“But if you have a public profile it’s your right to chose whether you want to put your individualism to one side and act as an ambassador for the cause or if you want to be another loudmouth on the internet. At the end of the day, she's just another human shouting into the abyss, with all the potential for human error that brings.”
Are you meaning to infer she is a loudmouth? And say she is just shouting into the abyss? Really?
She is hardly just shouting into the abyss. She has been pivotal in getting many things done.
Not only that, but I believe you have completely missed the Overton window impact she has. She moves the Overton window so that other people can speak with less fear of being cancelled. She cannot be cancelled so she often says things that need to be articulated by someone who refuses to be cancelled.
That is what being ‘loudmouthed’ can do. Like she drew fire when extreme activists were threatening women with the Scottish hate crime law when it became live.
Being an ‘ambassador’ is not enough sometimes. Sometimes you need to not simply remain polite and above it all. There are moments to move discussion into those areas some claim dismissively, and I believe in this instance incorrectly, are ‘culture wars’ to enact the change needed. Simply remaining ‘ambassadorial’ has been proven not to work.
But yet, we see this type of dismissal often when some people say things like, there has to be a middle ground, or women are so aggressive on this and they don’t need to be, the moderate approach is always best and so on. It is too often from people who really only have a periphery understanding of what has happened and how results are being achieved now.