#it was not a critique of anything. That is the excuse used to deflect criticism of a very bad book

[brw]

People praising Percy's X Force for being a criticism and analysis of the CIA is really funny because no, objectively he Did Not Do That.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Accused of Arrogance

I enjoy intellectual conversations and socratic-esque discussions so much more than small talk and aimless conversations. Despite my preference, I am capable of small talk— I just slowly die inside. Yet I am cursed with being called arrogant. No matter what intricate string of words I craft, no matter how docile my question sounds, the moment I critically challenge someone is the same moment a logical conversation becomes personal? Good heavens isn't this a special kind of hell.

I am, once again, gracing my grievances with a post full of complaints.

People find me arrogant. I can be proven wrong; I can make mistakes; and I can recognize this margin of error. If anything, I seek to make it as small as possible. This is why I always seek that challenge that sharpens my thinking and points out things I failed to see or establish.

People always argue that I need to know when I should criticize and when I shouldn't. I also learned from my rookie mistakes that being the first shot doesn't guarantee the blow. If anything, it is an announcement— a blowhorn of your own progress. Among other things, this is why I keep to myself.

Hence, when people start asking for me to speak only to be on the receiving end of an accusation less based on reality and appropriate context, I am absolutely and utterly pissed about it. As much as I am pissed with yes-men and sorry-men.

Do not apologize for learning when someone critiques you with something you can work on. Do not just agree and say yes to every information. Moreover, do not use your feelings and personal matter as a shield for everything— even deflecting the good things.

But let me define arrogance as I have defined humility. Arrogance is dominating over someone else with non-substantial or fabricated claims or putting one's self-importance and impact above others by means of overestimation.

I am the person who tends to be precise to a fault. Even my goals, my present moment skills, and the orchestration of my forward life plan are precise in respect of what I want to be and what I am now. So when I am called arrogant and I, like any accused, would ask for evidence only to find irrelevant emotions.

I acknowledge the chances of people losing their cool and/or having an off-day. I understand this, and I also have such chances. If anything, those are what I usually apologize for. Forcing myself when I am not in a good state of mind; letting my restraint loose; all of which, I would understand.

However, in the interest of my complaints, I highlight the people those individuals that have the gall— the audacity— to call me arrogant for giving constructive criticism, for answeing their question, and for defending someone who is unjustly accused.

That is the aggravating part. If you are butthurt for being proven wrong, if you had no clapback after a retaliation to your challenge, do not start appealing to pity. It's not going to work on me, and I have been used to social exile because of my coldness and cruelty. I keep my principles, I will not fall for an informal fallacy, nor will I fall for weaponization of emotions.

I can apologize for maybe losing my cool and having raised my voice, but I will not apologize because I made someone cry. Truth hurts, I cry about it too, but I am not so shameless to solicit pity, so my mistake would be excused. Like everyone, I seek to be understood; but unlike everyone, I only seek to be understood by those who want to do so.

[weiszklee]

"ugh will i ever learn to check op blogs?"

IDK to me it's been pretty obvious since this whole thing started that liberal zionists have been using supposedly leftist criticisms of leftism to deflect from criticism of Israel. I think some of them noticed that the usual excuses for Israel aren't working (right to defend itself, right to a nation state, you're not allowed to comment unless you're Jewish or Palestinian, etc.) so they've started parroting new talking points: the left is a radicalized death cult without any real goals other than being radical and also leftists are particularly antisemitic and have been "allowed" to get away with it because they present themselves as inherently progressive. And it draws in otherwise anti-zionist people because plenty of us are frustrated with leftists who do indeed see it as more of a dick-measuring contest about who's more radical and some of them do use their leftism as an excuse to be openly bigoted (I've personally noticed a lot of ableism from people like that). So you might think they're making a well-meaning critique as someone who does want to support leftist goals, but if you notice the particular way they phrase things, it becomes clear that's not the case.

Not to dive too deep into leftist infighting or whatever, but you might notice that critiques that come from the left will specify which leftists they're talking about (marxist-leninists, maoists, anarchists and sho on), even if it's just a catch-all pejorative like "tankies". Hell, I've seen non-leftists who do support some leftist goals take care to specify they have a problem with online leftists or twitter leftists or whoever. But zionists will consistently blame leftists in general, which is already a clue as to whether they consider leftists an actual ingroup or not. And on top of that, they do it in the most incendiary way possible!Like yeah man, I'm sure people will listen to you when you call them a death cult. If they push back, that's just more proof they're a cult! This is clearly a good faith critique, nothing to see here! Never mind the fact that the same people who were making these "good faith" critiques are now frothing at the mouth over the student protests (genuinely saw this happen with sprinkledsalt or whatever her name is. the one with the patrick star pfp)

So IDK maybe I'm just very hypervigilant and jump at the slightest off-phrasing but I do prefer this to accidentally nodding along to genocidal lunatics. Obviously, I do actually look deeper into a suspicious-seeming person's blog too, I don't base my judgement off one post. But yeah, if you too wish to be a bit more vigilant, those are some tells you can look for. Oh also, you can look into the notes and see who's roaming around there; the post that prompted all this has a bunch of conservatives and libertarians circlejerking about how much more rational they are. Other posts will have more obvious zionists who probably mention hamas unprompted. You might not be able to catch it 100% of the time, I know I've missed a few who avoided the pitfalls I mentioned before, but it's a start. If you actually want to, obv.

