I don't think your example is doing the work you think it is doing. Functionally it is doing something similar to what I am accounting for with the CCP, from th

I don't think your example is doing the work you think it is doing. Functionally it is doing something similar to what I am accounting for with the CCP, from the other end: "it's just my opinion man" is a hedge that attempts to reduce culpability for your statements and "feel free to disagree civilly" opens up an entire channel for you do disregard criticsm and many real forms of communication, if there is no clear standard on what civility means. Surely there can be one, but are you unbiased enough that you can follow it? It is not about civility or incivility. It is about facilitating real and valid criticsm. Supporting a state with explicit censorship policies and a track record of suppressing riots with violence as well as an active monopoly on communication and payment channels, which results in a lot of leverage on individual behavior, is antithetical to this purpose. Where the whatsboutism ends with the United States is that the United States has (thusfar) kept most criticsm-worthy acts on the record and still has no clear monopoly on the flow of information. It allows the existence of institutions that actively work against the policies of the government. That puts it on a relatively higher moral standing compared to the CCP as long as you care about such things as having a plurality of opinions. Where tolerance stops is where you support ending the game.