itself an indictment of the particular subculture that frequents these communities. In plain English: I agree with you.
“Paging Charlie Hebdo. Please pick up a blue courtesy phone.”
Genuinely held, this opinion is indeed unpopular. A lot of people say this and then proceed to be neither factual nor respectful. And much can be learned about a person from who they choose to criticize.
It’s so unpopular we have terms like devils advocates to make people feel bad for critically evaluating their own position.
But pretend or blindly hypocritically held, this opinion is super popular.
I think it’s fair to say whether or not someone claims so has nothing to do with it actually being the case.
Edit: This reminds me of people saying “I am a good person”, which subconsciously (rightfully so or not) makes me mistrustful of them.
This is a very unpopular opinion in online discourse, where discussion can only ever be “won”. I think this is an inherent property of the medium and cannot be changed. But one can dream…
People should learn that it’s okay to differ from opinions and that it’s no shame at all to admit you were wrong when presented with actual facts.
I’m kidding of course, this is the intenet so fuck your opinions, yo momma is fat and…
People should learn that it’s okay to differ from opinions
Up to a certain point, then you’re crossing the paradox of tolerance. Where that point exactly lies is the issue, and unfortunately many people refuse to practice introspection of their own beliefs to find where that point actually is and will instead just try to force their biases of what is tolerable or not onto others.
I instantly have more respect for people doing this and I think a lot of people do. There is a famous reddit post about a flat earther admitting he was wrong for example. Maybe we should consider it a strength of someones character (which it already is imo) to encourage it.
“Winning” and “losing” are words that are usually dumb to pair with “argument” in any way. Rare that they belong together.
The “winning the argument” mentality is a great point. I absolutely agree with you.
Ich wünschte ich hätte das in meinem post erwähnt.
I should hope that this is not an unpopular opinion. But I’m not sure that it isn’t, either.
A detailed view on any topic, to see the gap in between extremes and the capacity to remember that two things can be true at the same time, is of the essence if we are to have meaningful discussion. And it is forgotten all too often in popular media, social or news.
My personal, anecdotal Evidence is, that especially criticism of religious and political ideologies will summon a witch hunt upon you and possibly get you executed in public (ranging from exaggeration in the west to sad reality in some countries).
Username checks out 😆
it is really common that legitimate criticism is dismissed
Yeah well it’s the Internet
It was never going to be serious. Building news and political thought on a pile of rancid turds was never gonna work
Welcome to !popularopinion@lemmy.world I guess.
Go ahead and post some legitimate factual criticism on a major religion or ideology and see what happens.
Why does it shock you that people get upset when their groups get criticized? Obviously people are biased towards their own groups they’re a part of. It doesn’t mean they don’t hold this opinion it just means they don’t think your criticism is fair which could possibly be because they’re biased.
You literally just explained why this is an unpopular opinion. It isn’t that it is shocking, it is just disappointing that it is an intrinsic flaw of human cognition to be resistant to challenging our own preconceived beliefs and are prone to letting bias cloud our judgement.
You’re not expressing an unpopular opinion, you’re just wishing people practiced the beliefs they proclaim to have.
I have what I believe is a fair criticism of online feminism, in that as a group they tend to exist in some sort of “victim complex oppression bubble”.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe women should have equal rights with men. I believe that we should not live in a world of oppression and fear and in as much as is possible we should all work together to accomplish that.
Disclaimer aside, my issue with this is that nothing is ever good enough. If you mention something that is good for men In an online forum, some feminist will come along and shit on it. If you mention something that is bad for their enemy of the moment, they will come along and say it is not bad enough.
The only thing that they cheer is when people that they hate suffer.
And when you take a step back and look at it as a whole, that starts to shine light on a portion of the conservative hate engine.
Since nothing that they ever do will be good enough for them to get positive attention and approval from the online feminism engine, then there’s no reason for them to try to get that approval and instead they will do mean things and say mean things and be hurtful people in order to get attention.
Don’t get me wrong. It is still definitely their fault for doing bad things and hurtful things and being shitty people in general, but it is not like feminism as a group is innocent.
When a group of people achieves power, and then refuses to acknowledge people outside of their group, and actively attacks and antagonizes people outside of their group, it is normal for people to retaliate.
To put it another way, a lot of the insane bullshit you’re seeing online is like yin and yang. They’re chasing after each other’s tails, they’re antagonizing each other, and their making life miserable for everyone not inside of their circles is a natural consequence of both sides inability to see the loop they are stuck in.
It is not a single person’s fault or responsibility. It is a natural consequence of groupthink.
