We, human beings, more or less feel pain when both criticized and insulted.
Some people say “you should ignore them.” But, that really means “you should be patient.” The fact remains that we are stressed by them.
If you didn’t feel anything, you would not even make the judgement to ignore them.
Above all, I think criticism should be respected as much as possible and insults should be despised to the maximum extent.
What is the difference between those two concepts?
I think that it depends on whether or not the action is in range of collaborative activity, given for the same purpose as the recipient.
In other words, criticism is to make a constructive suggestion for better consensus and better decision-making.
In that sense, the idea serves as the foundation of democracy.
On the other hand, insults are only to hurt and offend someone, in my opinion.
Some of the insults are only for amusement, and others are for attacking the recipient’s reputation.
However, it is almost impossible to decide rigorously whether the statement fits with criticism or an insult.
In many cases, it has the both two factors, criticism and insults.
There is a seemingly gentle criticism intended to bring discredit on someone’s name. There also is the insult that only the speaker believes is a criticism.
Especially, on the internet space that includes diverse range of faceless people, there is a tremendous possibility of misunderstanding and its cycle.
When you publish statement that might be taken as an insult, counterattacks against it will be more acceptable socially, so you have to prepare to be revenged.
Even though you act anonymously, you could be identified personally through appropriate legal procedures.
In these social media days, fortunately or unfortunately, our voice could be widely spread and loudly amplified so easily.
A tweet of an unknown person may have power equal to the media, politicians, authors, and journalists.
Your words can change someone’s life and then change your life as a result.
“Words are a power, a sword.” The sentence seems more real today.
It may happen that when we are swinging the mattock on the yard, without realizing, we will be brought to a fighting arena and forced to grasp a sword.
Nameless farmers could end up being appointed as anonymous warriors irrespective of their wishes.
Among warriors in the Edo Period, Japan, merely because a warrior’s sheath touched another’s sheath, the one was often struck with the sword due to his rudeness.
The excessive way of reprisal must not be acceptable in this modern time, but you might say the norm arises from a sense of tension that they both daily have deadly devices.
Therefore, even today, if you publicly post insulting words toward someone, you need to be prepared for retaliation in the future.
Otherwise, you had better complain only to close people around you, not in public.
If you want to be in friendly rivalry with recipients, you should show the minimum politeness to avoid misunderstanding.
If you can’t agree with their dreams and ideas, just ignore them. I usually block them off.
If they are the essentially inevitable obstacles to achieve your dream, you may have no choice but to cut them with firm resolution.
Advances in technology make us connect with each other instantly and empowers individuals to have influence without help from organizations.
The sword in your hand (your comments in public) will pass its inherent physical limit and then it could be a rare noted sword or a evil sword or a two-edged blade.
When people get cornered in arguments on social media, bereft of ideas, they resort to unwarranted inexactitudes, believing people with empathic reasoning and unconditional positive regards for people have sold their thinking for bowls of porridge. The fact is that the truth can never be debunked where there is observable, tangible evidence. Unfortunately for shirty deriders masking as critics, I have tons of physical evidence backing my thoughts!
I bypass spinning yarns and doctoring anecdotes by constantly posting references through verifiable links. That is my honest style.
In a democracy, it must be accepted by politicians that they are fair game for balanced criticism. It does not, however, mean that unbridled licence should be provided for those who wish to pursue a seemingly covert agenda under the cover of so-called ‘analysis’.
The reality of modern life is that the spotlight of the media must always be focused on those in public life who fail to deliver on their responsibilities to all in our community.
However, with the power that the media exerts comes an equal responsibility to ensure that, if commentators are indulging in punditry, the least that can be expected of them is that their facts are correct.
Normally, I do not respond to criticism which lacks clarity in terms of the intellectual construct of the argument being articulated, however irrational.
However, in this instance, the criticism is so fundamentally flawed that the usual conferring of a fool’s pardon would be an insult to the readership of those who choose to express with verifiable references, their honest observations. They should be differentiated from the campaigns of calumny of shirty sore losers who shoot their cuffs at the slightest opportunity.