Do you care whether what you say actually has a positive effect, or do you just say things just to have an opinion? If it's the latter, no arguing with you. But if it's the former, then you need to consider how the receiver is going to interpret it given their background and point of view. Many Chinese view the US call for democracy as hypocritical and ignorant. If you care about them truly listening to you then yes, it is a very good idea to consider what people from your general geographic area have done in the past. They are no fault of your own, but it's still your problem.

Let me put it this way. If Microsoft wants you to believe that they are no longer evil, they have to do more than simply having the latest CEO proclaim "I am not Bill Gates and what he did was not what I did".

This is a complicated matter. I guess one important fact to remember is that the western mainstream media is never fair. They ignore horrible countries backed by CIA etc., as long as they are strategic allies of the west, and many articles that criticize China reek of hypocrisy and double standards. Therefore such media can hardly appear convincing. Shortly put, their "criticisms" always have some hidden agenda behind it, and are not really objective pieces. The western government and media couldn't care less about how the normal Chinese actually live. They only care about their own interests. That's the problem.

On the other hand, if you're somebody like Chomsky, i.e. also see your own government for what it is and criticize its problems, then your arguments can be as fair and unbiased as possible. That is to say, they do not inherently have double standards or want to actually advance the interests of western countries, while trying to restrict the rise of China. You actually think in terms of the Chinese populace.

Unfortunately, it has become very hard to tell these things apart, i.e. a normal American probably gets a lot of their information from the mainstream media that they read every day, after all. Therefore it's very hard for their criticism to not be tainted by the hidden agenda propagated by the media. That is a big problem.

> Why should I not be allowed to criticize something that I don't like because of things that (...)

There is a very simple answer to that: because you won't sound convincing to the other side.

I agree with you from a moral point of view: just because your side did something wrong doesn't mean you can't criticize the wrongs of the other side. But from a practical point of view, your side probably already agrees with you, and the other side will just ignore you.