Style bashing

[Tez3]

bashing some one or something is not beneficial to anyone.

Weeell..there is bashing the bishop........................ that's considered beneficial.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Wait until feedback is asked for. If someone isn't in the market for critique, they are unlikely to listen to it.

That's an excellent point. This remind me the following:

A: You told me that you have solutions for the emperor's problem. Why didn't you mention to him?
B: He didn't ask me.

IMO, information should be shared among those who deserves to be shared.

 

[hoshin1600]

Bashing is not thoughtful discussion. It is an attempt to impose ones own thoughts, biases and values onto other people. In actuality it has less to do with styles and more to do with the choices of individuals.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Bashing is not thoughtful discussion. It is an attempt to impose ones own thoughts, biases and values onto other people. In actuality it has less to do with styles and more to do with the choices of individuals.

But when someone said, "The long fist system doesn't have ground game". It has to do with the long fist style. It has nothing to do with the person who said that. I'm a long fist guy, when I heard that, I don't feel being offended. It reminds me what is missing in my long fist system.

A; I train long fist system.
B: It's an excellent MA system. Good for you.
C: +1
D: +2
E: +3
F: There are something missing in your long fist system such as ...

IMO, F's opinion can help me more than the others.

 

[drop bear]

It depends what you find offensive doesn't it. Does being offended by paedophilia, Nazis, race hate etc make you weaker or does it drive you to oppose and protect people? Does being offended by the actions of a child abuser who has just tortured and murdered a baby make you weak? How does one achieve 'peace' by not being offended by these things?

When it comes to MT, far fewer people are offended than some think. When you put up an opposing argument often the person being disagreed with will make comments just as you have which try to equate that disagreement with the person being 'offended' or 'emotional' or 'upset' when they really aren't, it's a way of trying to diminish the person who disagreed with you. It's saying 'I'm right' you are just being 'triggered or a snowflake or emotional' so I don't have to actually consider that it might just be a disagreement over opinions. When you look at all conversations as 'sparring' and that there has to be a 'winner' then nothing is achieved, there's no communication or even learning others opinions because as you read them you aren't taking in what the other is saying you are already forming an opposing view to post.

No it is when you are looking at conversations as kata that there is no result. When you lecture people without expecting feedback you are not forming an opposing view you just dont allow one to happen.

Conversation as sparring is much more sensible. It is something you have never understood.


Otherwise If you look at the post I responded to it is a complaint about the harshness of my reply. And that is taking offence.

If there was no offence he would have played the ball not the man. When you play the man. You are taking offence. I mean you are not arguing the topic you are just **** stirring.

You do it all the time. Then say you don't

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But when someone said, "The long fist system doesn't have ground game". It has to do with the long fist style. It has nothing to do with the person who said that. I'm a long fist guy, when I heard that, I don't feel being offended. It reminds me what is missing in my long fist system.

A; I train long fist system.
B: It's an excellent MA system. Good for you.
C: +1
D: +2
E: +3
F: There are something missing in your long fist system such as ...

IMO, F's opinion can help me more than the others.

I think his point was that that observation wouldn't actually be bashing. Bashing - with the connotation the word carries - is more directly negative than objective.

So, if you say to me that NGA has a weak ground game, that's pretty objective. If you tell me you think we have a weak response to single-leg takedowns and present your informed reasons why you think so, that's still pretty objective, whether it ends up being correct or not. If you tell me NGA is a fraud because it has a weak ground game and would be useless for self-defense, that's bashing.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think his point was that that observation wouldn't actually be bashing. Bashing - with the connotation the word carries - is more directly negative than objective.

So, if you say to me that NGA has a weak ground game, that's pretty objective. If you tell me you think we have a weak response to single-leg takedowns and present your informed reasons why you think so, that's still pretty objective, whether it ends up being correct or not. If you tell me NGA is a fraud because it has a weak ground game and would be useless for self-defense, that's bashing.

Do you think to suggest Taiji guys to lift weight is "style bashing"?

Should we just talk about the good part of any MA style and not the bad part? What kind of discussion is allowed?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you think to suggest Taiji guys to lift weight is "style bashing"?

I don't see anything inherently negative or confrontational in the suggestion. It's just a suggestion, whether useful or not I don't know.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you think to suggest Taiji guys to lift weight is "style bashing"?

Should we just talk about the good part of any MA style and not the bad part? What kind of discussion is allowed?

As I said in my example, if you tell me NGA has a weak ground game, that's objective, so not bashing. If you tell me it's trash because it has a weak ground game, that's bashing.

So, we can discuss the weaknesses in a style without getting into bashing.

 

[drop bear]

I think his point was that that observation wouldn't actually be bashing. Bashing - with the connotation the word carries - is more directly negative than objective.

So, if you say to me that NGA has a weak ground game, that's pretty objective. If you tell me you think we have a weak response to single-leg takedowns and present your informed reasons why you think so, that's still pretty objective, whether it ends up being correct or not. If you tell me NGA is a fraud because it has a weak ground game and would be useless for self-defense, that's bashing.

How about week evidence that it is useful for self defence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How about week evidence that it is useful for self defence.

It's no weaker than the evidence used against it.

 

[hoshin1600]

But when someone said, "The long fist system doesn't have ground game". It has to do with the long fist style. It has nothing to do with the person who said that. I'm a long fist guy, when I heard that, I don't feel being offended. It reminds me what is missing in my long fist system.

A; I train long fist system.
B: It's an excellent MA system. Good for you.
C: +1
D: +2
E: +3
F: There are something missing in your long fist system such as ...

IMO, F's opinion can help me more than the others.

Gerry got it correct. Thoughtful conversation and debate is not bashing. Pointing out weeknesses within a logical argument is not bashing. This is why I posted the definition. Bashing is at the extreme point of being violently abusive in your language and tone.
So if I said your long fist is stupid and usless. Anyone who does long fist is a moron, your a moron and you all are fake martial artists.

That is just abusive, makes no logical point to support my opinion and is not constructive in anyway. Statements like that are not made with the goal of enlightening the reader. They are made for the sake of making the poster feel validated while diminishing the object of the slander. It is by definition nothing more than an attack.

I would also add that style bashing is an attempt to invalidate the entire package. This is totally different than making a logical argument on an aspect of a specific art or a training methodology.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Pointing out weeknesses within a logical argument is not bashing.

Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[drop bear]

Just in case anybody is intrested in the concept played out.

 

[drop bear]

Aftermath.

At least at the end of the day everybody kind of knows where they are at.

Personally I think it worked out kind of well.

 

[MA_Student]

In my eye if you spend your time insulting other arts you're not focusing enough on your own training and need to get a life instead of worrying about everyone else's

 

[JP3]

I'm surprised you are all still going on in this thread.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm surprised you are all still going on in this thread.

Why? It's only 10 pages long. We can do better than that.

 

[Steve]

Just in case anybody is intrested in the concept played out.

Did he lose because ninja or because never fights? If having little to no actual fighting experience is a salient characteristic of the style, is saying so considered bashing?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Did he lose because ninja or because never fights? If having little to no actual fighting experience is a salient characteristic of the style, is saying so considered bashing?

I don't think so. It's not a part of the style, IMO. Any individual could, without changing the style (any style), spar/fight with people from other styles. This is where common (even consistent) training methods get confused with the style.