yes there are times to make comments if content is wrong or could harm but to just start to spew smack talk is just plain bad manners and unnecessary. Lack of manners and common courtesy is why there are so many conflicts. I would say there is too much time on peoples hands if that is the idea of good "sport" these days. Shame on you. People have committed suicide from comments that are of no help and are bullying. Is that your goal? Bravo.
I understand your point, and in large part agree - the idea of denigrating others as "sport" is uncouth and destructive overall. However, there are those who get involved within their own personal dramas and fantasy worlds to the extent that any broader picture is lost, and any attempt to challenge is seen as threat or "rude" or even racist. I run across that all the time. One can stand by and watch someone repeatedly hammer their thumb trying to drive a nail and experience pain and scream bad words, or one can have excellent manners and say "I'm sorry you did that, that must hurt." or one can attempt to teach how to hold the nail and hammer so the event doesn't recur. Many people get upset when it is suggested they might be holding a hammer incorrectly - especially if you have to metaphorically rip the hammer out of their hands to stop the cycle of destruction and allow them space to think.
I disagree strongly with your comment "Lack of manners and common courtesy is why there are so many conflicts." Historically, the primary purpose of "manners" was strict enforcement of social caste systems. Manners are generally based upon a "power over" stance rather than coming from
mutual respect and tolerance. The South was perhaps the epitome of manners and grace, and those attributes were part and parcel to segregation and the institutionalization of a servant class. Edwardian England used manners to strictly enforce a tight class and caste system to the disadvantage of all but a privileged few, who then had other burdens placed upon them. Manners can be horribly destructive.
Mutual respect and tolerance are the real underpinnings of existence with minimal conflict, and that lesson is usually lost in any society that tends to hold heroes and villains or take extreme pride in militaristic institutions.
"People have committed suicide..." Again, I see and more or less agree with your point, but it is nowhere near that simplistic a cause and effect. Many people are extremely vulnerable, for various reasons. A young person who finds his or herself ostracized from peers can be particularly ungrounded and unstable. Someone who has constructed a belief system that is at odds with objective reality can be at risk. A person who is distracted by personal conflicts may make poor judgments. It behooves us to make allowances and tread gently to allow these folks to reach more stable footing.
However, the idea that a visual or written communication "CAUSES" the suicide is incorrect. The underlying problem
within the person and the decision-making
within the person is the ultimate cause of the act.
It is important to keep that distinction both morally and legally. If you have ever known or interacted with a person who eventually committed suicide, in some way you have contributed to the event. It may have been unknowing, or it may have been a word or two at the wrong time and totally outside of your knowledge. However, you no more bear ultimate responsibility for the suicide than you bear the responsibility for the wealth of a friend who has somehow made excellent financial decisions. Both attributions are ego inflation.
Ultimately, it boils down to personal responsibility, which is core to both the moral and legal frameworks of any society that is even marginally civilized.