These are good points yeah, and I probably was in an unusually non-vigilant mood for this particular post, but I think at the end of the day there might be a genuine difference in how you and me strive to interact with others. Like, I do kinda love giving people the benefit of the doubt and giving them second and third chances and ... I don't really want to stop doing that. This has had some not so great real life consequences for me even, but overall I consider it a net-positive.

Along the other good genuine criticisms one can have of a lot of leftists which you mention, this is another big one especially online: Everyone is always at each others' throats and looking for the least charitable interpretation of anything someone else said. This is the kernel of truth that the stupid complaint of "cancel culture" is pointing towards. This just isn't a way to conduct productive conversations. Sometimes you have to say things the stupid and wrong way so that you can work together with your conversational partner to arrive at the non-stupid version of your point. Otherwise you might just never get there at all.

Of course, this only works when you're actually on the same side with someone. It will always fail with people who are actually one's opponents, but that's okay. I'd rather occasionally nod along with a genocidal lunatic who is good with words than wrongly accuse someone on my side who is not good with words of being a genocidal lunatic.

But, again, in the specific post we are talking about, it wasn't that well hidden and even I could have caught it, absolutely.

[dragynkeep]

The Ironwood disability thing reminds me of propaganda comics in WWII. Making caricatures of Hitler? Fine, he was the worst. The issue is when the caricatures and criticism of Hirohito were highly racialized. When we critique them, we’re not saying “how dare they make violent imperialist Hirohito look bad!” We’re saying “regardless of this man’s actions, his identity as (in the US) a marginalized person shouldn’t be what we’re highlighting in showing he’s evil.” (1/2)

(2/2, Hirohito ask) So even laying aside that Ironwood isn’t real and the writers actively chose to make him disabled and his motives be a result of his trauma, even if Ironwood was a real, disabled person who was absolutely evil, framing his disability as the symbol of his villainy is *wrong.* It’s not acceptable on any level. “But he’s an evil member of [minority group]” isn’t an excuse to use that minority status ITSELF as a shorthand for evil/inhumanity.

yes, this is absolutely it. i have no issue with ironwood being a villain or antagonist — so long as it was written well — but that's just the issue. it wasn't written well, it actually came quite wildly out of nowhere & it went against his established characterization without any justification in text for this wild change of personality & motives.

& above all, it pushed some very harmful ideas about the groups ironwood is part of, as a disabled man, an asian man & a man with ptsd in the military. all three parts of who ironwood is has been taken out of context, demonized & reflected just how ableist / racist this fandom can be when they deem it acceptable to be so. this isn't the first time either, we've seen ableism towards cinder & tyrian in how the heroes should exploit their disabilities in order to humiliate them because their villainy excuses that treatment.

when mkek said in the commentary that ironwood gaining a very dark, unnatural, evil looking prosthetic as a shorthand for his loss of another part of his humanity, i felt sick. & when i saw people excusing this by " ironwood chose it & chose to amputate his arm instead of waiting, this shows his downfall !! " like, no.

one, ironwood didn't choose anything, he's not real. mkek chose this as a shorthand to show how far he has fallen & in turn, in all of them being able bodied, reinforced negative & harmful tropes about disabled people, especially those with prosthetics.

& two, ironwood is not the only one we see their ableism reflective in, for those saying that their writing of ironwood is not reflective on their real life ideals. it's shown in how maria & pietro have been written off without even a thought, even from the people meant to care about them. it's shown in how yang sees her own prosthetic as not part of herself, an extra piece to be replaced at any turn & how they, in real life, released merch of yang with her prosthetic on the wrong arm & said they would only change it when the original batch of merch sold out. it's shown in them misappropriating the severe disorder of did to give it to klein, a background character, & have it be treated as a joke with his switching between alters being inaccurate & laughed at by weiss. this is only scratching the surface, we didn't even get to characters like ozpin, mercury, tyrian, cinder, etc & we didn't even touch on the ableism from the fndm either.

to rwby's fans, please stop excusing this. from two disabled people; i was at risk of losing my leg & having to get a prosthetic. we are both severely hindered in our movement & have suffered ableism in various ways. we are telling you that this is harmful & the amount of able bodied people in the fndm i've seen defend these able bodied writers is disgusting. this way to take ironwood's character using that type of shorthand in representation of his prosthetics was disgusting, & is only the tip of the iceberg in how rwby handles it's disabled characters overall.

stop defending rt / deflecting criticism & start taking accountability.

[lovenotesuggestions]

How to communicate effectively about a problem

This is something I get asked often, and these are just some general tips that might help.

Make sure the timing is right. It’s usually easier to have discussions about an issue when both parties are calm (i.e. not in the middle of an already emotional moment) and when you have the privacy and time to have a proper conversation. 

If you’re trying to bring up an issue you have with the other person’s behaviour, it’s best not to be too aggressive, accusatory, or confrontational. An easy way to do this is to frame your sentences as “I feel...” statements. i.e. instead of saying “You never do the dishes” (accusatory), say “I feel like I do the dishes more often than you and I don’t think that’s fair.”

Explain why their behaviour is affecting you negatively - tell them how it’s affecting you and why it’s hurting you.

Be as honest as possible. Sometimes it’s better to be truthful than to try and protect someone’s feelings. (But equally, don’t use brutal honesty as an excuse to be a dick.)

Try to give constructive criticism - instead of just telling them what they’ve done wrong, tell them why it’s harmful and most importantly, tell them how you would like them to change their behaviour. 

Try to remain as calm as possible. It’s normal to be frustrated/upset/angry, but these emotions can get in the way of having a constructive discussion, so try not to let them influence your behaviour too much. Definitely don’t use personal insults, or say anything with the sole intent to hurt the other person’s feelings. 

