Warning: A constructive bashing thread.

[FubarFly]

It has been pointing out here that nobody has attempting to define bashing. Well for the record, I'd like to give it a shot. By no means am I asserting that anything I post here is the definitive word
on bashing. These are just my thoughts based on my own observations.
It is my way of adding something constructive to the issue. Hopefully , someone will find something useful here. If what I post here is either obvious or wrong, then I apologize in advance for wasting everyone's time.

--

Criticism +lying (intentionally misrepresenting) = bash.

Criticism while telling the truth or believing you are telling the truth is not a bash.

If you hate Candidate X because you really think Candidate X eats babies and you point that out then you not bashing. However:

*If you don't have a link or any evidence to back this up, then unless you post a disclaimer saying that this is your opinion and then try to back up your opinion with sound reasoning, you are bashing.

*If it is pointed out that you're wrong, or your link is inaccurate, and you refuse to concede valid points and continue to make this claim, you are bashing.

*Valid points may also be opinions, but are usually backed by a factual link. If another person responds to your opinion with an opinion, and you respond by either refusing to either come to a consensus, or not agreeing to disagree, then you are bashing.

*If you challenge another persons facts while refusing to provide your own, then you are bashing.

*If you hold Candidate X up to one standard, and not Candidate Y, then unless you can explain your double standard, you are bashing.


Also if you pose your criticism in the form of a question, and you refuse to acknowledge the answers you are given, you are bashing.


Bashes are subjective to the viewer. This is why a previous body of work is helpful when spotting bashing. Most bashers will try to rationalize their actions by claiming they are merely responding to a perceived bash- the eye for an eye philosophy. A rationalized reactive bash is still a bash:

*Claiming someone is bashing without pointing out why they are bashing is in itself a bash.

*Responding to a valid criticism of a candidate by attacking the original poster or their candidate is a bash.

*Responding to a valid criticism of a candidate by dismissing or ridiculing the original poster or their candidate is a bash.


Because bashing is extremely subjective in nature, all questions and criticism should be considered as valid unless reasonably demonstrated otherwise- even if the original poster has been guilty of bashing in the past. The original poster should always begin with the benefit of the doubt. The criticism is the target, not the poster.

--

Again, I am not claiming to be an authority here, and I've certainly done my share of bashing. These rules are incomplete and by no means fully fleshed out, but in general, this is what I've decided to try to abide by- with the key theme being respect. Please take them for what they're worth. Peace.

:-)