
How to Respond to Criticism – Learning from Dr. King - jsmoov
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/24/letter-from-a-birmingham-jail/#more-2122
======
physcab
"So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of
extremists we will be."

Everytime I hear or read this line I get chills down my back. He took a word
with an incredibly negative connotation (still remains true today) and turned
it into a call for action. This is how I imagine true leaders-- people who
listen to their criticisms, but use their intellect and common sense to turn
their perceived weaknesses into strengths.

~~~
unalone
The connotation exists, mind, because most people who are labelled with the
term are so labelled because they've lost some touch with reality.

Mind you, protesting for basic human rights, that's not extreme. It was seen
as extreme at the time, but that's moderate. Similarly, some protests today,
like the "don't let companies rob us because we're dying" protests, might be
called extreme by the "other side", but they're not really extreme. That's a
rational cause and most of the people protesting for it are rational people.

On the other hand, last year I participated in a handful of protests, largely
because I had nothing better to do, and _there_ you find real extremists. You
find people who think that the Jews are all part of a conspiracy to kill
nonJews, and you get the people who think organizations of any time are
detrimental to society, and you get the antitech people.

I remember posting once on a friend's wall that while I appreciated her
passion in supporting gay rights, I couldn't help but think gay rights parades
were obnoxious and hurting the cause. A friend of hers in turn responded in a
rant that said I couldn't possibly understand society if I was heterosexual, I
was probably a repressed homosexual, I was actively harming his existence by
living, and I was a pretentious bourgeoise without a mind.

In response to that unwarranted rant, I decided to become an extremist
moderate. My intolerance is towards extremists. In the half-year since I
decided that, I've found that in every situation I choose to insert myself, I
feel I'm fighting for a good cause. People who refuse to listen to the words
of their opponents are never wholly the good guys.

~~~
thisrod
_I remember posting once on a friend's wall that while I appreciated her
passion in supporting gay rights, I couldn't help but think gay rights parades
were obnoxious and hurting the cause._

That's exactly the position that King's letter rebuts. Where do you think his
reasoning starts to go wrong?

~~~
unalone
The reasoning goes wrong when the parades become less about a bunch of sincere
people campaigning for their rights, and becomes more a grotesque parody of
what that group looks like in the public eye.

I go to a school where there are more gay people than straight people, so I
know straight-up how awesome gay people are. I also live in a very
conservative town, and I know that a _lot_ of homophobia stems from people not
knowing gay people. The more you know, the more you realize they're just like
us.

So when you're somebody who knows nothing about gay people or gay rights, the
right way to get attention is to have more casual protests. Get a large block
of people that look normal to peacefully march through a city, looking like
everyday citizens. You do _not_ want people in tight leather humping 30-foot-
tall dildos, because then they look like freaks and people will lose sympathy
for them.

My irritations during this argument with this kid were furthered when he
claimed that the dildo-humping was essential because gay people are over-the-
top like that. I mean, if you're going to protest against unfair depictions of
you, don't perpetuate the stereotypes yourself.

------
Mongoose
Not exactly a guide on "how to respond to criticism." More like "Tim Ferris
Presents... MLK's _Letter From A Birmingham City Jail._ "

He basically RT'd Martin Luther King Jr.

~~~
poppysan
I completely agree. Yet I read the entire text, which I have never read
before, and it is such a great call to action for any just cause.

Man, it makes me think about how little I am doing to advance what I believe
in out of comfort.

~~~
Mongoose
MLK's "Letter" is great. I had to read it for an english course in my freshman
year. And to his credit, Ferris highlighted very good sections. He may not
have actually created any novel content, but he definitely made the letter
more skimmable.

------
tsally
Wow, he wrote that in four days. King was a man in unbelievable talent to be
sure, but it certainly shows that someone can produce something amazing in a
short period if they have convictions and a bunch of free time.

~~~
jgfoot
And, one imagines, a willingness to work more than four hours a week.

------
maxklein
Think of the letter this way also: there were millions of people who faced the
same awful conditions every day. But of those millions, how many were able to
communicate the experience to someone else?

That's what made him great - he was able to communicate what all the other
millions could only feel.

------
Mz
True: It is too bad there was no analysis done. Presenting the letter and
bolding parts of it makes it more readable and highlights key points. However,
those points make much less sense and have much less power if all you read is
the bolded portions. Good commentary on what King was doing and why would have
been more valuable.

I haven't managed to get through the whole thing yet, but a few things I have
noticed:

1) King states that he rarely responded to his critics, but did sometimes. On
the one hand, it's a bad idea to spend too much time arguing with people about
your work. It takes precious time and energy away from the work and it sends
the wrong message about your mission. A good way to "lose" such a battle is
let your detractors distract you overly much with such tactics. On the other
hand, never responding to criticism leaves your critics with too much power to
shape public opinion. Don't get mired in arguing with these people whose minds
you are unlikely to change. But don't let them have the only say in shaping
public opinion. When responding to them, be cognizant that you are really
speaking to a larger audience and this larger audience is the one you most
want to reach. You have little hope and little need of really winning over
your critics. It is sufficient to neutralize them in the battle for mindshare.

2) King preached non-violence and taught his people to not retaliate.

If you genuinely want justice, you cannot retaliate. Retaliation proves to
people that you don't genuinely value justice. It proves that you would do as
much injustice to those currently in power as they are doing to you if only
you had the power to do so. Standing by your principles is far more powerful.

3) While not retaliating, King does not hesitate to call people on their BS.

This is a distinction many people seem to have difficulty making. It is a
powerful distinction that helps give teeth (so to speak) to a non-violent
position. Non-violence does not mean being a wuss. Respecting people does not
mean kissing arse.

4) Avoid hyperbole and stick to the facts.

The facts are usually plenty ugly on their own and typically do not require
hyperbole to get strong reaction. Hyperbole is a good way to give your critics
a means to dismiss you as a hysterical nutcase.

------
conoryoung
Feeding a squirrel while wearing a tank top is a good move. Draws attention
away from the fact that you're trying to draw attention to your buff physique
while at the same time emphasizing your sensitive caring side. Not that
there's anything wrong with showing off your buff physique. Unless you're Tim
Ferris, in which case highlighting how big a poser you are is probably the
last thing you need. The squirrel is genius though.

~~~
mechanical_fish
I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Except perhaps to
illustrate why I should seek advice on "how to respond to criticism" from
Ferriss: He's had a lot of practice.