Try to frame your criticisms as critiques of the behaviour, rather than the person themselves. “You’re a liar” is unhelpful and unkind, but “I don’t think that’s true” isn’t a personal attack and isn’t going to cause unnecessary hurt. 

Remember that all conflicts should be approached not as “me versus you”, but as “me and you versus the problem”. 

Try to keep on topic. Resist the urge to deflect if your behaviour is being criticised, and if the person changes the subject, try to gently guide them back to the original subject (i.e. “I don’t feel that’s completely relevant to the topic at hand right now. We can discuss that some other time.”)

Be ready to examine your own behaviour if you’re criticised - don’t outright dismiss any criticism you receive. It’s okay to be wrong - what matters is that you learn from your mistakes. There’s also no shame in apologising. Being forthcoming in acknowledging your flaws and apologising for your mistakes is an important part of being able to communicate effectively. (But equally, don’t turn it into an excuse to beat yourself down/say you’re a horrible person. This isn’t helpful or constructive - remember to apply the same standards of criticism mentioned above to yourself as well as others).

If you struggle to think of what to say in these situations, consider practising what you want to say beforehand, by thinking it through, practising alone possibly in front of a mirror, or writing down the main points you want to address. It’s also okay to keep a list of points you want to make with you during the discussion - stressful situations can make people forgetful. 

If you struggle to have these conversations face to face for whatever reason, it’s perfectly okay to have them by text/messenger/phone etc. But also consider that doing so means that the tone and expression behind the sentences can be lost, so be careful not to jump to conclusions about what the other person means, because it can be easier to misinterpret them speaking this way. 

After the conversation is over, make sure you affirm each other and make sure any conflicts have been resolved and everyone feels okay/nobody has been hurt. 

[victuuri-victory]

Why America isn't the worst country, cultural relativism needs to die, and Intersectionality is a pretty shittily applied concept

no seriously, the "liberal" movement's pathological fear of being racist, and this self-depreciating idea that America is the worst country ever, is ironically making them more hilariously racist than anything else.

Take, for example, the myth of "fan death" that is popular in south korea. It is the idea that leaving your electic fan on in an enclosed room can cause death. Now wacky insane ideas in America, like anti-vaccination, rightfully gets tons of actual criticism. But talk about foreign wacky concepts to a so-called liberal American, and the treatment is much different. Suddenly, it's not "yes let's talk about how this is insane", it becomes "but we have wacky concepts too, so we are not at all allowed to criticise this!" What the fuck. No really. Worse still is that i've read white americans deciding for the issue of fan death that "but can't something be true if enough people believe in it?" NO. IT CAN'T. Truth. Is. Objective. You fuckwits.

This sort of deflection and diversion in the name of being not-racist, is only all too common. They are more than willing to discuss xenophobia and homophobia and whatnot other stuff only if it occurs within America. If you try in any way to talk about xenophobia and homophobia and whatnot within a non-white nation, even if you are a citizen of said nation, the entire discussion suddenly becomes "well us americans have xenophobia and homophobia and whatnot too! So we're not allowed to criticise or even discuss these trends occuring in other nations! Now that these two sentences have been said, let's go back to talking about american problems and how america is way worse than every other nation!"

Like no. Please criticise it. Criticise the hell out of it, because I don't see how you can be so passionate to denounce american bigotry one moment, and then suddenly get all shy when it's bigotry in some non-white country. Although they sometimes get less shy if they can somehow twist and blame bigotry in non-white nations as solely the result of colonialism and white oppression. And divert the entire thing into bashing colonialism instead. Good job, guys.

Worse still, is this rampant "cultural relativism", where these very-real issues in not-america are excused by liberal americans as an important part of this oh so exotic culture of other nations. You know what, so what if homophobia is say, embedded into the culture of the nation- then the culture needs improvement and that aspect of its culture is supremely shitty. Stop telling me that I somehow have zero issues because those issues are part of an exotic culture that is therefore shielded from all critique, because cultural relativism. I'm just going to say it- some cultures are better than others.

Intersectional feminism as a terribly applied concept comes to mind as well. The general feminism movement in america has the same pathological fear of being accused of racism or religious discrimination. This ironically goes against the very intention of intersectionality, because their fear of being racist instead detracts from feminism.

For example, Christians in general are more conservative than agnostics and atheists. Liberal feminists are more than happy to point out that traditional gender norms are more rampant amongst christians, and liberals in general are more than happy to point out that homophobia is more common amongst Christians. They are more than happy to discuss these issues at length and bash Christianity, although they occasionally allow the rare "not all christians" line to account for so-called exceptions, who do actually exist, liberal Christians do exist.

But there is the same trend of conservative values amongst Muslims (and of course the same existence of liberal muslims, who are similarly the minority). But, when discussing Muslims, the "not all Muslims" aspect instead takes the spotlight. Trying to point to statistics to highlight the trends, gets you accused of religious discrimination, or outright ignored, or more of that deflection where they say "yeah but we have these problems too, so we can't talk about this at all!". Just one Muslim saying something in line with liberal american cultural values, gets put onto a pedestal and pushed into the limelight as a wholly representative sample of apparently, billions of people. This ironicallly invalidates and silences Muslim women who do want to talk about the trends that need fixing, not "hey look we dug up some liberal muslims, and we are going to ignore all statistical data we do not like!". Yet, if these Muslim women turn to alt-right, they instead get "hey every single one of you need to die!'.

