If we criticize a way of democracy that is not in accordance with existing rules.
If we criticize a system that sometimes discriminates against other people.

Continue to answer, don't baper, don't move!
Is that criticism a form of rule? ...
is the criticism a form of sulky person? ...

who actually baper who? ...
Who's sulking? ...

Criticism is a form of concern, not rule or the form of sulking people.

Then why does the critic say it is baper, or sulking.
The word baper to divert focus so that people are not fixated in the context of criticism presented.

1. Because the word baper is more trendy and easily attracts attention so it can cover the substance of a problem.

2. The word sulky can infuse the mainset that the critic is someone who is whiny and does not need to be heard.

When do point 1 and 2 occur, when the word baper and sulk continues to be repeated.

With So the criticism that was made, as if making it up. So that indirectly, the wrong is no longer the system that exists but the critic.

Why is that done, because criticism that cannot or cannot be answered with a solution will drop leadership.
then to maintain the electability of existing leaders, it must bring down the personality of a critic.

In my opinion the baper is like that.

Please correct if my view is wrong