This is beyond "not giving her the benefit of the doubt." It's outright skewing what she says. The post you're linking to here isn't saying that linking to proof is creepy. It's criticizing specific behavior and talking about finding a balance between information not being available and gleeful collection of (often irrelevant/misrepresented) links as a kind of game.
A lot of the tweets and things being linked to supposed as proof that people are "pro-abuse supporters" fall into that category, by the way. Is this supposed to be about stopping abuse and supporting victims? Because I don't see how setting yourself and Laura J. Mixon up as being above and beyond reproach furthers either of those goals. But that's the lesson where anyone who asks a question or makes a comment about how the round up posts are being run gets called an abuse supporter.
If someone says they find things iffy about LJM's number break down but also say they want to see a more victim-centered and victim-supporting approach, is that "pro abuse?" If someone questions whether or not any of the white people involved have ulterior motive, does that automatically make them "pro abuse?" Even if they're acknowledging the people of color?
This "with us or against us" garbage is great if your goal is to just set the stage for the next RequiresHate to come in and find an easily exploitable dynamic for sheltering their own abuse, but if that's not the goal, there are better ways to conduct ourselves.
Re: Fresh new batch of links/discussions
A lot of the tweets and things being linked to supposed as proof that people are "pro-abuse supporters" fall into that category, by the way. Is this supposed to be about stopping abuse and supporting victims? Because I don't see how setting yourself and Laura J. Mixon up as being above and beyond reproach furthers either of those goals. But that's the lesson where anyone who asks a question or makes a comment about how the round up posts are being run gets called an abuse supporter.
If someone says they find things iffy about LJM's number break down but also say they want to see a more victim-centered and victim-supporting approach, is that "pro abuse?" If someone questions whether or not any of the white people involved have ulterior motive, does that automatically make them "pro abuse?" Even if they're acknowledging the people of color?
This "with us or against us" garbage is great if your goal is to just set the stage for the next RequiresHate to come in and find an easily exploitable dynamic for sheltering their own abuse, but if that's not the goal, there are better ways to conduct ourselves.