It's not a question of quibbling, what happened happened, and for me it was certainly positive in many ways, so as long as we examine the past critically, we might as well note the good points as well as the bad.
This seems like a pretty spurious point, because that's exactly what people typically do, in reality, u
nless the specific goal of an investigation differs from that.
I mean, seem to be attempting to covertly criticise, for example, the breakdown of two specific kinds of racism in GAZ10 that we saw a few weeks back. But that was a specific investigation with a specific goal. As noted at length in the thread, the author didn't even hit all the racism in GAZ10, because that wasn't the specific goal.
And if you're criticizing people for investigating products with specific goals, I'd say that's pretty silly, because equally plenty of other investigations have specific goals, like working out how to convert an adventure to 5E or whatever. If someone wants to pull out all the issues a product has, rather than consider it in the round, that's absolutely valid. That's a specific investigation. Equally, If someone wants to, say, just consider a specific class from a specific book, that's absolutely valid. The rational implication of your complaint is that it is not, that we must always consider things "in the round", no matter how wasteful that is.
To put it bluntly, taking this away from racism or the like, you're saying "You're not allowed to just say things I think are bad things, you should be forced to say things I think are nice things too!", and your justification for this demand appears to be "WELL I ENJOYED IT!!", which, okay... maybe you did... but that's not rational. That's like telling me I can't just burn Eternals for being a truly terrible movie because you liked it (apologies for implying you liked Eternals, it's just an example!).
And you're wrong to say we always have to do that. It's perfectly valid for me to just go through a product and point out things that are wrong. It's also valid to go through a product and consider all elements of it. For example, with Taladas, which I often talk about, I think that if you consider it in the round, it's broadly progressive, but it's also totally valid for someone to pick out a part of it and say "This anything but progressive" or "this is attempting to be progressive but is very misguided" or whatever.