call them "netizens" if you find them agreeable. call them "keyboard warriors" if you don't.
it is hard to disprove that sans legal processes like a census or an election, these same opinions can and should always matter. the method or means of communicating a certain position on certain matters does not devalue someone's position.
let's consider the term "armchair generals". this is one of the more popular ways for someone to call another person out when there is a disagreement online. the accuser (or one who uses the term to describe the other) usually does so, in an effort to taunt the other. it's like saying the other person's only way of contributing to society as a whole is his words and can never back it up with action.
personally, i find this approach sleazy, unfair and a symptom of someone who's basically given up winning an argument or discussion. in parallel, it's challenging a fistfight knowing you could not outargue a person.
definitely, not the smartest thing to type, no matter how your fists (or fingers for that matter) might say otherwise.
keyboard warriors accusing others of being keyboard warriors as well.
but again, "armchair generals". is there anything wrong with playing one's opinion up online? again, on the flipside, is there anything wrong with putting your opinion out offline, like a magazine or newspaper?
and dare i ask, "is there anything wrong, then, with the whole democratic election process since we decide and do vote upon an armchair?"
simply said, calling someone a keyboard warrior doesn't make you any less of one. so, get off your self-imposed pedestal.
my say is this; stop taking the weaker position of labeling people and start addressing their opinions head-on. though i cannot say for certain, if jose rizal were alive today, i'd consider him to be one of the greatest armchair generals. he would've undoubtedly taken advantage of the reach of social media in order to express his opinions.
