Is it always good to be self-critical?

[Bullet Sniper]

As humans, it's always easy to criticize anyone that crosses swords with us and opposes what we believe in. But there are times where we reflect upon our own selves and realize that sometimes we're no better than our enemies in any rivalry, conflict, or argument. So we like to point out the flaws of our own side in order to better ourselves and know how to morally rise above our opponents. However there are times when we don't like it when one of our own is too overly self-critical about our side, especially in a political debate or any sort of moments that mark ideological differences between "us" and "them".

So let me ask you guys this: Do you think it's good for us to ALWAYS be self-critical to the extent that we never criticize our opponents, regardless of how wrong they really are? How do you feel about people who claim they are on the same side as you on certain issues, but always speak of your only side's flaws and never both to address the toxicity coming from the other side?

[ed2962]

It's good to be self reflective. If you want to improve on your situation, you need to be self aware.

[SquirrelMan]

I was gonna post a really long reply here, but then I realized it was too long and I didn't.

[Adam Allen]

It's good to at least try to be objective; only ever criticizing one "side" is not that, regardless of which is being torn down.

[Bullet Sniper]

It's good to at least try to be objective; only ever criticizing one "side" is not that, regardless of which is being torn down.

What kind of a person do you think the other guy is if all he does is criticize and rip on his own side?

[murderousjohnny]

Probably lack conviction and confidence in his belief (Probably due the contexts of whatever the topic is) would be my impression. Don't get me wrong modesty is extremely important since any idiot can have conviction but balance is needed I guess. Also you can't really generalize. Mayby/hypotheticaly the guy has a good reason to act that way so it depends. Emphasis on depends. But my intial impression would be lack of conviction or confidence in views until I heard him talk more since he might actually have an worthwhile point or reason. It's normal imo. A decent amount of people probably subscribe to that look at yourself before others world mentality. Also dividng up into sides is stupid. It only seems like he is arguing with his own side if you frame it that way. Really it'd just be a guy a disagreeing with another guy who happen to share semi-similar belief I guess. This whole thing is just super hypothetical.

[Sharkerbob]

Do you think it's good for us to ALWAYS be self-critical to the extent that we never criticize our opponents?

At that point, I'm pretty sure you've become the opponent.

[Adam Allen]

What kind of a person do you think the other guy is if all he does is criticize and rip on his own side?

That's such a broad question it is kind of hard to answer. I feel like I would look less at what kind of person the other guy is, and more at what the effect of his or her actions are. You know ... a real friend isn't going to always agree with you, and some time or other they might hurt your feelings or make you angry, but at balance you should be more happy with them than unhappy, and their honest opinion should be more helpful to you than harmful.

So, if there is someone whose actions are mostly more critical than constructive ... I feel like the question is less why they are like that, and more what am I going to do with what they give me. They may or may not change, but in the end, all you can really control is you.

[Bullet Sniper]

That's such a broad question it is kind of hard to answer. I feel like I would look less at what kind of person the other guy is, and more at what the effect of his or her actions are. You know ... a real friend isn't going to always agree with you, and some time or other they might hurt your feelings or make you angry, but at balance you should be more happy with them than unhappy, and their honest opinion should be more helpful to you than harmful.

So, if there is someone whose actions are mostly more critical than constructive ... I feel like the question is less why they are like that, and more what am I going to do with what they give me. They may or may not change, but in the end, all you can really control is you.

My emphasis is on someone "on your side" never seeming to criticize or speak against the opposition much, when that's what debates are all about.

[Adam Allen]

Someone who only ever attacks isn't really on your side, even if they say they are.

[Bullet Sniper]

Someone who only ever attacks isn't really on your side, even if they say they are.

Yeah good point.