A Critical Critique of Critics’ Criticisms
Originally, this was extremely long and rambling – now it’s completely stripped of useless words (‘the person’ becomes ‘his’ as a gender-neutral pronoun – ‘he’ is not a specific person).
No images here (it’d be lazy to use random pictures, and it’d take effort to use a comedic out-of-context picture), so it’s a rather short post.
I love criticism. I’m cool with dissent. I laugh at insults (nobody insults me…).
A criticism points out an error. An error you now are aware of, and can try to solve. Even an insult shows an error – you’re writing something wrong. There’s a reason for everything – there’s a reason he insulted you, and the solution is to tackle that reason.
But there’s one thing I hate.
I hate criticising people who then think I’m antagonizing them.
You post a criticism of his /ways/ and he thinks you’ve insulted /him/. Maybe I’m angry at how stupid he is to interpret my criticism another way. This is why, in all my posts, in all my comments, nothing can be misinterpreted. On Twitter, whenever I say something mildly insulting, I immediately back down and say crap about him being a cool person. Always. It’s not because I want to hurt his feelings – it’s because I don’t want to become angry at his stupidity.
Always keep the post and the author separate. A good author can write a bad post. A bad author can write a good post. An idiot (with perseverance) can write an brilliant post. A genius can write an idiotic post. A successful, righteous saint can write an immoral post. A vicious, cruel criminal can write a virtuous post. Criticising the author should not criticise the post – criticising the post should not criticise the author.
Can’t we look from different perspectives? Can’t we think /why/ somebody would write something, not what /we/ think they wrote? We would avoid situations like Cyberbully, where nobody realized those messages were fake. If they looked deeper, they would have.
Yet, it’s bad to force interpretations. Words communicate – they don’t declare. Their beauty is that – everybody illustrates words differently. Spelling and grammar help judge – lack thereof shows a lack of effort. If the writer uses words only to communicate an idea, they don’t matter. That’s why I reply to even the least coherent of comments.
Insulting valid praise is likewise bad. A detailed discourse on Justin Bieber’s ability will be loved by Bieber fans and hated by Bieber enemies, no matter the arguments presented. The Bieber fans are just as bad as the enemies if they judge the writing based on their stance towards Bieber. Just as the author is not the post, the post is not the subject of the post. A post on No. 6 should not be praised because No. 6 is good. A post on Fractale should not be hated because Fractale is bad.
Finally, the worst is to suppress all criticism. On YouTube comments, specifically Classical music, if you aren’t a musician, your criticism doesn’t matter. Should only politicians criticise other politicians? Politicians politicize for the public. Composers compose for the public. The public should judge. When the public can’t judge, noitaminA will recline in its chair and laugh a hearty laugh.
Suppressing free thought, no matter the tone, is bad. Criticise me, my posts, and my ways all you want. Criticism doesn’t say that you are bad. Criticism says that you could be better.
Let’s start an An(t)iblog Tourney – the worst blog will win. In the 1% chance it starts, let’s watch the ‘sphere explode from drama and stupid misunderstandings.