How to Respond to Criticism – Learning from Dr. King
fourhourworkweek.com
fourhourworkweek.com
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.
It's a really good line, and it seems he turned into a figurehead for the Libertarians. It just strikes me as funny that there's no room in American politics for a 3rd party.
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.
That's exactly the position that King's letter rebuts. Where do you think his reasoning starts to go wrong?
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.
He basically RT'd Martin Luther King Jr.
Is "RT'd" the new blogspam? :)
Man, it makes me think about how little I am doing to advance what I believe in out of comfort.
That's what made him great - he was able to communicate what all the other millions could only feel.
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.