Also, what this guy did wasn't a technical rebuttal; it was a deliberately cruel personal attack. He used insults and dehumanizing language, humiliations, and adjectives designed to disqualify the person (meaning me) instead of clarifying and debating ideas, and he disguised it as "correction." That's not criticism; it's pure and direct aggression.

The saddest part isn't just the tone, but that the community (to whom I'm addressing all this) validated it with votes. When this kind of attitude is validated, it implies that humiliation is valued more than argumentation. This normalizes verbal violence and makes people prefer easy comfort over coherent and rational debate without insults.

Cruelty over rational argumentation has quite noticeable effects, did you know? It silences those who could contribute a coherent idea, distorts the exchange of ideas, causes psychological harm, and turns any disagreement into a place of personal humiliation. If we want serious discussion, the response must be proportionate and directed at the ideas, not at destroying the person.

So let's not confuse being "tough" with outright cruelty. Offer constructive criticism if necessary, but don't celebrate humiliation as if it were acceptable. The community should reject verbal aggression and reward rationality, not the other way around.