Have you considered a lot of your criticism are not accepted or have paragraphs of ~~denials~~ analysis because a lot of your criticism stem from a faulty base understanding and/or analysis (such as overstating the scale/scope of the issue if it exists or hammering on criticisms that aren't real like the "genocide")?

Just an example of what I'm talking about: The hukou system in the modern day is deeply flawed and there are many criticisms to be made of it such as it leading to wage disparity etc. However if I were to then say that the hukou system never made any sense, was senseless cruelty or some other such nonsense jumped off from it that would necessitate a few paragraphs of explanation and rebuttal to reach the truth of the matter. Which is that the system in the modern day is outdated and harmful but was a necessary policy to avoid massive slums forming and despite it's harms does have some positive aspects such as the guaranteed land and homesteading rights should one end up homeless.

It's important that criticism be principled and precise for it to have any meaning. I'd be very interested to hear some of your criticisms that were faced with paragraphs of "denials".