|
[Jan. 20th, 2013|09:56 am]
|
|
I've been seeing some quotes from some historical figures about how the person who criticises is a loser while the doer is noble, and that if you have enemies, it means you stood up for something noble. Now, some of these guys were really smart and did great things, but it doesn't mean they were 100% right. There are a lot of forms of actions that are vicious and anyone who might be effected by them has every right to criticise. And maybe you have a lot of enemies because you're a jerk. Yes, there are plenty of situations when it's nothing more than "Haters gonna hate," but there are plenty when the disgust it legitimate. |
|
|
| Comments: |
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/78794033/381582) | From: pith 2013-01-20 04:32 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I dislike "haters gonna hate" for several reasons, including ones you've touched on. That aside, I think it's a "history is written by the winners" type of scenario. It's very easy for these people to claim victory, moral high ground, etc., if they've "won". If they had lost, I'm sure their quotations would be very different.
Criticism is a useful thing. Even in my writing classes, when I would get what felt like unabashed hate, I tried to cut through the drama and get to the point the person was trying to make, because there was usually something valid within the vitriol. (And to tie in the quotation aspect, I do like this quotation credited to Winston Churchill: "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.")
As for enemies, hell no. Of course, "enemy" is a strong word. I think most of us would say we have people we don't like, and people who don't like us in turn, but I don't think most people would seriously say they have "enemies". I'm pretty sure Hitler had a lot of enemies, and there was very little (if anything) that man did that was noble.
That's a good point about history being written by the winners.
I feel mixed about criticism. A lot of it is invaluable, but I believe there is some that is written purely in the hope that the critic will be seen as clever, and once I get that impression, I don't feel I can trust their opinion. I used to visit a site that started out being about pointing out the massive errors in a bestselling series, but it degenerated into people flipping out every time the writer made a typo in her blog. I stopped going because that was just about piling on and, I believe, trying to be clever.
I doubt most people would say they had enemies, just people they didn't like, but there are people who feel those who disagree with them are enemies, and then the quotes go up. This is a sort of follow up to the Citadel post, as the people behind it are claiming that those who criticise it are "enemies" who would deprive them of the right to live free, and are just jealous of them, and stuff.
Edited at 2013-01-20 11:21 pm (UTC)
There's also the idea that one of the ways you are known is by the quality (or lack thereof) of the people who dislike you. If Nelson Mandela or Jimmy Carter is down on you, that's cause to think. Westboro Baptist? Not so much.
| |