Where is a line drawn between constructive criticism and bullying?

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Vio, Oct 29, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. So I was scrolling through facebook yesterday and happened across a post by The Daily Dot about a tumblr/deviantart artist by the name of Zamii being repeatedly attacked and accused of atrocities such as fat shaming and homophobia. People have even gone so far as to be over critical of her artwork, with out being very constructive. Some people have gone so far as to openly state in comments that she is a shitty person who needs to die, or something along those lines. These negative comments have been so severe that she actually attempted suicide, but was unsuccessful. This has garnered so much attention that even the staff team for steven universe (the show Zamii typically centers her fan art around) as even addressed the issue stating that they believe that people should be able to draw whatever they want and freely express themselves. This comment created such a negative back lash that the fans have turned against the steven universe crew, and began attacking Rebecca Sugar's previous works.

    If you wish to read the entire article it is here: 'Steven Universe' fandom is melting down after bullied fanartist attempts suicide

    So I know there are a lot of steven universe fans, artists, and "critics" here on iwaku so i figure a lot of you have some sort of opinion on this article or anything relating to the topic.

    I would like to to note that this isn't supposed to encourage a debate. If you want to argue over a subject please take it to a private message. I am merely trying to encourage some critical thinking and hoping you guys will like to share your opinions.

    Questions to note

    As stated in the title; is there a line between constructive criticism and bullying? What do you think it is?

    What exactly IS constructive criticism? A lot of people seem to have different ideas regarding what is constructive and what is not.

    Should people be allowed to express themselves freely or is certain aspects of fanart unacceptable? What is and isn't acceptable then?

    if you have questions yourself to add please feel free! :D
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Where it's addressing the individual instead of the action or argument taking place.
    The way I generally view it (morally, not linguisticly) is constructive criticism is the critique of one's arguments, actions or ideas.
    And it's done with the purpose/intent to help the other person, even if the delivery may come across as rather cold, rude or calculating.

    If such critique is done but isn't done with positive intentions?
    Then it's basically just critique (not positive critique, just critique), the person is talking about the actions being done, and their opinion on it.

    Where it changes from that to bullying is where the focus changes to the individual.
    If people start going after the individuals character, that's when it's bullying.
    Because at that point you're not challenging ideas, you're not calling out a bad behaviour but you're knocking another individual down for your own personal satisfaction.
    People should be allowed to express themselves freely.

    If people don't want to view the fan art then honestly just don't view it.
    Now, that's easier said than done in cases like the fan art is done under a innocent looking link, but that becomes an issue of the posters ill intent of deception and not the fan art itself.
    #2 Gwazi Magnum, Oct 29, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
  3. 1. The line is between the artist and their work. Example:

    Constructive: I think you used too much of the same hue of blue. You should try to use other colors to compliment it, like purple, blue-green, or lighter and darker shades of blue.

    Bullying: You're a really pathetic artist. Anyone who has two braincells to rub together would know you used too much blue. What did you do, spill the can on the canvas and call it art? You should probably give up painting.

    2. Constructive criticism is feedback that isn't positive, but helpful, and provides tips to improve a work, or focuses on the flaws of an artwork so that they can be improved.

    3. Are you meaning, what is okay for an artist to produce (as fanwork)? Theoretically, anything is fine, as long as the artist isn't meaning to be distasteful, or insult the creator of the original work with their own. It would obviously not be okay to try to make money off of fan work without the consent of the original creator either, but, I am not sure about the laws pertaining to that.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Constructive criticism means you critique with the intent to have your comments help show new insights or better someone's understanding of familiar ones. Typically, it is aimed at someone's work. You can constructively criticize someone's behaviour, though it is a much trickier business for obvious reasons. Still, should you do so, your intent should be to provide this person insights and tools to better their selves.

    Now it is possible a person is harsh or even rude in their critique. Whether this is acceptable or not is a discussion I'd rather not get into. However, where the line is drawn is that constructive criticism is intended to the receiver's benefit. Clearly, telling someone they should die is not constructive criticism and blanket statements accusing someone of homophobia is neither.

