Individual people make effective and ineffective arguments all the time. Evaluate the arguments that people make. Don't assume that an argument, whether made by a favorite person or a favorite scapegoat is good or bad because of the name you see submitting it oe the face / name you see speaking it. Individual people are humans. Humans are weak; they make assumptions, jump to conclusions, and are limited by their own fields of vision and by their prejudices.

I'll mention a few examples and let others debate them:

  • Good Men Project, which we've already seen is clearly misandrist, under the guise of 'helping men'

  • /r/ladymras - which has, at least, been called into suspicion, and

  • GWW, whose doxxing arguments have been called into question (at least in attempt) by crissradvlogs

  • more one-day accounts than I could list. (this account included.)

One of the traditions we might borrow from from another anonymous source is to put "principles above personalities" - it's got more reasons behind it than I'll enumerate here, but here are two parts: no member can presume to speak for them all, and be careful of members (even / especially very successful or well spoken ones) who may be in it for the fame.

The Ad-hom attacks are more effective when anonymity is compromised.

Lastly, when heroes / heroines emerge too easily, it sets up others for the big lie. Once account x has gained a certain amount of credibility, x becomes more able to say less credible things and rely on that credibility for a presumption of good will.