This is a false equivalence. OP's post is saying that nobody, ever, should try to suggest Linux as an alternative to the problems- ethical, moral, or technical, with windows.

And your stance is 'Well that seems about right, because there might be a post or two out of dozens or even hundreds that's slightly mean."

My man, that has nothing to do with anything.

OP's post is basically saying "I want the internet to be all about me. I don't like seeing people suggest Linux, it should go away, I don't want to hear about it, and everyone should do as I say." and that's not a stance that should ever be supported.

You say 'are you giving people the same level of understanding you expect to receive from others' and it goes both ways. Guess what, I don't want to hear about people whining about how much Windows sucks ass for the hundred thousandth time when there are easy, better alternatives that they refuse to use. I'm not sitting here asking to be the main character of the internet though and demanding nobody ever talk about Windows problems ever again because 'they know what Windows is' or some nonsense like he is.

Like, I get the stance you're trying to come from here, and it's a laudable one, but you're falling for the old trick of 'well, different views from mine can be valid! We should consider them equally!'

And that's true... up to the point where that view is trying to quash other views. That's the only view you can't consider- is a view that attempts to eliminate other views. Paradox of tolerance (or contract of tolerance) in action. Used for a far sillier thing that usual, granted.