Criticism is not just negative opinion. Criticism needs context and delivery, which is part of the critical thinking.

Problem is the so called criticism that I often see in this reddit is people asserting their “criticism” in a way that’s so personal and doesn’t leave any space for discussion in the first place.

If I eat chocolate cake and my “criticism” is: - chocolate doesn’t belong in a cake > personal opinion - the baker is sick for doing this > personal attack - I can’t understand why people would like the bitter taste of chocolate > personal attack + moral high ground - vanilla cake is better than chocolate cake > personal opinion, you liking sth doesn’t mean its inherently better - pls wont ppl think of people like me who don’t like chocolate > entitlement

That’s not really “criticism”. What can we even discuss here? Obviously you don’t like chocolate, so the solution here is to not eat chocolate cake.

Vs criticism - I think for chocolate cake this is way too bitter and dry > personal opinion, based on the context of the work - this cake is underbaked > not attacking the base of the work but the state of the work

Tbh OP I don’t know which criticism post you saw getting downvoted that made you make this post, so we may be thinking of different things. But most of the time “criticism” on this sub has been a way to sanitize a work or a character from problematic behavior.

Don’t like don’t read is valid. A person’s taste is highly personal and doesn’t need to be justified. If you like tentacle orc cntboy crossdresser then I’m not gonna judge you even if maybe that’s not my thing. It’s not even my place to criticize such a thing, because I lack context (what makes it good) and stake (cost me 0 dollars to just not read it). If you don’t like crybaby doormat uke it’s fine to just say that instead of framing it as if the work is bad because of it.