I read half of the article and when it said more and more of the same I skipped to the end to get the summary. And I don’t think that expecting negativity not to be lazy — to at least explain why it is plausible — leads so smarm. It rather leads to making it more likely that criticism is noticed that can help improve the status quo. Because that’s the non-lazy criticism, and it will then stand out.
If that non-lazy criticism is embedded in a sea of lazy criticism, it is far more likely to be missed, because those who could learn from it have already started to dismiss anything negative ten (20/100/1000/…) comments earlier; that’s how they could keep going in such an environment.
