We are actually very close to agreement here. I agree, it is an accusatory question.
Do you see how you've reduced the relevance of Sam's motivations to whether or not discussion of them is well grounded?
I'm simply saying that it is anyone's right to argue that a criticism is grounded, just as it's anyone's right to contest that criticism.
So it's fair for you to say "I don't think Sam's motivations are relevant" and then go on to engage discussion of what we all think Sam's motivations are and how that does or doesn't inform his actions. (Supposing, of course, that I had made a more thorough argument instead of alluding to a hypothetical starting point for one.)
But it's not fair to take this guideline and say "This is unacceptable because it is criticism," which is what jseliger did.
It is not the inflammatory nature of a comment that makes it acceptable or unacceptable. You're trying to set up a filter on what's acceptable that is affected by what you personally believe.
And when anyone in a position of power tries to set rules on discourse, we have every right to examine what that does to the shape of discourse.
Do you see how you've reduced the relevance of Sam's motivations to whether or not discussion of them is well grounded?
I'm simply saying that it is anyone's right to argue that a criticism is grounded, just as it's anyone's right to contest that criticism.
So it's fair for you to say "I don't think Sam's motivations are relevant" and then go on to engage discussion of what we all think Sam's motivations are and how that does or doesn't inform his actions. (Supposing, of course, that I had made a more thorough argument instead of alluding to a hypothetical starting point for one.)
But it's not fair to take this guideline and say "This is unacceptable because it is criticism," which is what jseliger did.
It is not the inflammatory nature of a comment that makes it acceptable or unacceptable. You're trying to set up a filter on what's acceptable that is affected by what you personally believe.
And when anyone in a position of power tries to set rules on discourse, we have every right to examine what that does to the shape of discourse.