I mean, you just did exactly that, explained why terrorists do what they do.
When the accusation is, “They hate us for our freedom”, then thinking beyond the slogan, and actually using a bit of critical thinking as to what exactly it was that caused people to have this sort of reaction is not “counterbalance”, it’s what we should be doing in the first place.
Maybe the point is that the “conventional orthodoxy” is in fact wrong.
The fact that it doesn’t apply to all minority causes should give you a clue that your premise is fallacious, and that there actually is a reason why they would disagree with the uncomplicated view. Not just to be disagreeable, but to point out that there is another side to many issues, and by simply defining them as “bad”, is not just lazy, but also irresponsible, as it does not actually address the problems that we are trying to confront, it doesn’t give any actual path to resolving those conflicts.
For instance, you just made the accusation that young progressives are just trying to spite the majority. A very simplistic and almost entirely wrong way of summarizing the reasons for their efforts. If someone were to explain why your effortless summary was wrong, would you consider that to be “counterbalance”, just trying to spite the majority?