It is interesting that people are so easily swept up and away by tides of gossip and associated qualitative judgements of authors or speakers and influential personalities when the substance of their assertions, the meaning and significance of their position in relation to the facts is so much more important. The arguments around – and qualitative assessments of – her personality are barren repetitions of an adversarial futility that all but entirely misses the point and profound significance of her message.
The irony here is that those seeking to discredit her environmental perspective in variations on a theme of ad hominem arguments and straw man fallacies do so, often enough, to distract and discredit the value of her message. As raconteur and punk rock midwife Malcolm MacLaren noted: there is no such thing as bad publicity. Every salience of information and assertion of dislike or aspirational defame and discredit only draws more attention, Streisand effect-like, to her core message.
We need these disruptive personalities, it is true, but when we become obsessed with the disruption itself, we might inadvertently abstract and overlay our feelings upon the non-trivial facts with which both they and our world are presenting us. It’s not about the person, it’s about the message.