To liberal americans, non-white nations live entirely harmoniously together in some sort of utopia that is completely in line with the cultural values of liberal americans. They are a weak, harmless, happy bunch that needs to protected from that horrible white oppression, which is the only problem they ever really face (no seriously, i've seen hundreds of notes on a post that compares POCs to children, and how they are children that need protection from the conservative white bullies, protection apparently in the form of dreamy heroic liberal white americans). This also results in them discounting any voices of POCs saying otherwise, going as far as to play white saviour by implying "oh you dear primitives, kissing up to white ass, you don't even know you are being oppressed!" when Japanese people point out they actually like white people wearing kimonos. At most, when they get called out for a shitty post, they will say "oh no I meant POCs in america, this is a solely american post (even though my original post never even said or implied that)", which only goes to show their so-called cosmopolitan nature is a delusion.

[jewishandmore]

Dig Deeper, Find Holiness, Reinvent

Erev Yom Kippur 10 Tishrei 5779 Tuesday, September 19, 2018 Temple Beth Zion, Buffalo, New York

by Rabbi Jonathan Freirich

This time of year, I find myself sifting through the memories of faces of my family, the smells of my childhood homes or even the ocean, all surrounded by aspects of love and connection, warmth and embraces. Some of these memories are poignant, bittersweet, and some simply evocative of days gone by. These are the sacred landscapes of my life - some of which might even include listening to the beautiful voices of cantors and possibly wise words of rabbis on the High Holy Days and the aroma of old prayer books and the aging wood scent of pews.

We come together tonight at the beginning of Yom Kippur to deeply experience holiness. The sacred in Judaism is much more than just a religious thing - it is specialness that emerges from all our important memories and experiences.

Right here as we are encountering the holiness of our year, the memories of being together on this day, here in this sanctuary and others, with the people around us, everyone present for us even those who’ve passed, and with the meanings that swirl around in the air like eddying currents in a tide pool - we could easily say that this was the point. That this is what we’ve come here for. Yet, in this place and time laden with the past and our experiences, we must go deeper.

Since moving to Buffalo, Ginny and I have marveled at all of the connections we find running through Western New York - friends and acquaintances from other places who turn out to be from here.

Last year a college friend visited us. It turned out that he grew up in North Buffalo. In fact, he grew up on the street where we now live.

Just a month ago I connected with a rabbi who was eager to help me as a Buffalonian since some of his relatives hailed from Eggertsville.

One of our closest friends from when we lived in Northern Nevada grew up in Amherst and graduated from Park School.

We have begun to say that all roads lead through Buffalo.

It is really no surprise then, that a singer-songwriter whom I loved in my twenties, Ani DiFranco, is a Buffalo person too. In one of my favorite of her songs, she sings:

go back…and dig deeper, dig deeper this time down beneath the impossible pain of our history beneath unknown bones, beneath the bedrock of the mystery …beneath the good and the kind and the stupid and the cruel there's a fire just waiting for fuel.

[Ani DiFranco, Fuel, from, Little Plastic Castle, 1998]

We are here to connect with meaning and go deeply into ourselves - to find out what is really ours and what isn’t. To claim for ourselves the meanings in our memories, to separate out what is ours and what we need to leave behind, and to figure out how to use it better.

We must get past all of the things that distract us, and all that we use as excuses, and uncover ourselves in this moment of truth.

The world offers us many distractions and they are so easy to follow down and away from the work we hope to accomplish. Things get in the way. In the course of explaining ourselves we can so easily shift blame and duck responsibility. Our apologies come with excuses and justifications before we even speak them.

Much in the news today, a term has re-emerged. It is called “whataboutism” and is an old Soviet propaganda technique of deflecting criticism by pointing out faults in critics. The Soviet Union’s spokespeople would dodge questions about how they treated their people by saying, in the 1960’s, “Look at the racism in the United States.”

There is no “whataboutism” on Yom Kippur. When we go beneath the surface to face our selves, our consciences, our senses of the universe, God, we don’t get to deflect the critique - we must face the self-assessment. We call this cheshbon ha-nefesh - an accounting of the soul.

Self-accounting is frightening. One of my teachers, Rabbi Richard Hirsh, said that people don’t fear change, we fear loss. To face ourselves, to get rid of the distractions and the excuses, is to experience a loss of all the band-aids that we use to hold ourselves together. Think about one of the things that the famous comedian George Carlin, may his memory be for a blessing, said, “Try to get through the day without nine good rationalizations.” We have to drop the rationalizations and face ourselves. And we have to do more than draw up a list of self-criticisms. Being honest with ourselves, getting rid of the easy answers to who we are and what we do, also means being generous and merciful to our selves.

And this is difficult too. We are here tonight, beating our chests, literally, confessing our sins. I have a much easier time accepting that I need to be more generous to others. Tonight, we have to be more accepting, more giving, more forgiving, of our own flaws. We are here to do the work together, to support each other as we face the mirror of our souls. We support one another in the work we do on our own. The time and place and the company helps, and so do the words of the service.

We started this evening with Kol Nidrei:

“All vows -  …that we take upon ourselves… we regret them and for all of them we repent. Let all of them be discarded and forgiven, abolished and undone; they are not valid and they are not binding. Our vows shall not be vows; our resolves shall not be resolves; and our oaths they shall not be oaths.”

