It really seems there are two main issues when things like this come up.
First is that people tend to use selective pieces of context when arguing in support of one viewpoint or another.
For example, if one wants to argue that Xander's motivation for the "kick his ass" line was simple jealousy, then we need to explain how his development past Buffy (like his relationship with Cordelia, his growing feelings not only for her but Willow as well, as well as the comments in Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered when he starts to show the realization that Buffy is just not that into him) is somehow irrelevant to his desire to lie about what Willow said. Furthermore, one would need to explain why the context surrounding current events (basically, at least everything that happened in the attack earlier in the show) wouldn't reasonably convince Xander that restoring his soul was both impossible and beyond the point at this juncture. If it is unreasonable for him to witness the death (Kendra), kidnapping for certain torture (Giles), and injury (Willow) of some of the closest people to him and then come to the conclusion that Angel just ain't worth it.... one would kinda need to explain why. Having an opinion is all well and good, but opinions are usually based on an understanding of the relevant information.
The other problem usually seems to be viewing the instances from a characters eye level. And this is really prevalent in how people view Empty Places.
We, as viewers of a TV show, are afforded the luxury of understanding that the world, as construed on the show, operates a certain way. We are aware of certain things the characters are simply unaware of, which allows us to form conclusions different from them. It's easy for us to sit here and say "Of course Buffy is right! It's her TV show! She is gonna win in the end!", but this line of thinking isn't a rational level for characters of a TV show, as none of that marks their world. It's easy for the viewer to give blind obedience to Buffy, we've been conditioned to do that, plus, at this juncture, it's also hindsight. We know she finds the scythe, so clearly, she is right. But contextually speaking, these things mean nothing to the moment at hand. In Empty Places, Buffy was asking them to do the exact same thing that had just caused them several lives and Xanders eye, for reasons beyond vague. If the only reason one can come up with to support this is that "She is Buffy", then you are offering a tautology, not a reasonable breakdown of the situation. The people in that house were right to fear and had every reason to. The idea they needed to "fall in line" just cause Buffy told them to lacks eye level understanding of their own perspectives.
As for direct responses....
Taake said:
It's not about hero worship, it's about her not being allowed to make mistakes. It's simple - you lead people into battle and they die, shit happens. Not every plan will go smoothly, some villains will be more than you can handle, and Buffy made a mistake. By no means does that give them the moral superiority over her nor any right to kick her out of her own house.
It's not about moral superiority either. When you read (or watch) that confrontation, the only people bringing any sort of moral cadence to the proceedings is Buffy herself, and possibly Anya, and possibly Giles. Xander and Faith,
Xander and Faith, of all people are the ones being the most rational, and saying this is about their lack of trust in Buffy's plan, as it is the exact same one that just lead to big, big problems. Really, at this point, it is being made clear by them that Buffy has not been doing a good job and she is asking a LOT of them on simple faith, especially Xander, who just before gave an amazing speech about trusting Buffy, and even HE, at this point, can't see what she is trying to do.
And honestly... a "mistake" is when you buy the wrong flavor of gum or forget to make a payment on time, when you willfully cause others to die and lose important body parts.... it deserves a harsher term. Like failure. Or debacle.
... so who the heck are they to judge.
The people who she is asking to go out and possibly die. Wood, again, was very right here when he said it was a lot to ask with thin rationale.
The only thing that ever bothered me about it was the actual, literal removal of her from the house. I didn't get the point of that. I thought it was plenty enough to simply have them stand up to Buffy, say no, and tell her she was not going to order them around like this anymore. Actually removing her from the house? Don't get it. I think, as someone else mentioned, it was cheap set up so we could get the hilarious notion of an attempted rapist going to the damsel's rescue, but whatever.
