Criticizing in a vague way is precisely appropriate in a situation where you don't want to make the criticism specific to a single circumstance but are instead trying to make a broader point about a systemic issue.
If they don't, then it's completely unconvincing because it doesn't actually provide any new information.
So if the goal is to gripe to other people who "get it", then sure, vague criticisms are great.
If the goal is to convince people that something is an issue, then all vague criticisms do is establish what your opinion is; they fail to actually provide information that could (justifiably) convince anyone.
At best, they can convince someone to be interested enough to look into it on their own.
Do you also accept the "other side" of the argument that the author of the blog post could be wrong?
Perhaps, but only the author can confirm this.
I don't see where they made this claim, or a reference to a 'scientific standard'. Can you please point to it?
Feel free to have whatever preference you want, but understand that others may have different preferences from yours and they may have good reasons for those preferences that you simply are not aware of instead of assuming the worst of them.
>What you quoted doesn't say that either.
It absolutely does and the fact that you don't realize that is a good indication you are not discussing this matter in good faith so I thank you for choosing to cease discussing this any further.