批評

 Something that really stands out to me about critiques in general - critiques of ideologies, theoretical positions, paradigms, belief systems - is that they always seem to be full-on attacks on the system or ideology that is being critiqued. Their tone is one of contempt. They argue that there is nothing good about the ideology or system they're criticising and, in fact, it's associated with all kinds of evil and malevolence. 

I think that's counterproductive because, if you are sympathetic to the ideology/ system/ paradigm being criticised, the first statement you read in the critique that demonises the ideology (says something like, the essence of this approach is just to critcise everything and undermine positive social norms) is going to undermine the critique because you don't believe that's true. 

For example, I'm a believer but I'm interested in what atheists have to say and how they came to their position, but often when I pick up a book to read about their views, right from the very start, the author goes on the attack and wants to argue that you have to be stupid or somehow deficient to believe in God. It just makes me think, well, I'm not going to get anything from this book because the writer is not writing to me they are writing against me. They want to say I'm stupid and deficient, and maybe that's true in some ways, but in choosing to read a book I am exercising my curiosity and intellect....I'm interested in their argument, but their argument loses me from the start.

Maybe it's just me but I think that a position that consists solely or mainly of opposition to some other position is one that is kind of doomed. Like, what do you actually stand for? What is your thesis, besides finding fault with the ideology you are opposed to?