It is the notion of having some kind of standard for criticism of non-Theravada traditions or positions.
I personally like critique. I think it is fine and healthy for people to question things. And there should be nothing which is above and beyond criticism.
However, there is a difference between making a critique of something, and merely voicing dislike or displeasure at it. The former implies at least some attempt to understand the object of critique, some attempt to make a coherent argument about it and some attempt to ground that argument in meaningful evidence.
The latter is almost always grounded in a sentiment of aversion, and usually implies an attitude of hostility alongside a total unwillingness to genuinely engage with the object (being criticized).
I think this happens way too often here, and there is nothing wholesome or good about it unless one thinks that quantity of posts is more important than quality.
I doubt this will be adopted, but I think it should, if the quality of dialogue is to improve and the culture of DW is to shift from being antagonistic to mutually supportive.
I'm signing out for a year, so thanks to everyone for their contributions.
