i think the Jedi-Positive and Jedi-Critical stances can be summed up on whether you value authorial intent or authorial execution.

Most of the Jedi-Positive people I follow quote George Lucas and director commentaries to prove their points, as well as utilize analyses from others at LucasFilm that have to keep the general status quo. It's all based on what Lucas was trying to portray, while ignoring the product in execution.

The Jedi-Critical stance tends to look at the prequel execution, and they question the obvious uncomfortable moments that have real-life parallels to atrocities. They tend to be more Legends fans, whose writers actually delved into the terrifying implications. It's all on criticizing execution while disregarding intent.

Like, take the argument about Jedi children. A Jedi-Positive person would argue that all the children are all given up with consent from their parents; this is what I am sure Lucas was intending to portray. A Jedi-Critical person will look at this and go "wait. how much 'consent' was in this encounter? the government can legally take these kids and have a representative show up to a farmer's house and tell the farmer they can technically say no? that is some bullshit." And there is real-life evidence for this. It's more on the execution.

Or the argument about love. Jedi-Positive people turn to Lucas's interview to show that they really meant it in the Buddhist sense, and if you value intent that works. Jedi-Critical people would argue that the marketing states that the Jedi cannot love, and nothing in the movies states that the Jedi meant non-toxic love when they eschew attachments.

They're both valid positions, but I think a lot of fandom brutality comes from not understanding either view, or demeaning one view in favor of another. It's perfectly acceptable to value one over the other.