If there is a real enemy, it is the people who, like me, took a step back and saw it, and realized that they could utilize this for political or financial gain.
So, this is my opinion, but: if you are hating people that you’ve never met,
or interpreting things that other people say in the worst possible light and responding with vile poison,
When other people thank you and upvote you for how good you were at saying the mean thing to the bad person,
then you are complicit in the system
You have become a cog of a machine of ideological hate
that is being monetized by news companies and advertisers
to sell you things
that you don’t need in order to be happy
And that not only will never make you happy, but will ensure that you and everyone you know and care about will be sad for the rest of your lives.
I disagree with generalizing. Usually the most controversial takes are the loudest and draw the most engagement. A lot of peoples intent is to deliberately ragebait. Also it depends on the country they live in. For example, I have huge respect for feminists in countries that may prosecute them with extreme and inhuman measures.
Edit: Thinking about this more, I have also made the observation that legitimate criticism against a woman is much more commonly met with severe, often undeserved backlash.
I feel you will appreciate reading a bit of Kant’s work, the critique of pure reason would a good start. In perpetual peace, he makes the argument that in order to achieve peace everyone should freely exercise their right to “public reason”, aka their right as an individual to critique others (the state, organisations, or individuals).
Noted, thanks.
Basically you’re just saying, “I agree with criticism I agree with.” Nobody would say, outright and in principle, that they think a group is above criticism, but people are going to disagree on which criticisms are factual and respectful.
Where exactly do I say this? Why are you adding extra meaning to my words?
I’m not adding any additional meaning. As I explained, nobody says, “My group is above criticism” but what they say is, “The criticisms against my group are nonfactual and/or disrespectful.” Everyone agrees with the principle you’ve said, but that principle is completely meaningless because any perspective that wants to shut down criticism will just say that it’s nonfactual or disrespectful.
If you just think critically about it and break down what your statement actually means, it’s just “I agree with criticism I agree with.” I don’t really know what more I can say to explain that, it seems very straightforward to me. From your other comments, you talk about people criticizing major religions, well, suppose someone from a major religion says, “I agree, and also, I think such and such criticism is disrespectful.” Maybe you don’t think it’s disrespectful. Maybe they make a criticism about you that they don’t find disrespectful, but you do. Who determines which criticisms meet the criteria of factual and respectful? Everyone can accept your standard and carry on exactly as they were, simply saying that the criticism they agree with meet the standard and the criticisms they disagree with don’t. It’s pretty meaningless.
Are you often finding yourself in situations where people aren’t disputing facts and norms, but just whether, in principle, legitimate criticism should be said at all? Can you give me an example?
You are claiming to not add extra meaning and then proceed to do it again, probably to derail the argument towards something that can be more easily attacked. Let’s just agree to disagree, because this is going nowhere.
The problem is that you see people dismissing criticism and think it’s a disagreement of principle when in fact they hold the same principle and disagree on what does or does not meet the agreed upon criteria.
I haven’t added any extra meaning at all, nor is there any attempt to “derail” the conversation. You’re attacking something that nobody actually believes.
See, like, I see my criticism as factual and respectful, and you disagree. You don’t think it’s factual because you disagree with my analysis. Virtually all disagreements about what criticism is valid are like that.
What group are you referring to? Usually when I hear the “no body is above criticism” it’s a defense of bigotry.
People pretend that you can’t criticize Islam for example, even though you can’t mention that religion online without some brave truth-teller reminding us all that Mohamed was a pedo.
People say you can’t criticize Israel, but I’ve criticized them plenty with very little push-back. Maybe the accusations of antisemitism is chilling, but being called a name isn’t the same thing as “not being allowed”. (I also find that unfair accusations are not nearly as offensive as apt ones)
Maybe you just ironically want sacred status for people who criticize? Because receiving criticism seems to be the chief complaint for people making this argument.
Did you even read the text? Your criticism of me is a perfect example of how not to do it.
Exactly. It is high time we get those cancer patients out of their high horse.
I knew someone would reply with an absurd example, like criticizing newborn babies. The good thing is, that you can quickly educate someone if they genuinely don’t know why and if they dismiss any evidence, they weren’t interested in a factual discussion anyways.
It also highlights a fundamental misconception about what criticism is. It isn’t about knocking someone down a peg, it’s about identifying and remediating flaws. Criticism should be supportive, otherwise it’s just cruel and rude.
Perfectly and concisely written.
Oh yeah, don’t get me started with those newborn babies. Who do they think they are with their constant demands and not an ounce of English.
