Posted on 12/16/2011 2:20:09 PM PST by Colofornian
One of the oddest things about modern culture is the tendency to criticize others for the act of criticism.
Imagine a man sitting on the end of a tree branch. He looks around at others, telling them that they shouldn’t cut off their branches. Meanwhile, this man is sawing his own branch off. That is the image I have in mind when people criticize others for criticizing others, or judge others for judging others, or tell people not to believe in telling others what not to believe. It is very odd and confusing. It’s like watching people drive a car with their otherwise-working eyes… closed. Otherwise very intelligent people engage in this sort of self-refuting behavior. It seems to be an issue of spiritual blindness. “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” (Ephesians 4:18) It’s not just a Mormon thing, but a really weird human problem. We don’t like being criticized, so we criticize people for criticizing. We saw off the very branch we are sitting on.
You know it's understandable if somebody doesn't like to see others criticized. But then they should stay out of the fray -- and not criticize the person giving the critique. 'Tis the same with those who go overboard on "tolerance." Hey, if they want to be ultra-tolerant, who's standing in their way? Yet if they aren't so tolerant of others' perceived "intolerance," then that's not very "tolerant"...is it?
From the blog: ...when people criticize others for criticizing others, or judge others for judging others, or tell people not to believe in telling others what not to believe. It is very odd and confusing. It’s like watching people drive a car with their otherwise-working eyes…closed. Otherwise very intelligent people engage in this sort of self-refuting behavior. It seems to be an issue of spiritual blindness.
'Tis a mark of the post-modernist society we live in. No consistency. And almost proud of it!
My answer to the title question . . . their loss.
P M
there are 2 types of critisismn? ( don’t know if this is spelled correctly ) they are constructive critisimn, and constant critisim... constructive critisism serves the purpose to build a person up, and help them grow.... constant critisism is a control mechanism..... libs use constant critisism... and this type is not only to be ignored, but challenged at every opportunity...
I always felt that criticism can be successful in “how” it is delivered. If it is done with sweetness and true concern for the person, it can be viewed as helpful (not critical). If it is done with anger, name calling, guilt.... it makes the other person put up a barrier immediately. I had a Great-Aunt who would tell you a story about her life.... and the story somehow relates to something she hoped you would change about yourself. It was done so delicately and with such finesse.... you never got defensive.
Baseball bats seem to work...................
LOL. Great question for a site like this filled with people who love to give their opinions. I don’t criticize, I just show people the way to a better, happier life. If they don’t listen, its because they are either irrational or unenlightened.
I don’t believe in criticizing people.
I prefer to let the laws of nature and science do it for me.
I disagree. Look @ the countless times Jesus criticizes the Pharisees...look at just Matthew, chapter 23...or John, chapter 8...three times in Matthew, chapter 6, after giving them the only compliment I can find (Matthew 5:20). And there's many other occasions as well.
IOW, Jesus engaged in "constant criticism" of the Pharisees and Teachers of the law. He afflicted the comfortable; and comforted the afflicted.
'Twas the people who considered themselves free of the need to be spiritually healed...
...that were the ones He had to drill below the skin...
...to convince them their diagnosis of the cancer of sin was more fatal than they believed.
Jesus wasn't a liberal; don't indirectly label Him one by your off-base criteria.
I'm sorry. I just don't want to hear that kind of thing.
A lot of "those" who can't take criticism are Freepers.
So I call them Freepers.
For the most part, I agree. (see my caveat below)
The Bible cites the apostle Paul telling the Ephesians to "speak the truth in love."
My caveat/qualifier:
We can't "cookie cutter" people; I'd say most people need a greater context of love than others; whereas some need a greater context of tough love than others.
IOW, think of the parents of rebellious teens into substance abuse; curfew-breaking; etc.
Lovey-doveyness & sweetness isn't appropriate. Tough love is needed.
Think of a person who has dangerous health symptoms -- and loved ones around them know it -- but the unhealthy person wants to be in denial. After all the loving cajoling is done, and it's not working, some tough-love measures might be needed.
You mention "barriers" -- and yes, criticism can raise them; but you fail to mention all the "barriers" that are already up with people. Barriers of such import if they don't come down, they will lose their life physically, spiritually -- or both.
At one point, Jesus called the Pharisees illegitimate children of God -- children of the devil (John 8). Elsewhere, Jesus called them "sons of hell." Another point, He called them vipers and whitewashed tombstones. Jesus was tackling some prominent barriers there that were already up and needed to be addressed.
We really need to weigh already existing barriers more than we do.
I think that I don’t want to be like they are.
Growing? Probably.
It's LONG been a debate tactic (ad hominen -- attacks against the person).
Some people have less substance -- less frame of reference beyond themselves -- than ever before. Feelingsism. Their weapons in countering the issues are empty; but they've seen enough sit-coms to fill up several lifetimes with personal crits. And so they have at it.
We were taught to sandwich criticism between two things you were happy about. But I do think this title should be changed to, “What do you think of HUMANS?” and leave it at that. Hahah, always the hardest thing about life — humans.
It comes from political correctness (cultural Marxism) to destroy the possibility of gaining knowledge and wisdom. Dialogue is ended by namecalling which increases disunity and divide and anger.
Dumb people believe anything, no matter how stupid. Schools brainwash and don’t teach anything to increase wisdom—and they destroy morality—virtue.
Non virtuous Republics can never have freedom. The Marxists have been destroying our culture by positing lies in education textbooks (Zinn, Billy Ayers) since the 30’s and destroying all obscenity laws in the 50’s and 60’s. The Marxists destroy our legal system and Just Law (no fault divorce) to help destroy marriage which will destroy the children—create insecure, easily managed people OR very angry men like the blacks in prison.....easy to manipulate and control like the NAZI homosexual Brownshirts. Degraded people have no morality and can easily kill and mutilate people.
The Marxists are creating their “army” that Machiavelli writes about that is absolutely necessary to grab power. They are useful idiots—who can’t think logically.
We were taught to sandwich criticism between two things you were happy about.
<><><<><
I have heard that referred to as a poop sandwich. Which makes me chuckle every time I read the method you mentioned. It is, and has been, taught as a method of giving feedback in the workplace, but not so much anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.