I think not knowing is a better framework from which to work with to work out a neutral way to address misdeeds. We should not take sides and should be impartial when making these decisions (goose/gander).
Person A tackles person B to the ground and holds them there against their will. Is that morally acceptable? There's no way to tell.
If A is B's estranged ex-husband and is upset that she hasn't returned his calls, most people would say it's unacceptable behavior. If A is a bystander to a knife attack by B on London bridge, most people would (and did) say that it is justified.
When we make out laws they should be impartial and not put the thumb on the scale when writing them.
We don’t say, it’s illegal to commit theft, well, unless you’re the government or the judge, then it’s okay because we know you must have good intentions.
It shouldn’t be like: oh it was Joe the grocer, yeah he’s okay, let ‘im go. Vs, oh it was Ernie the latrine digger, he always makes my skin crawl; throw the book at him!
Even if both antivaxxers and doctors have opinions on if people should get vaccinated it would be insane to treat them equally.
That’s not her job. She’s not there to suss out truth or even narrative. We’re all there for community chit chat.
The WHO and the CDC have changed their minds over and over. Yeah, I get it -things change. Exactly, what's true today may not be true tomorrow and that is the point. People should be able to have a discussion.
The problem with third parties passing judgement is that they often lack full context.
Any system is going to be imperfect. The question is, is it better than things currently are?
I fully agree with you that when judging a specific occurrence, the context is really important. Judging completely without context, on the other hand, is good way to know whether the action is something morally acceptable.
In this case, the 'goodness' of the action clearly depends on whether you like the target. So I'd argue that this really is not a good thing in general. It's slightly worse if it hits the 'good guys' and slightly better if it hits the 'bad guys', but it's not good either way.