IMPORTANT: “Criticism” that starts with “All *…” or is obviously insulting, or defaming beyond verified facts is excluded.
You might be thinking “no shit, Sherlock”, but it is really common that legitimate criticism is dismissed as anti-* or *-phobic, or because of political or religious ideology.
Where exactly do I say this? Why are you adding extra meaning to my words?
I’m not adding any additional meaning. As I explained, nobody says, “My group is above criticism” but what they say is, “The criticisms against my group are nonfactual and/or disrespectful.” Everyone agrees with the principle you’ve said, but that principle is completely meaningless because any perspective that wants to shut down criticism will just say that it’s nonfactual or disrespectful.
If you just think critically about it and break down what your statement actually means, it’s just “I agree with criticism I agree with.” I don’t really know what more I can say to explain that, it seems very straightforward to me. From your other comments, you talk about people criticizing major religions, well, suppose someone from a major religion says, “I agree, and also, I think such and such criticism is disrespectful.” Maybe you don’t think it’s disrespectful. Maybe they make a criticism about you that they don’t find disrespectful, but you do. Who determines which criticisms meet the criteria of factual and respectful? Everyone can accept your standard and carry on exactly as they were, simply saying that the criticism they agree with meet the standard and the criticisms they disagree with don’t. It’s pretty meaningless.
Are you often finding yourself in situations where people aren’t disputing facts and norms, but just whether, in principle, legitimate criticism should be said at all? Can you give me an example?
You are claiming to not add extra meaning and then proceed to do it again, probably to derail the argument towards something that can be more easily attacked. Let’s just agree to disagree, because this is going nowhere.
The problem is that you see people dismissing criticism and think it’s a disagreement of principle when in fact they hold the same principle and disagree on what does or does not meet the agreed upon criteria.
I haven’t added any extra meaning at all, nor is there any attempt to “derail” the conversation. You’re attacking something that nobody actually believes.
See, like, I see my criticism as factual and respectful, and you disagree. You don’t think it’s factual because you disagree with my analysis. Virtually all disagreements about what criticism is valid are like that.