    See, I've been reading into the article and it links all the screencaps of the reported 'problematic' behaviour. Now there's three categories I feel pushing this in.
    1. Actual shitty statements. I don't want to go over all of it because, let's face it, we've heard enough about transphobia in a certain other topic. The artist did talk some shit Iwaku woulda gotten on her back for. I'm more in favour of freedom of expression personally, but I can easily see how this can be interpret as harmful.
    2. Debatable shit. Reporting someone's artwork because you don't like it portrays paedophilia, while I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want to see it, is something I think is censoring artistic expression. I have nothing but contempt for anyone practising paedophilia. However, portraying it in digital art as has been done here is without victims. Kinda questionable, but that's art for ya.
    3. Harmless shit but please. I mean fatphobia? Cry harder. The usual tumblr things. Who cares if you draw a few lines closer together. Who cares if genderbend canon characters in your art? In my day we called that artistic license. I was hoping I was still living in my day.

    So honestly... I have mixed feelings about this. I do value artistic expression and while I do not like a number of statements made and see while others are very controversial, I would not censor them. At the other hand, we all know what happens when people get their soapboxes and start flinging shit at each other. So. Yeah. What do I think?

    It's clearly still fan-art. It's not parody or hate. It's not rule 34, which trust me if you google that with Steven Universe you'll probably want to stab your eyes out or are tempted to start a very out there libertine roleplay. Hey, I don't know what your kinks are, not judging. There doesn't seem to be any negative intent, just some very controversial expressions. And some not so controversial. But again. Tumblr.

    What I do think though is, that people are misguided in that they think they'll solve issues by making enemies, rather than making friends. It is easier and you get to feel better than everyone, sure. Get to act like the damn big hero and everything, but you're writing a narrative instead of solving a problem. One does not teach tolerance through intolerance. One does not make a world more accepting by being offended by proxy. Outrage is not the solution. Understanding is and sometimes compromise. I make a lot of jokes about this shit, I know, but honestly. I fear for the future.
    #4 Kestrel, Oct 29, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  5. It's simple.

    Had the artist said that they'd like critique?

    Go for it.

    Has the artist said they don't want critique?

    Shut it.

    Has the artist asked for critique, but then asks you to stop?

    • Like Like x 6
    • Thank Thank x 1
  6. There is no line nowadays. People will give their opinion on something whether you want them to or not. They don't distinguish between art and artist because, hey, it's the Web!

    Also, tumblr eating cannibalizing its own? Nothing new there.

    Otherwise, it's been addressed. Don't just criticize. Tell them what you liked, not just what you disliked.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. It is drawn somewhere after you go into Destructive Criticism territory.

    But people are of the mind that they have every right to be an asshole these days.

    When you are criticizing something, consider this:
    1) Does the artist respond well to criticism?
    2) When criticizing, do you see something glaringly obvious, or something subtle. If its the former, check if others already adressed it. hammering away at something obvious will give the artist no benefit.
    3) Keep a civil tone, treat the artist with respect. A good lead in could be "If I may... " or "Could I just perhaps point out"
    4) Please respect a artists wish for you to stop. I know it is on the internet. But It isn't your place to overstep clear boundaries put up by others regarding their work.

    Edit: Meanwhile. Another fandom prove that fandoms in general are tribal and terrible things that wage war with ideals they they handily forget so they can read pornfics of their favorite characters.

    Edit 2: Anyone is fucking allowed to make whatever fanart they want. That is kind of the fucking point. FANart. See; Every crackfic where people take artistic liberties to get characters to fuck their archnemesis and act out of charachter.
    #7 Hellis, Oct 29, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Tangential

    Oh social justice warriors... It never ends... But oh my, is it ever so hilarious to see them cannibalizing everything and everyone around them. Seriously, they're the only group I've ever seen that would en masse bully people for things that are "problematic" or which constitute as "microaggressions." The best part is, they're so disconnected from reality, that they'll never feel any shame for trying to convince people to commit suicide over drawings on the Internet.

    If there's ever been a reason for why most TV shows avoid the diversity discussion or portrayals altogether, it's because of this. You will never satisfy these people. They could light the entire world on fire, and still not be satisfied. They could turn everyone into grey, amorphous blobs, with no distinct characteristics, and they'd still take offense. Somehow. It's their entire modus operandi. The only solution for these people, is to just ignore all of them. You can't ever win, and they'll never stop harassing you. They'll never take responsibility for their actions, and if they cause you to commit suicide, they'll piss on your grave and declare it a victory in the name of diversity.

