RSS Feed Not Quite Conversation

11:37 am | 1 recommendation | 5 comments

Comments and Criticism

| posted by Kevin Ohannessian

It seems one comment can completely hijack a discussion. The first comment on my recent post about Dunkin' Donuts blasted middle-class Americans who voted for George Bush. That triggered a flame-fest between Bush haters and Bush supporters.

I don't think FC is the place for such pointed attacks against specific politicians. Criticism on specific policies would be fine, in my opinion, but not pointless name-calling. Criticism should be constructive and informative. It should breed dialogue and not shouting matches.

Conflict is good. It can help weed out bad ideas or those that are all flash and no substance. With any luck, it can change people's minds and bring about a better strategy. I would encourage team meetings to have some degree of debate, as long as everyone understands its purpose. What we don't need is negative labeling and bad manners. At least, try to keep cursing to a minimum.

Do you like constructive criticism and civilized debate? Or do you think it will just lead to name-calling and hurt feelings?

Sign in or register to comment.

Recent Comments | 5 Total

June 10, 2005 at 12:19pm

Kelleen
Kevin, I agree with what you say about conflict being constructive if it's done well. There is much to be said for agreeing to and adhering to specific "rules of engagement" reagrding how confict is to be managed. These rules should also include the assignment of an individual to serve as guardian of the process. Conflict can be constructive if we stick to addressing the issue and not attacking the person. I've also noticed that a number of comments to posts on this blog tend to be just plain critical, petty, or irrelevant things and don't address the questions posed. I think it would be a favor to us all and enrich the content of the blog if we could focus on the subject at hand in our comments. Often I am reminded of the Dan Akroyd/Jane Curtain interactions (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78eupdate.phtml) on SNL's Weekend Edition. It's funny on TV, but not so much in this blog.

June 10, 2005 at 12:36pm

Chris Houchens
The main trouble (not just here, but everywhere on the web) is the combination of the bad sides of everyone's personalities mixed with the anonymity of the web. It's much easier to be snide/critical/rude/arrogant/petty/etc when you're sitting alone and have no social correction mechanisms in place like when you're talking to someone "for real". To the previous poster... "Kelleen, you ignorant sl*t"

June 10, 2005 at 12:44pm

Mira Furth
What if we look at conflict, debate and dialogue as a continuum. Conflict is: "I am right and you are wrong and it is important thatI prove it to you". Debate is "while I believe I am right, I might listen to your logic, as an intellectual exercise". Dialogue is "I am willing (at least for a short time) to suspent my opinion and truly hear you, hear where you are coming from;I am willing to listent to you with my mind and heart and am willing to hear your mind and heart". As much as I know the value of a true dialogue,the more convinced I am of my rightness the less I am willing to be open to a different point of view (i.e. a different slice of reality...).

June 10, 2005 at 8:34pm

tim
My rule of thumb when posting in the midst of a controversial subject is simply this: I want to post in such a way that I will continue the conversation and not end it. If you flame, call someone names, or become overly sarcastic, you move from talking to each other to trashing each other.

June 11, 2005 at 3:05am

roger fulton
The writer Christopher Hitchens once wrote that the late President Ronald Reagan was as "dumb as a stump." This, upon his death. To me that ended all of my review of his future writings. I bite my tongue when I say his name: flaming.

Special Editions?

Advertiser Links