> They aren't right, but I can understand the perspective.
How? I'm curious. If someone makes accusations that you know to be false, wouldn't your best defense be a comprehensive refutation?
What alternative do you see that would be more compelling?
I, for one, really appreciate this level of detail, because the most common alternative is to attack back mercilessly without evidence. This tactic being commonly employed by politicians the world over.
Most of the world's ills would be solved if facts and evidence were enough to convince people.
I get it too. But when things get to that stage, literally anything you do will be taken as proof of the same nefariousness, whether you sink or you float.
I think it makes more sense to focus on the much larger audience that's sincerely making up their mind, and give them good information with which to do it. Could I do that less defensively though? Absolutely. Not there yet.
They aren't right, but I can understand the perspective.