    Fuck these people. Fuck every single of them. Fuck em' all for poisoning otherwise egalitarian social movements by hijacking them and posting nonstop whiny bullshit because the vast majority of them grew up upper middle class without a care in the world. When people mock social justice warriors, these are exactly the people they're talking about.

    Best part is, just mentioning that it's only SJW's who use terms like "problematic" and "microaggressions", and pointing out that they're a horde of bullies who pick on everyone who refuses to conform to their interests... Hell, just pointing out that the majority of their targets are individual people who no capacity to defend themselves, because they're "brave" in attacking random fan artists on the Internet, will get me called a racist. A bigot. A sexist. Numerous other, terrible things.

    Watch as absolutely fucking nothing gets done in the aftermath of this because they're going to use "diversity" as their bulletproof shield to harassing random people. This frustrates me, but at the end of the day, all I can do is shrug and laugh at the hypocrisy and hysteria. If I'm a "Nazi apologist" or something equally absurd, they're literally the incarnation of Satan. Just throwing that out there.

    Constructive criticism is pointing out someone's work, and noting how it can be improved. That latter part is important. If you just say "this sux lol" that's not constructive. Constructive is "I would have preferred to see less eyeliner, as that doesn't really reflect what I think of the character." Or... "The shading could use a bit of work, here's a tutorial about it."

    My guides are technically constructive criticisms of bad habits. I don't just go "LOL GODMODERS SUX", I point out why it doesn't work, and how to avoid it. Which is what constructive criticism is: Pointing out something you don't like, and pointing out how to improve it. If you don't know how to improve it, be honest about that and make sure you mention it's entirely your opinion. After all, if you don't have the skill to do something, don't pretend to know how it can be done. :ferret:
    Same as above.
    People should be allowed to produce whatever content they wish. (Except child porn. For obvious reasons.) Fantasies allow us to explore whatever aspects of ourselves we can't in real life. They're a release for otherwise terrible thoughts, for instance. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of expression--these are all vital to the survival of our modern societies as a whole. Without them, we'll slip back into whatever ideological dictatorship happens to be more prevalent at the time. This both defends the rights of people who want to create, and people who want to criticize.

    That being said, there is a way around it. Private property laws allow you to vet and establish any rules you like, save in cases where it strips someone of their fundamental rights. (Ex: You can't turn someone into a slave just because they browsed your website.) However, you are allowed to dictate what content is and is not acceptable. In the same way that movies and games have a rating system for what content can be acceptably portrayed on screen, private site owners for art websites can set their own rules about what content is and is not appropriate for their website. Like DeviantART does not allow gore porn, last I checked. That doesn't invalidate the right of someone to draw that nasty shit if they want, that just prevents them from posting it on DeviantART.

    So you can create vetted, safe spaces if you want. If you don't want criticism on your works, the only way to do that is to lock your comments section. If you can't do that, ignore the comments section. Posting things out in the public for the public to see means that you've thrown away any "right" to a safe space you could have asked for. The same rights that defend your ability to produce whatever fanfiction you want, also defend the right of commentators to state whatever they want, even if it's hateful and disgusting. The only way to abridge this is to have the site's owners themselves create report tools (ala, Iwaku's report button) so you can get rid of people who spam terrible, awful, disgusting things.

    No matter what though, hateful, disgusting people are part of life. You can't avoid them. The number of times I've had people declare my role plays to be garbage has stretched on for about as long as I've been role playing. I can report them (though normally I don't because it's usually hilarious to read), but I can't preemptively silence them.

    This fan fiction author deserves a hell of a lot of sympathy and her "critics" (hatemongerers) deserve to be publicly flayed for their nasty, endless, petty shit. However, that's up to the owner of the website to crack down on. I can't do that, and I wouldn't abridge everyone's human rights because of the actions of a select few pieces of garbage.
    #8 Brovo, Oct 29, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
    • Love Love x 2
  9. There's not exactly a line, more like a grey area between those two things that can make it hard to call. The determining factors are twofold: what purpose does the message serve and does the person it is directed at actually want your criticism?

    If the message you're sending is meant to just insult a person or their work then it has become bullying and is clearly beyond that grey area. If it's very insulting but also has some constructive advice then it's in the grey area and it's hard to call. If there are no actual insults to the work or creator then it's probably just constructive criticism.

