the thing is, like, imogen is blunt, and indecisive, and impulsive. she's cynical, angry at the world, and seemingly much less interested in doing good than in holding on to her loved ones. she's hypocritical, incredibly violent one moment and horrified at the prospect the next. she's passive aggressive, on occasion. she's overly critical. she's scatterbrained.

and all of that stuff is very fucking fascinating, and so fun to watch, and core to what makes her her. but not only are those things not the totality of imogen as a character, they're very much inextricable from the things that make her sympathetic.

imogen has spent much of the last decade of her life in pain, and isolated because of it. when she wasn't alone she couldn't relax, having to keep tight control over her mind so as to not get overwhelmed or invade the privacy of others. because even through all that pain and loneliness, she still bore the responsibility not to impose on other people's minds. and when she fails or slips up or gives in, all of the distrust and suspicion she recieves regardless is suddenly viewed as justified.

which is not to say imogen is not responsible for her actions, or the harm she causes others. of course she is! no one is saying she isn't! but, just like literally every other person, her actions don't exist in a void but within the context of both her past and present.

analyzing that context and coming up with explanations of her behavior that consider it is not excusing her actions or refusing to acknowledge her flaws. it is not coddling imogen to sympathize with her even when she's fucking up. these are pretty standard ways to discuss a character you enjoy actually! it's weird that having a nuanced perspective on a character's actions is being treated as an issue!