bashing some one or something is not beneficial to anyone.
Weeell..there is bashing the bishop........................ that's considered beneficial.
bashing some one or something is not beneficial to anyone.
That's an excellent point. This remind me the following:Wait until feedback is asked for. If someone isn't in the market for critique, they are unlikely to listen to it.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Do you think to suggest Taiji guys to lift weight is "style bashing"?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.
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.Do you think to suggest Taiji guys to lift weight is "style bashing"?
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.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?
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.
It's no weaker than the evidence used against it.How about week evidence that it is useful for self defence.
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.
Thanks for pointing this out.Pointing out weeknesses within a logical argument is not bashing.
Why? It's only 10 pages long. We can do better than that.I'm surprised you are all still going on in this thread.
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?Just in case anybody is intrested in the concept played out.
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.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?