    If a person specifically requests critiques then sending one to them isn't going to count as bullying unless it's just straight insults. If they haven't made a specific stance on critiques clear then you're in the grey area. If they specifically ask that people don't critique their work, or ask that they stop after having previously fit in one of the other categories, then someone going ahead and criticizing their work could be construed as harassment which is a kind of bullying.
    Constructive criticism is telling people what you find to be both positive and negative about something and offering suggestions as to how it could be improved. It should also be done in a friendly or instructive tone rather than a berating or angry one, otherwise you're gonna seem like you're just being a dick rather than trying to help. That, by the way, is the heart of constructive criticism: trying to help by offering your suggestions for improvement. If your intent is to make someone feel bad or to make yourself feel better by ranting about how shitty something is or so on then it's not constructive criticism, it's just you being a dick.
    Almost 100% freedom of expression should be allowed in fan art (and most other things in life really), because fuck censorship of all kinds. The reason for that qualifier of "almost" is because certain things shouldn't be allowed for very sound reasons: inciting crime shouldn't be allowed (such as someone drawing a cartoon character saying people should go out and murder all Mexicans, for instance), nor should libel or slander... and those are pretty much it actually. Those two exceptions are mainly just because they could cause actual quantifiable harm to other people, meaning more than just people getting butthurt about it.

    Everything else is up for grabs and thus acceptable in my opinion. Include whatever bigotry you like, even aim to piss off the political correctness crowd if you like, it's all good. So long as the art is not causing real harm then anything goes, and anyone who tries to shame others for drawing whatever they like is a dick.

    EDIT: Oh, and I should clarify something: that freedom of expression goes both way. People should be able to draw whatever they want, but others should also be allowed to tell them that their work is a pile of shit so long as they don't cross over into actual harassment territory because harassment is illegal and bad. If someone wants to write a 5 page long explanation of why some piece of art is garbage and the views apparently expressed therein are sickening, cool, go for it, freedom expression bruh.
    #9 Jorick, Oct 29, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
    • Love Love x 1
  10. Constructive criticism is not meant to be offensive. It's simply giving someone pointers on how they can improve something in a polite way.

    Bullying is meant to be hurtful, insulting, and rude.


    My husband locked his keys in his truck. I giggled at him a bit, and told him he needed to stop stressing himself out about everything to keep his head straight.

    My neighbor's husband locked his keys in his truck. My neighbor's response: "You're the stupidest mother fucker alive! I swear to got you're a fucking idiot!"

    It's kind of easy to see what's bullying and what's not.
  11. The line is when one is no longer criticizing in a constructive fashion and instead starts threatening, attacking or worse while trying to force someone to do what is wanted.

    When I think of constructive criticism I normally think its very definition.

    "Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. The purpose of constructive criticism is to improve the outcome."

    While on the other hand I think of bullying I normally think of multiple articles and governmental sites that address issues on it. In specifically 'Stopbullying.gov', which specifically states some of my own personal experiences and beliefs of bullying. While bullying is mostly associated with kids, it does happen in many other places and in truth is basically an "unwanted, aggressive display that is created through a perceived or real 'power imbalance'" and in all honesty is no different than a form of harassment, abuse, and at times assault.

    When we stop constructively criticizing a piece of work by offering valid points or opinions that are stated through a more positive or neutral manor and instead attack someone verbally, harass them, threaten them and more we have long since crossed the line of constructive criticism and instead delved deep into the sad pit of bullying.

    Of course some good extra tip to follow when it comes to constructive criticism is that, if the artist of the work you are criticizing states very clearly that they do not want any for of constructive criticism, or if you are ever asked to please stop posting/stating or w/e your constructive criticism, out of respect it is a good idea to accept the artist's wishes and stop, otherwise you may actually be pushing relatively close to the lines of bullying in itself even if that was not your initial goal.

    AKA: Just be fucking respectful and a decent human being.

    ^Exact quote of what I just said above.

    For the first question. The answer is literally "both".

    The reason for this answer is because every man, woman, child or pig should have the right to express themselves, however there will always be aspects of ANY art, in ANY genre that will be deemed completely unacceptable in society. Even so everyone should be free to express themselves but they should well know the consequences for when they do create a work of art that was made with an offensive mindset and that is already well known to be offensive due to how socially unacceptable it is by the modern standards of the time.

