Where did the author say Doreen Ford was still representative of the current user base? It was pretty explicit that she represented its original form, not what

Where did the author say Doreen Ford was still representative of the current user base? It was pretty explicit that she represented its original form, not what it had become. The whole takeaway for me anyways was the shifting nature of group ideals and membership. One person or founder may represent the typical ideals of the original group, while later they may be wildly unrepresentative due to an influx of more “moderate” members. Again this was a pretty clear takeaway. As someone completely detached and not a part of this “antiwork” movement in any way, your post reads to me like someone who joined the community in its later stages and are bristling at what you think is a takedown that is trying to misrepresent your “totally normal, reasonable views of advocating for better working conditions”. And maybe the replacement of anarcho-communists with people advocating better working condition is a good thing! The tragedy is that the current, moderate ideals are mismatched with the original, extremist group name and ideals. Thus the need for “sane-washing” like so— New member: “Actually anti-work isn’t about not working, it’s really about improving working conditions.” Original anti-work founder: “No we literally are anti-work and want to abolish work.” New member: “Nooooo you don’t represent us!!” Like that is the exact process described. Same dynamic if you s/antiwork/abolish the police/