Kol Nidrei - the sound of the words in Aramaic is haunting, the music echoes through the chambers of our hearts and the depths of our souls, and the meaning of the words has made impressions for generations. We declare our oaths to be null and void - we relieve ourselves from the obligations we make. Historically anti-Semites have used this declaration as proof of Jews’ sinister and corrupt nature - that we would declare our business obligations null and void and use this as a religious justification to cheat and steal. Rabbis always clarify that the oaths we declare void are only those that we make with ourselves. We understand that in the year to come, as in the year gone by, we will bind ourselves to things that we cannot complete. We seek to be forgiving to our past, present, and future selves.

The turning of the year, the process of returning to do repentance, to atone, to make ourselves whole enough to go into the next year with holiness, requires us to unbind ourselves from promises that we can’t keep to our selves. We must start fresh and new.

Connect with the power of this day, cut away the things that hold us back, dig deep, so that we confront ourselves with clarity and generosity and compassion - all of this we do in order to begin again, to reinvent ourselves. We are on a journey to create something sacred.

Mark Goldman, a member of our community, said something about this just this past week. On Saturday evening we were celebrating Havdalah, the ritual with the braided candle, spices, and wine, which marks the transition between Shabbat and the rest of the week, as well as doing Tashlich, the symbolic casting away of last year’s bad behavior into the water, on the bridge by the Naval Museum at Canalside. We have been making Havdalah in places throughout Buffalo - Delaware Park, at the Black Rock Canal and Broderick Parks - for the sake of “spiritual place-making” - connecting the everyday and wondrous in our city, with the everyday and sacred in Judaism. As we were talking about this, Mark said that “Where memory and meaning connect, the place becomes sacred.”

Listen to Mark again - when memory and meaning connect, we get holiness.

This is profoundly true and wonderfully Jewish.

Our hope with the Havdalah series this summer was to create memories in places with meaningful experiences - to connect the Jewish ideas about holiness with the meaningful places and experiences here in Buffalo - to bring a little bit of holiness into our lives through meaningful memories.

We make places and moments holy by what we do and experience in those times and locations.

The Day of Atonement is the beginning of our journey to create something sacred in the coming year. To turn the memories evoked by this time into a meaningful experience that leads us into holiness as individuals. We need to be better, holier, in the days, weeks, and months to come. We must connect to our past in a powerful way, we must not be dragged down by excuses and other baggage that holds us back, and we must care for ourselves with compassion in this process.

The setting out on this journey is imperative. To do anything less is to allow us to be stuck in the past, and so abandon the future. We must look forward while holding on to what came before, without being held back.

We must reinvent ourselves.

Beneath it all, beneath all of those vows that bind us to our own courses of action, we unknot ourselves, we see what it is like to go into the New Year with fewer fetters tying us down.

So what do we find when we dig deeper in order to reinvent?

We start with the cores of ourselves, the parts that have been put together and crafted and buffeted - the centers that have triumphed and survived. When we unbind and uncover we attempt to honestly face who we are beneath it all - who we are, who we have always been, and who we hope to become.

Underneath all of the surfaces and strata, the layers of obligations and oaths that we have placed upon ourselves in the last year, that we might place upon ourselves in the next year, we clarify what is truly us. What we have built and what we still need to work on. What needs to be preserved, maybe renovated a bit, and what can be jettisoned entirely as a failed experiment.

Yom Kippur must be a day of liberation for our souls as we embrace the New Year as we celebrate our history, our starting point and foundation, and make progress in the sacred places of our own inner geographies, seek and create meaning that moves us forward from the past into a better future, and make new memories that expand upon and celebrate and honor the ones we already have.

We come here today to find greater meaning in the New Year. We start in our hearts, dig deeper, and then, taking what worked best before, we reinvent to find the sacred in what was, what is, and what can be for all of us in a better year to come.

We craft this holiness in ourselves, and we craft it together as a community.

G’mar Chatimah Tovah - may we find a holy link from the past to the future on this day of meaning and memory.

[trendingnewsb]

How to Handle Criticism and Not to Take It Personally

Have you ever asked someone for their opinion about something and received a response that was overly critical, vague, slightly hurtful or down right rude? You ask something like, “How do I look?” And you are met with this reply: “the shoes are ok, but that dress makes you look homely and you really should wear make up.”

What do you do with that response? Do you accept the fact that the shoes are okay and ignore the rest? Should you be hurt or offended?

The fact of the matter is accepting feedback and constructive criticism is tough. Our first inclination is to adopt a defensive posture and either deflect, explain or make excuses for the critical area. Criticism and feedback that are constructive and accurate are necessary evils tied to growth and success. You have to learn how to handle it without lashing out or becoming disillusioned.

Asking the right questions brings the right criticism.

One of the most efficient ways to take some of the sting out of criticism and to ensure it truly is constructive in nature is to ask the right questions. If you ask vague and open-ended questions be prepared for vague responses that miss the mark. Asking “how do I look,” is an open invitation for abuse. That question leaves nothing–regarding your appearance–out of bounds. However, asking “does the color and style of these shoes work with this outfit,” is a much more precise and targeted question. And you are more likely to get a very targeted and precise answer.

Asking the right questions, tells the critiquer what specifically to focus on. When you request feedback–of any kind–you invite and empower the responder to look for and point out your flaws. The more open-ended and vague the request, the more power you give them. Asking targeted questions not only assists you in getting the appropriate information you need, it also provides the person providing the feedback a clear area of focus. All of their attention is directed to one specific area and this helps to eliminate the tendency people have to look for something to criticize.