    The KKK are allowed to draw very offensive pictures of black hanging or in slavery, a Nazi is allowed to write books about how to "properly cook your Jews", West Baptist church can create as many songs about how 'them gays' will go to hell and a pig is allowed to create a movie about women going back to the kitchen. But if they do that than they better damn well know that they're going to offend almost everyone and will get a TON of (well deserved) hate for it.

    Of course, those are the utmost extreme of examples and all those 'arts', if ever made spread hate and thus will receive hate for them. Extreme things like these are where it is both unacceptable yet still.... sadly... are people who do deserve the exact same rights as everyone else. This includes the right to express themselves through all forms of art. (though this does not mean that their arts will be supported.)

    With that said, another point does need to be brought up. There have been a LOT of things that were once socially unacceptable that are now acceptable, and there will always be socially unacceptable things. In truth art is a risk and will always be such. People may like it, and people may hate it. However, like many art mediums in the past, art will always push the boundaries, for better or worse and at times will offend people greatly to a very extreme, near bullying extent. This is a GOOD thing for if we made it to where people can not express their arts due to it being socially unacceptable, we would never truly progress like we do.

    So while art will at times be deemed VERY unacceptable, consider it a good thing that we can express ourselves, even if the majority dislikes what is being expressed in it. A perfect example of controversial art would be the Civil Rights Movement and the many Artistic Masterpieces made in that era that helped the movement considerably through pushing the artistic boundaries that may have once offended quite a lot of people due to the social norm back then.
    #11 Drakel, Oct 29, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
    • Love Love x 1
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Everyone already said all the smart person things I would have said.

    So I will just sit here and shake my head sadly at the crazyass people on tumblr that have completely lost their goddamned minds. @_____@
    • Like Like x 6
  14. Ohhhhhh God. I heard about this. This isn't even new, really - or, well, this particular instance is new (especially with the actual show creators getting involved...), but, this has honestly been a huge problem in the fandom for a while now that I always thought reeked of bullshit, but it wasn't until now that it's become clear just how awful this whole thing is.

    Everyone else has already said pretty much anything I could say on the constructive criticism vs bullying point, so I won't go more into that, but, as a fan of the show who's been watching this sort of thing unfold for a while, I'd like to share a bit more background on this whole thing and explain why it's even worse than the article makes it out to be:

    One thing that a lot of people admire about Steven Universe is the representation in it. There are lots of non-white characters, fat characters who are still portrayed as beautiful or strong and whose fatness isn't just a joke, canon LGBT+ characters, and most of the main characters are female and well-written ones at that. Honestly, I'm legitimately impressed at how well the writers can put together such a diverse cast without any of it feeling forced, and the way that they can pull off this sort of representation so naturally and while still giving us well-written and interesting characters is one of the reasons why people who like that sort of thing tend to really value the show, especially since it is a kids' show, and, yeah, I can see why people would be happy about normalizing these things to young audiences. So, at the very least, I can understand why people might get a bit touchy about examples of representation in this show in particular.

    That's not to say I condone any of what's going on, however.

    Because, see, here's the thing: because people value the well-executed representation in the show, it seems that any piece of fanart that doesn't also respect that same representation is then interpreted as being against not only that character belonging to that group, but then also any representation of that group, and, therefore, that entire group in general. Which is why drawing Rose Quartz skinny makes one "fatphobic", why portraying a non-white character as white is seen as "racist", why genderbending one half of a canon gay pairing in order to make it a straight pairing is "homophobic", and why genderbending any admired female character in general is "sexist" -- because people see Rose as being symbolic of body positivity, LGBT+ characters in the show as being symbolic of gay pride, etc, and so, to erase those traits is seen as a statement against these movements that people care about.

    Hell, even before things had reached this level, I still remember seeing a lot of posts just off-handedly mentioning how awful it would be to draw Rose skinny or to portray Garnet as white, as if there isn't even anything up for debate -- it's sort of an understood "just don't" mentality. And you know what? I almost never saw any fanart like that, either, because of just how taboo it was.

