I wonder if people use the word "criticism" wrong or if i am misunderstanding it.
Multiple times, mostly in german, i have seen the question if it is ok to criticise Israel. Very likely, this is geared towards asking if criticism is inherently antisemitic here. This prompted me to do a double take and ask: how can it not be ok to offer criticism? How could criticising someone / a group with a trait be inherently anti-trait?
Now my understanding of the word is that a (usually negative) opinion is offered on something where the criticised entity has agency.
For example, if someone is blonde, born in a specific area, or has a big nose, those are not criticism but just insults if offered in a negative way.
Someone designing a house can design it differently, someone deciding to do a thing could choose not to. Those are things that allow actual criticism as i understand it.
How do you use the word? Someone who offers a negative opinion on a thing where the target has no agency is:
@TURBORETARD9000 That sounds reasonable, but leaves out the question of what "criticism" means.
See, i am wondering if misusing criticism is what is wrong here or if there is another thing going on. For example, people could disagree with me on what criticism means and instead say that this false equality was just there in itself because people did not evaluate the specific criticism correctly.
This would lead to:
- -isms being counted as criticism (the thing i mainly oppose here)
- non-isms, so valid criticism as i see it still being a form of criticism
- the fault lying with misinterpreting criticism of a decision or action as criticism of a person/group for who they are
My take was simply that -isms are not criticism and the word is being used incorrectly.
Criticism == saying something is deficient / inferior / etc == saying that PERSON is deficient / inferior / etc == -ism
@TURBORETARD9000 Well, it's hard to argue with that... maybe i'm just expecting too much.
And not on any other form of social media
@TURBORETARD9000 Well, the not on any other form of social media part is likely due to you noticing that for-profit stuff is just shit, not made to serve you, is it not?
The firewall, i am not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about the for-profit crap that is connected to masto or rather the servers that, when not blocked, release a few rather tasteless toots if you hit the wrong topic?
@TURBORETARD9000 Don't know much about this. When i see them, i block them.
Normally not one to block easily, i guess that is what they want.
I say from my own bath of filth
But my filth is better and more fun
@TURBORETARD9000 Own filth is always a good thing.
Big point here is victim status.
If you criticize victims, you are seen as a victimizer.
Even if you are partially correct.
Antisemitism is the pathological hatred and scapegoating of Jews.
Any actual cause-effect attributions are exempt from that.
However, the people who hate Israel now are simply typical French Revolution Leftists who detest whoever the stronger party is in any confrontation.
@amerika So, in a vein similar to what someone else already said, you propose that people put so much emphasis on perceived things external to the actual thing said that the actual meaning is lost?
Criticised entity has victim status -> perception of victim status takes over -> meaning of criticism offered becomes irrelevant?
Hey, trying to reach rock bottom and letting go of false hopes, but i see i have a long way to go still.
Thank you for your input.
In egalitarian societies, the underdog always gets political favor.
Therefore, maintaining victim status is essential.
However, if someone naturally has higher victim status, the former victim group is thrown away.
This is what is happening to Jews now in the public, at least in Murka.
@amerika So it would follow that neither germany nor the US are truely egalitarian. Talking about actual consequences, not some media bs.
I guess i can see that. So to determine what is right, we'd need another big set of changes first.
Or... egalitarianism is not realistic and therefore never exists as described.
It is a conjectural messianic theory, not reality.
What is right? What works best, evolutionarily (adaptation) plus in my view "enjoying life."
@amerika Nice song, and nothing i would object to in the lyrics either.
On living together of different ethnical groups, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Did you consider how men and women are different in some regards and individual humans of the same ethnical/cultural group too?
I'm wondering why you chose ethnicity and culture as dividing, when other differences are irrelevant to you (as far as i know now). Or would you seperate the sexes or other subgroups?
The problem in 1940s Germany is the same as in 2020s Israel, namely that diversity does not work, and if you have more than one group -- ethnic, religious, cultural, racial -- in a nation, the nation falls apart.
@amerika Hmm, i do see major differences.
In 1930/40s germany, there were certain economic problems that made a scapegoat necessary for the ruling party to stay in power.
In ... for a long time ... Israel has been a focus of foreign interests. I cannot claim to understand everyting in detail, but i am rather sure there are outside influences that do not care much for human life.
So both have specific problems beyond what you suggest as a common cause.
Now just assuming that different ethical groups sharing a place would lead to disaster seems a bit reductionist. There are societies with different groups that do a lot better, and societies with little diversity that don't do too well. I'd expect a bit more in detail engagement with the topic here.
To motivate this expectation:
I generally see that people tend to have problems living together dependent on if they communicate well. I have seen big problems which could be solved with a bit better communication in very heterogenous groups. Or did i...? Maybe there is another thing that is not heterogenous? A lot of workplace problems could be surmised by people that get paid more start trouble instead of listening... so you can see how i am sceptical?
There are always specific problems. The question is what is the root problem.
Conjecture is not reality. There is a reason diversity did not evolve, and was politically imposed.
I'm thinking that an expression of dislike is not just limited to either a criticism or an insult. I might, for example, criticize the weather in a certain part of the country - I'm not insulting the weather, and I'm not expecting it to change, either. It's just an expression of my personal displeasure with it, but it still counts as a criticism if I explain what's wrong with it, and how it could be better.
@mikejackmin Yes, it seems i have been too narrow there. The weather, one would complain about, an entirely different thing.
I'll count this as "criticism includes things the entity spoken to has no agency in", since you seem to say it is rather a blanket word and can be differentiated further - correct?
Yeah, I think so. I guess I'm seeing criticism as a statement meaning "here's how this can be better" regardless of whether the target has any agency or not.
Perhaps the term "constructive criticism" includes agency - it's not constructive unless some positive change is hoped for.
@admitsWrongIfProven 100% of everything should be criticized, including this statement.
Because as far as they're concerned it's the same thing