Below are a few ways to help you get accurate and targeted feedback:

1. Make your questions as specific as possible.

Ask about specific situations — for example, what could you have done differently in a particular meeting or situation. Avoid the generic “so, how am I doing,” questions and ask about specific aspects of your performance, a particular project or interaction. Tailor your questions to suit the type of feedback you need. Ask both specific and open-ended questions.

2. Ask clarifying questions.

When the critiquer is providing you with feedback asks questions to ensure you clearly understand what he or she is telling you. Be careful of your tone and body language during this part of the process. You don’t want to appear defensive. The questions should be designed to help you understand the message and it should not appear that you are questioning the individual. Ask for specific examples or instances so that you have a point of reference for the criticism. And finally, when appropriate, solicit suggestions on how you can correct the behavior.

3. Listen and don’t defend.

As humans, we’ve been conditioned to respond not to understand. As soon as we hear a portion of what someone is saying and believe we know where they are headed, we quit listening and begin constructing our response. This is especially true when we hear negative criticism about our self. However, if you can learn to take a deep breath and focus on listening to ensure you understand what is being said you can turn negative criticism into a positive change that moves you forward.

Listening intently, will also help you better decipher between true criticism and criticism that is framed in emotion. Emotions change and criticism birth from emotion, most likely will change as well. Learning to decipher between the two can save you a lot of unnecessary heartache.

4. Consider who you ask.

Before you solicit feedback, consider who you are asking. Is it a friend who is going to tell you what you want to hear? Does this person enjoy having power over you? Does he or she have anything to gain from your interaction? Is this person qualified to provide you accurate feedback? Do you respect the person? Is this person a person of consequence– someone you respect, admire and value in the area in which you are seeking feedback?

Before accepting and internalizing feedback–positive or negative–always consider the source. Some feedback isn’t worth your time or attention.

5. Deconstruct the feedback.

Once you’ve requested, heard and clarified the feedback, then you can process it. Do you have a clear picture of what the issue is? Is this something that you need to change? Is this an isolated incident with mitigating circumstances? What is the context and sub-context of this issue. Is this something you can change? Do you have a plan to address this issue if it needs to be addressed?

If you can’t answer these questions, you may need to go back and ask more clarifying questions or seek a bit more insight.

6. Evaluate the feedback.

The final step in soliciting and accepting life-changing feedback is a process of evaluation which you must do for yourself. You must answer the question–is this something I should accept, internalize and work on? Do you agree with all or some of what you’ve heard? You make this decision after you’ve considered the source and all the surrounding circumstances. If you’ve correctly completed the other five steps, the answer will be obvious. You’ll know if the feedback is valuable or not–even if you don’t like it.

Getting useful feedback is one of the fastest routes to growth and improved performance. It’s not always an accurate reflection of who you are — but it is an accurate reflection of how you’re perceived. Knowing how you’re perceived is critically important if you want to increase your influence as a leader, or move up within your organization. Hearing the truth can be tough, however, not hearing it could be detrimental.

Featured photo credit: Stocksnap via stocksnap.io

The post How to Handle Criticism and Not to Take It Personally appeared first on Lifehack.

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2t1ddNg via Viral News HQ

[trendingnewsb]

How to Handle Criticism and Not to Take It Personally

Have you ever asked someone for their opinion about something and received a response that was overly critical, vague, slightly hurtful or down right rude? You ask something like, “How do I look?” And you are met with this reply: “the shoes are ok, but that dress makes you look homely and you really should wear make up.”

What do you do with that response? Do you accept the fact that the shoes are okay and ignore the rest? Should you be hurt or offended?

The fact of the matter is accepting feedback and constructive criticism is tough. Our first inclination is to adopt a defensive posture and either deflect, explain or make excuses for the critical area. Criticism and feedback that are constructive and accurate are necessary evils tied to growth and success. You have to learn how to handle it without lashing out or becoming disillusioned.

Asking the right questions brings the right criticism.

One of the most efficient ways to take some of the sting out of criticism and to ensure it truly is constructive in nature is to ask the right questions. If you ask vague and open-ended questions be prepared for vague responses that miss the mark. Asking “how do I look,” is an open invitation for abuse. That question leaves nothing–regarding your appearance–out of bounds. However, asking “does the color and style of these shoes work with this outfit,” is a much more precise and targeted question. And you are more likely to get a very targeted and precise answer.

Asking the right questions, tells the critiquer what specifically to focus on. When you request feedback–of any kind–you invite and empower the responder to look for and point out your flaws. The more open-ended and vague the request, the more power you give them. Asking targeted questions not only assists you in getting the appropriate information you need, it also provides the person providing the feedback a clear area of focus. All of their attention is directed to one specific area and this helps to eliminate the tendency people have to look for something to criticize.

Below are a few ways to help you get accurate and targeted feedback:

1. Make your questions as specific as possible.

Ask about specific situations — for example, what could you have done differently in a particular meeting or situation. Avoid the generic “so, how am I doing,” questions and ask about specific aspects of your performance, a particular project or interaction. Tailor your questions to suit the type of feedback you need. Ask both specific and open-ended questions.

2. Ask clarifying questions.

When the critiquer is providing you with feedback asks questions to ensure you clearly understand what he or she is telling you. Be careful of your tone and body language during this part of the process. You don’t want to appear defensive. The questions should be designed to help you understand the message and it should not appear that you are questioning the individual. Ask for specific examples or instances so that you have a point of reference for the criticism. And finally, when appropriate, solicit suggestions on how you can correct the behavior.

