Intent is important but it does not diminish the validity of a particular question. For instance:
If a hater asks: “hey, where did the cash go?
It may be asked in bad faith but if there hasn’t been an actual accounting of the cash then it is a valid question even if from a flawed individual. What you’re advocating is that we engage in logical fallacies (ad hominem) to invalidate the question BASED ON characteristics of the enquirer. With this type of logic, if someone doesn’t want to answer a question all they have to do is question the motive of the enquirer.
”I want to ask Bernie Madoff how he’s getting such large returns?”
”I question your intentions in even asking that, he has done so much…he’s help the Rothsteins quadruple their business”
This is the logic you’re advocating and it would have worked perfectly to protect someone like Bernie Madoff. Orange cap guy could be the biggest hating ass nigga in the world but for real…how the hell is Bernie getting those returns??? That’s a valid ass question.
Once again this is operating with logical fallacies being the default method of thinking and I don’t subscribe to that. There’s many people who hate me but I can separate their question from their intention. A hater can ask:
Inquiry 1: ”Hey are you funded by Europeans?” <-Valid Inquiry from a hater
Inquiry 2: ”Y’all funded by Europeans I can tell by how you run it”. <-Hater just hating
It is easy to see the difference between the two via logic but I understand how the appear exactly the same via dogma. Because with dogma any inquiry is heretical therefore the nuance is irrelevant. You see, I see a difference between:
”Youtuber A is a grifter” and “Hey is Youtuber A spending the money according to the plan?’”
First one is a hater comment, second is not.
I have no issue distinguishing between the two at all which I have demonstrated. You may not agree with me but my ideology is unified and consistent across the board. There are no double standards I have to try to rationalize to remain consistent. I don’t say there are rules and then try to justify why some people have to follow them and others don’t.
The issue here is not one of different morality or lack of understanding of the ecology. The issue IMO is that I don’t believe that there is anyone special. I loooooooooove Malcolm X but he was dead wrong for talking about the NOI on White TV in my eyes. My love for Malcolm X does not hinder my ability to hold him to the same standard I hold myself and others to.
