"It's much easier for one to factually state that certain actions will almost inevitably lead to certain consequences than to critically question whether those actions should always justifiably warrant those consequences in the first place. Because of this, regardless of the underlying context, one may reflexively fail to sympathize with those who incur consequences that one may believe they reasonably should have expected would occur as a result of their actions.
That is, it's easier to say 'don't touch the stove or you'll get burnt' than 'you maybe generally should try not to touch the stove, but why is our room filled to the brim with dozens of hot stoves? also maybe you should touch it if you need to help save a cat that jumped on it'."
I had no trouble understanding what they were trying to say, honestly. They're saying it's easier for someone to say "drugs are bad, because they're illegal", or "you should've gone to jail because you used drugs", or "you should've known that using drugs would result in you ending up in jail", compared to saying something more nuanced like "one should be aware of the potential legal risks of using drugs, as a matter of personal precaution, but it's questionable whether US law and morality align on this particular subject".
Basically, caring more about "what is" than "what ought to be". "It is what it is, whaddya gonna do" is easier than trying to question the system. It is a pretty common phenomenon I've seen here, as an American.
They likely would have preferred the parent to consider the line between public trash-talking and public whistleblowing, how that applies to this case, what Amazon's perspective is and what the workers' perspectives are, etc. Instead of a simple "well, they said negative things about their employer in public, so why should anyone feel bad that their employer fired them as a result?".
Golden, this is a perfect analogy and gave me a chuckle.