3. Listen and don’t defend.

As humans, we’ve been conditioned to respond not to understand. As soon as we hear a portion of what someone is saying and believe we know where they are headed, we quit listening and begin constructing our response. This is especially true when we hear negative criticism about our self. However, if you can learn to take a deep breath and focus on listening to ensure you understand what is being said you can turn negative criticism into a positive change that moves you forward.

Listening intently, will also help you better decipher between true criticism and criticism that is framed in emotion. Emotions change and criticism birth from emotion, most likely will change as well. Learning to decipher between the two can save you a lot of unnecessary heartache.

4. Consider who you ask.

Before you solicit feedback, consider who you are asking. Is it a friend who is going to tell you what you want to hear? Does this person enjoy having power over you? Does he or she have anything to gain from your interaction? Is this person qualified to provide you accurate feedback? Do you respect the person? Is this person a person of consequence– someone you respect, admire and value in the area in which you are seeking feedback?

Before accepting and internalizing feedback–positive or negative–always consider the source. Some feedback isn’t worth your time or attention.

5. Deconstruct the feedback.

Once you’ve requested, heard and clarified the feedback, then you can process it. Do you have a clear picture of what the issue is? Is this something that you need to change? Is this an isolated incident with mitigating circumstances? What is the context and sub-context of this issue. Is this something you can change? Do you have a plan to address this issue if it needs to be addressed?

If you can’t answer these questions, you may need to go back and ask more clarifying questions or seek a bit more insight.

6. Evaluate the feedback.

The final step in soliciting and accepting life-changing feedback is a process of evaluation which you must do for yourself. You must answer the question–is this something I should accept, internalize and work on? Do you agree with all or some of what you’ve heard? You make this decision after you’ve considered the source and all the surrounding circumstances. If you’ve correctly completed the other five steps, the answer will be obvious. You’ll know if the feedback is valuable or not–even if you don’t like it.

Getting useful feedback is one of the fastest routes to growth and improved performance. It’s not always an accurate reflection of who you are — but it is an accurate reflection of how you’re perceived. Knowing how you’re perceived is critically important if you want to increase your influence as a leader, or move up within your organization. Hearing the truth can be tough, however, not hearing it could be detrimental.

Featured photo credit: Stocksnap via stocksnap.io

The post How to Handle Criticism and Not to Take It Personally appeared first on Lifehack.

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2t1ddNg via Viral News HQ

[trendingnewsb]

Stop Using Free Speech As An Excuse To Be Awful

On Sunday, Vice President Mike Pence was met with boos as he delivered a commencement speech at Notre Dame University. Before he had even finished his address, dozens of students, some wearing rainbow flags on their graduation caps, stood and walked out.

Undeterred by the silent protest, Pence continued his speech, saying to the graduates: While this institution has maintained an atmosphere of civility and open debate, far too many campuses across America have become characterized by speech codes, safe spaces, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political correctness all of which amounts to the suppression of free speech.

This is a line of reasoning weve heard time and time again, mostly from those on the right. The pristine ideal of free speech is used to dismiss legitimate criticism of language and policies that harm marginalized communities. Figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, and Bill Maher have invoked the free speech argument when theyve been called out, criticized, or boycotted for their rhetoric.

None of them, however, have actually had their speech curtailed. They have never been thrown in jail for things like inciting racist and sexist abuse against comedian Leslie Jones, or complaining about Jews in America, or suggesting Muslims are inherently violent. Indeed, it wasnt until Yiannopoulos started speaking positively about pedophilia that he actually faced any tangible repercussions.

Perhaps to Pence, who has come under scrutiny in the past for his history of endorsing and enactinganti-LGBTQpolicies, the students who booed and walked out during his speech were only proving his point: that we live in a society where political correctness (a phrase thats often just coded language for liberal oversensitivity) is leading us to a future where young people balk at anyone who shares an opinion different than their own.

But its not that simple.

Contrary to popular belief, free speech, in the context of the Constitution, actually does have limits. The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence, fraud, or child pornography, or certain forms of obscenity. It puts limits and restrictions on slander, and intellectual property.

Free speech does not mean that people arent allowed to be offended by or disagree with what you say.

And while it protects criticism of the government (including the president), and also protects unpopular or potentially offensive political or ideological views, it doesnt mean one can say or do anything they want without social repercussions.

In other words, free speech does not mean that people arent allowed to be offended by or disagree with what you say. Free speech isnotan excuse to say racist, homophobic, sexist things. The Constitution may protect your right to say some of those things, but you are certainly not protected from being called out for doing so.

Beyond a seeming lack of understanding of the basic tenets of free speech, this line of critique also frames any identification of instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, ableism and transphobia as threats to free speech itself. And the ultimate effect of this argument can be chilling.

As Ulrich Baer put it in a New York Times essay published in April: Requiring of someone in public debate to defend their human worth conflicts with the communitys obligation to assure all of its members equal access to public speech.

The students who decided to publicly protest Pence for his views, many of whom identify as queer, have as much of a right to exercise free speech as Pence and his supporters. Safe spaces do not suppress anything they level the playing field in a landscape where so many of those who bemoan political correctness do so at the expense of already marginalized communities.

Of course, the conversation surrounding free speech is not a simple one. The difficulty of defining hate speech, for instance, has often come up in this ongoing debate, with some critics arguing that censorship is not the solution to offensive or hateful language that is constitutionally protected.

There is no legal definition of hate speech that will withstand constitutional scrutiny, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education president Will Greeley told Think Progress in January 2016. The Supreme Court has been clear on this for decades. And that is because of the inherently fluid, subjective boundaries of what would or would not constitute hate speech. One persons hate speech is another persons manifesto.

