You shouldn't dismiss a criticism just because it's delivered rudely. At the same time, why deliver a criticism rudely? What does that gain over delivering it p

You shouldn't dismiss a criticism just because it's delivered rudely. At the same time, why deliver a criticism rudely? What does that gain over delivering it politely? Usually, if you're delivering a criticism, the intent is to inform the other party of some type of flaw that exists that you've observed or experienced. If you hope they fix that flaw, you're bound to get better results delivering the criticism politely than rudely ("you get more bees with honey than vinegar"). Sometimes you do have to deliver the information in a more abrasive fashion because you've painfully exhausted all polite approaches and the criticism has to be conveyed (usually because time sensitivity), but it should not be the first approach, it should be a last resort. Personally I argue that should only be done if there is a imminent danger of some sort (e.g. no, you're wrong the house will explode if we don't turn the gas off and put the fire out), otherwise you should simply agree to disagree before that point and try again another time or hope the other party may think about your argument more.