Some have a right to criticize others' projects and ventures.
Some have the right to accuse others of destroying, tainting or attacking something like poetry.
Some have the right to question things like ethics and motivations.
Some have the right to be scathing.
Those who defend the criticized are sycophants, toadies, opportunists or moral relativists.
Those who defend friends or people who helped them are themselves tainted.
Unless the tables are turned.
Those who create their reputations from outspokenly criticizing the projects, ventures, ethics and motivations of others are immune from such critiques on their own projects and ventures.
Because they are ethical whereas others are . . .
Those who self-create their role of authority on a particular subject are not open to the same criticism as other "authorities" and "culture capitalists."
Because they created their own authority, through their own hard work and dedication, whereas the others were born to poet princes and verse-y gumdrop fairies.
Those born into poetry wealth wear magic rings that others have to kiss to gain consideration.
Whereas the ethicals charge very reasonable rates.
Some people's intentions are pure and others' intentions are corrupt.
Some people's ventures are a service and not open to debate or criticism.
Some ethicals are very good at squelching dissent.
Some ethicals might be considered to be downright intimidating to those without easy access to lawyers.
Dissent and criticism are for the ethicals, not for all.
In this world some are pig farmers.
Some are pig fuckers.
Some eschew pork all together.
Some stick strange objects in their orificies.
Others just like to think about it.
God bless all of them!
Those who share and pass on unfair criticisms for discussion and debate are trouble-making flame fanners.
Whereas those who share the righteous criticisms are helping get the word out about unscrupulous behavior.
Sometimes it's difficult to be clear on who is who.
Other times, not so difficult.