The pristine ideal of ‘free speech’ is used to dismiss legitimate criticism of language and policies that harm marginalized communities.

So, OK, both sides of the aisle must contend with how to express themselves and have vigorous debates about difficult without being awful. But research has shown that those who defend their right to use racial slurs and racist hate speech often use free speech to do so. A 2017 studyfound that out of hundreds of participants, those with high levels of racial prejudice were much more concerned with upholding freedom of speech, but were also less likely to defend free speech in non-racial scenarios.

Its certainly savvy to deflect the argument that what you are saying is offensive by zeroing in on a political ideal, free speech, that everyone can get behind. Its ultimately just a rhetorical ploy to normalize ideas that oppress others. And complaining when those who are oppressed call out these ideas, as is their right, is another petty ploy.

What Pence and Yiannopoulos and Coulter and other right-wing provacateurs are really doing when they weaponize free speech against marginalized people is perverting the idea of free speech itself.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story indicated that the First Amendment never protects hate speech. It does.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2rbYbWP

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2rLlZxZ via Viral News HQ

[trendingnewsb]

Stop Using Free Speech As An Excuse To Be Awful

On Sunday, Vice President Mike Pence was met with boos as he delivered a commencement speech at Notre Dame University. Before he had even finished his address, dozens of students, some wearing rainbow flags on their graduation caps, stood and walked out.

Undeterred by the silent protest, Pence continued his speech, saying to the graduates: While this institution has maintained an atmosphere of civility and open debate, far too many campuses across America have become characterized by speech codes, safe spaces, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political correctness all of which amounts to the suppression of free speech.

This is a line of reasoning weve heard time and time again, mostly from those on the right. The pristine ideal of free speech is used to dismiss legitimate criticism of language and policies that harm marginalized communities. Figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, and Bill Maher have invoked the free speech argument when theyve been called out, criticized, or boycotted for their rhetoric.

None of them, however, have actually had their speech curtailed. They have never been thrown in jail for things like inciting racist and sexist abuse against comedian Leslie Jones, or complaining about Jews in America, or suggesting Muslims are inherently violent. Indeed, it wasnt until Yiannopoulos started speaking positively about pedophilia that he actually faced any tangible repercussions.

Perhaps to Pence, who has come under scrutiny in the past for his history of endorsing and enactinganti-LGBTQpolicies, the students who booed and walked out during his speech were only proving his point: that we live in a society where political correctness (a phrase thats often just coded language for liberal oversensitivity) is leading us to a future where young people balk at anyone who shares an opinion different than their own.

But its not that simple.

Contrary to popular belief, free speech, in the context of the Constitution, actually does have limits. The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence, fraud, or child pornography, or certain forms of obscenity. It puts limits and restrictions on slander, and intellectual property.

Free speech does not mean that people arent allowed to be offended by or disagree with what you say.

And while it protects criticism of the government (including the president), and also protects unpopular or potentially offensive political or ideological views, it doesnt mean one can say or do anything they want without social repercussions.

In other words, free speech does not mean that people arent allowed to be offended by or disagree with what you say. Free speech isnotan excuse to say racist, homophobic, sexist things. The Constitution may protect your right to say some of those things, but you are certainly not protected from being called out for doing so.

Beyond a seeming lack of understanding of the basic tenets of free speech, this line of critique also frames any identification of instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, ableism and transphobia as threats to free speech itself. And the ultimate effect of this argument can be chilling.

As Ulrich Baer put it in a New York Times essay published in April: Requiring of someone in public debate to defend their human worth conflicts with the communitys obligation to assure all of its members equal access to public speech.

The students who decided to publicly protest Pence for his views, many of whom identify as queer, have as much of a right to exercise free speech as Pence and his supporters. Safe spaces do not suppress anything they level the playing field in a landscape where so many of those who bemoan political correctness do so at the expense of already marginalized communities.

Of course, the conversation surrounding free speech is not a simple one. The difficulty of defining hate speech, for instance, has often come up in this ongoing debate, with some critics arguing that censorship is not the solution to offensive or hateful language that is constitutionally protected.

There is no legal definition of hate speech that will withstand constitutional scrutiny, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education president Will Greeley told Think Progress in January 2016. The Supreme Court has been clear on this for decades. And that is because of the inherently fluid, subjective boundaries of what would or would not constitute hate speech. One persons hate speech is another persons manifesto.

The pristine ideal of ‘free speech’ is used to dismiss legitimate criticism of language and policies that harm marginalized communities.

So, OK, both sides of the aisle must contend with how to express themselves and have vigorous debates about difficult without being awful. But research has shown that those who defend their right to use racial slurs and racist hate speech often use free speech to do so. A 2017 studyfound that out of hundreds of participants, those with high levels of racial prejudice were much more concerned with upholding freedom of speech, but were also less likely to defend free speech in non-racial scenarios.

Its certainly savvy to deflect the argument that what you are saying is offensive by zeroing in on a political ideal, free speech, that everyone can get behind. Its ultimately just a rhetorical ploy to normalize ideas that oppress others. And complaining when those who are oppressed call out these ideas, as is their right, is another petty ploy.

What Pence and Yiannopoulos and Coulter and other right-wing provacateurs are really doing when they weaponize free speech against marginalized people is perverting the idea of free speech itself.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story indicated that the First Amendment never protects hate speech. It does.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2rbYbWP

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2rLlZxZ via Viral News HQ