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.
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.