Does your dhukka require you to respond to valid criticism with the ad hominem logical fallacy?
Looks like criticism is your dhukka.

By the way: 'overly' you say? I am 'overly bothered by grammatical errors'? Really? What do you base that on? Is someone who points out a blatant grammatical mistake in your very first sentence (no less), 'overly bothered'? Or is this simply attacking me, the messenger, so you don't have to deal with valid criticism? It is clearly the latter. The well-known ad-hominem logical fallacy. Don't deal with the valid issue, try to paint the one who raised it as 'overly bothered'. It works. For a loud populace not overly adept to critical-thinking (the loudness is there to hide the lack of reason). If that is your target-audience, then, chapeau. But it can't be. Your argument is that to make the world a better place we must have more conversations. More listening. Less prejudice. Less bias. Less shouting.

More listening to criticism maybe?

If this error in your first sentence were the only one, you might have a point. A weak one because blatant errors in a first sentence, deserve to be shot down. After all: if the author can't be bothered to ensure that his first sentence is correct, what does that bode for the rest of the article?

Unfortunately for you, and for the reader, the blatant error in your very first sentence, is in fact the sign that more is to come. The article is riddled with grammatical mistakes. In fact, I believe that this is the article with the highest percentage of grammatical errors that I have read. It makes it, unnecessarily, one of the worst I have come across. Unnecessary, because with a little time and effort these errors are gone, and a higher quality, interesting article, delivered.

Accordingly, in my estimation, it is not me being 'overly bothered' with grammatical errors, but, seen your response, you being overly defensive, or, more precisely, being passive aggressive, in responding to valid criticism with an ad hominem. Again: criticism is your dhukka.

You may well feel that your writing does not need to follow the rules of grammar, that your readers wouldn't know grammar either, or that they don't deserve your time and effort for you to deliver clear and precise language, but, this appears to me, to be quite the opposite of the objective of someone lecturing us, in this very article, on the need for us all to improve our communications in order to create a better world.

Wouldn't dealing constructively with valid criticism ( instead of a knee-jerk ad-hominem reaction), and using agreed standards of communication (such as following the rules of grammar) be kind of foundational to that?

As you are the one teaching us about the need to improve our communications to overcome the ills of the world, how well do you feel did you perform in this conversation?

Did you start with empathy? Did you address the issue that was raised? Did you take responsibility? Did you do everything you could to ensure that we, and maybe some readers, learned something from this conversation? Did you analyze, or have someone review your article and report to you how many elementary mistakes there are? Did you take the criticism to heart and take action so that your future readers feel valued and the quality of your articles will improve? Or did you shoot the messenger?

I leave the above for you to ponder, ignore, throw logical fallacies at (ad hominem may not be used again) or take from it what you can.

Sincerely yours,
Mitch