Ste11aeres
Well-Known Member
Since the blogs are still down, I'm going to just start threads about the things which I would otherwise have written in my blog.
The thing about disliking someone, is, you tend to avoid them. The thing about disliking someone who promulgates ideas, say, someone who teaches others, someone who has written stuff, or maybe said stuff in TV or videos, the thing about disliking that person is that you tend to avoid their ideas. It just seems too unpleasant to read or listen to the stuff they say.
The thing about that is...you might end up not actually knowing or understanding what they actually say. You might end up with misconceptions about them and about their ideas. And if the whole reason you dislike them is because you disagree with their ideas (or maybe you think you disagree)...well, that can put you into an interesting situation. Because you think you disagree with their ideas, but you don't have an in-depth understanding of what their ideas actually are.
It's even worse when you try to publicly criticize this person's ideas-those ideas with which you aren't actually familiar.
You will either misrepresent them, or you will have to confine yourself to making snarky (and yet vague) jabs at them on the internet.
That last option is what a lot of people seem to enjoy doing nowadays.
It saddens me when I see people do this to Cesar Milan. I have watched hundreds of episodes of his TV shows, and I have read both books and articles by him. I am familiar with what he says. But so far as I can tell, the many many people making snarky remarks about him on the internet are not familiar with what he says. Their "criticisms" are so vague. They don't actually say what it is that he does wrong, and in the rare occasions that someone does actually describe him, it is an inaccurate misrepresentation.*
*For instance, I saw a reddit thread by a guy about how he learned that he should no longer hit his thread. Among the many agreeing comments, there were a few saying "yeah, don't listen to Cesar Milan." Guys? Cesar Milan very explicitly has said many times that you should not hit a dog.
If someone were to come along and give a detailed criticism, portraying Milan accurately and in detail, and explaining specifically what it was they disagreed with, and why...if someone were to do that, I would be happy. Because then I could actually evaluate that criticism and see whether it has merit. It could be a chance to learn.
I am a philosophy major. And when I write a paper criticizing someone's ideas, I have to first become very very familiar with that idea which I am criticizing. I have to read any relevant paper, book, or article by that philosopher. I have to read commentaries. If I criticize without doing that, I will misportray their idea, and will look like a fool. Sadly, the internet does not force one to hold oneself to such high standards. But it would be great if we could voluntarily hold ourself to that standard-the standard of knowing what someone actually says, before we publicly disagree with them.
The thing about disliking someone, is, you tend to avoid them. The thing about disliking someone who promulgates ideas, say, someone who teaches others, someone who has written stuff, or maybe said stuff in TV or videos, the thing about disliking that person is that you tend to avoid their ideas. It just seems too unpleasant to read or listen to the stuff they say.
The thing about that is...you might end up not actually knowing or understanding what they actually say. You might end up with misconceptions about them and about their ideas. And if the whole reason you dislike them is because you disagree with their ideas (or maybe you think you disagree)...well, that can put you into an interesting situation. Because you think you disagree with their ideas, but you don't have an in-depth understanding of what their ideas actually are.
It's even worse when you try to publicly criticize this person's ideas-those ideas with which you aren't actually familiar.
You will either misrepresent them, or you will have to confine yourself to making snarky (and yet vague) jabs at them on the internet.
That last option is what a lot of people seem to enjoy doing nowadays.
It saddens me when I see people do this to Cesar Milan. I have watched hundreds of episodes of his TV shows, and I have read both books and articles by him. I am familiar with what he says. But so far as I can tell, the many many people making snarky remarks about him on the internet are not familiar with what he says. Their "criticisms" are so vague. They don't actually say what it is that he does wrong, and in the rare occasions that someone does actually describe him, it is an inaccurate misrepresentation.*
*For instance, I saw a reddit thread by a guy about how he learned that he should no longer hit his thread. Among the many agreeing comments, there were a few saying "yeah, don't listen to Cesar Milan." Guys? Cesar Milan very explicitly has said many times that you should not hit a dog.
If someone were to come along and give a detailed criticism, portraying Milan accurately and in detail, and explaining specifically what it was they disagreed with, and why...if someone were to do that, I would be happy. Because then I could actually evaluate that criticism and see whether it has merit. It could be a chance to learn.
I am a philosophy major. And when I write a paper criticizing someone's ideas, I have to first become very very familiar with that idea which I am criticizing. I have to read any relevant paper, book, or article by that philosopher. I have to read commentaries. If I criticize without doing that, I will misportray their idea, and will look like a fool. Sadly, the internet does not force one to hold oneself to such high standards. But it would be great if we could voluntarily hold ourself to that standard-the standard of knowing what someone actually says, before we publicly disagree with them.
