There's two mindsets:

1) An emotional one. "Words impact emotions"

2) A logical one. "Study has issues 1, 2, and 3"

Both have places, but science must be in #2 to work at all. That is the point of science.

One of the critical parts of this mindset is separating criticism of work, quality of work, and the individual. Indeed, the more significant the science, the more it needs criticism. There is little (and probably even a negative) correlation between the quality of science and the quantity of criticism.

If I list out the limitations of your work in a blog post, that is not, should not, and cannot be read as a condemnation of your work, and especially not of you as an individual.

Indeed, generally, what that means is I took an interest in your work, found it compelling enough to do a deep dive, and I wrote a blog post because I'm trying to figure out next steps.

There is a pipeline from speculation to hypothesis to theory to fact, and it RELIES on people doing their best to invalidate a piece of work, understand methodological limitations, find alternative explanations, and otherwise poke holes. Once those holes are filled, and there are no more criticisms, you have trustworthy knowledge.

PLEASE attack my work (so long as you do it honestly and correctly; not unhinged emotional attacks). It makes my work better.