If a person makes a critical comment about another person, entity or group, it does not by default mean that person supports the enemy, direct rival, or random/pseudo-random alternative of any of them.
When someone has a history of hateful commentary; has expressed an unfair bias for something that exists within the context of those whom the person is criticising; when his latest commentary is blatantly hateful in and of itself, then it is understandable to make reactionary judgements about said person's comments and character.
But when the criticism is not unquestionably hateful, and when it is based in facts, or data a reasonably intelligent person would conclude as being factual, why should the critic have to endure the lectures of some others about the need for balance by proclaiming he has supposed responsibility to mention the failings of related persons, entities and groups? People have free speech rights (well, most should in a just world), so that defense can be made, but what logic says that if you criticise one thing you support whatever it is those judging you say, even though there are myriad things you could support instead, and even though your criticism is not irrational?
If someone makes a criticism about Christians, does that mean he is an atheist?
If someone criticizes women, does that mean he thinks men are without fault?
Please, explain why too many people, as in at least 1, reason this way; that you must be unfair, or hold a hateful opinion about something because you don't mention the bad behavior of others?
No comments:
Post a Comment