    And even then I thought it was bullshit. You know why? Because if it were the other way around -- if people drew skinny characters as fat, or white characters as black, or straight characters as gay -- not just in SU but in fanart of any kind -- people would love it, or, at the very least, not see anything wrong with it. In fact, you know what it would be seen as? It would be seen as artists experimenting and going against the canon because they can and because it's fun. Hell, artists do that all the time just by portraying characters as cats or something -- artists like to have fun with this sort of thing and imagine what a character would look like if they were a different race, gender, etc. And the only reason it's a problem now is because, like I said, people are way too hung up on defending their favorite examples of minority representation, and take any attempt at erasing that representation as an attack on the entire movement or w/e.

    Which is stupid as all hell, not just for obvious reasons but also because it goes completely against what makes the representation in Steven Universe so good and highly-valued in the first place. For example, let's look at the canon gay couples in the show, which do a fantastic job at normalizing LGBT+ individuals because they don't draw attention to it. They don't act like it's anything special, and none of the other characters even point out the fact that two romantic partners are of the same gender. Instead, they're treated just like any straight couple would be. In other words, they're not given special treatment, which is not only a great approach to normalizing these things but also something that fans like these could learn a thing or two about.

    If they really want to act like they support this kind of thing -- seeing gay couples treated just the same as straight couples, and the inclusion of non-white and fat characters who don't feel like mere jokes or tokens but instead feel just as fleshed-out as any other character would be, then maybe it's time to stop treating fanart that portrays black characters as white any differently than one would treat fanart that portrays white characters as being black. Because, at that point, you're actively undoing everything that you supported about the beautifully-done representation in the show.

    ALSO, all of this is disregarding the fact that many of the characters in the show -- despite being designed in a way that would imply they're supposed to be interpreted as feminine and despite the fact that some of them are clearly supposed to be interpreted as certain races -- are still technically members of an alien species which isn't even divided into biological sexes and whose technicolored skin is in no way comparable to different races in humans when you actually look at it in the context of the canon so asjdkfldjsklfd....
    #14 Kagayours, Oct 29, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
    • Love Love x 6
    • Like Like x 2
  15. I will avoid being lengthy here since everything has really already been said.

    Constructive criticism aims to make something better. You deliver constructive criticism with the expectation that the person receiving it will take it to heart, understand that you truly mean to help them, and consider it. If they want to adjust themselves based on that criticism, that's their choice.

    Bullying only serves a sole purpose, not to improve but to tear down. It can be ruthless or it can be subtle, but it is NEVER intended to improve a person.
  16. It's not about equality. It is about the war. These persons fight for affirmation of the self. The so-called support is only a means to hold up a heroic narrative.

    And the ironic and at the same time very sad part, as kaga points out, is that the show normalises non-hetero relations. Tl;Dr nobody gives a fuck. Because when nobody cares there is no discrimination. This is the end goal. The horizon we should chase. But it will mean there is no more war to be fought. No more need for heroes. No more stages to make yourself one.

    This is hardly an isolated incident. As such I want everyone to understand the nature of it. There is a divide between equality and the fight for it that showcases a side of humanity that is as much a demon as it claims to be the enemies it fights.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Love Love x 1
  17. The difference between the two is that bullying is purely offensive and tends to persist while constructive criticism is used to help or suggest people better themselves.

    When creating fan art, I believe that people should be able to draw what they want as long as what they want isn't explicitly offensive like drawing a canonically Jewish person as a Nazi or something. If people want to draw Garnet or Amethyst ( Steven universe characters ) as skinny minis than more power to then. That's not fatphobia. If people want to ship Greg with Pearl, then that's not homophobia that's their fantasy.
  18. In my personal opinion, there is no line between constructive criticism and bullying, as they don't border.

    Constructive criticism consists of providing reasoned opinions on the work of others in an attempt to improve it, by suggesting what improvements could be made. I don't see how you can bully someone by trying to improve their work, as intended insults are not constructive at all. If someone feels harmed or offended by criticism, that's on them. In fact, "Offence is taken, never given." is a statement I uphold.

    Freedom of speech should remain as it is.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. And the winner is......
    • Like Like x 1

    I am almost afraid that this rabid side of the fandom might kill the show, which would SUCK. D: But I guess the Porny Bronies didn't kill My Little Pony, so I hope Steven is safe!
    • Love Love x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.