There is a more forgiving interpretation. Even if the FSF has not actively discriminated, it chose not to help support one of its members from the effects of di

There is a more forgiving interpretation. Even if the FSF has not actively discriminated, it chose not to help support one of its members from the effects of discrimination. This can be seen as a protest against inaction. How big is the FSF? If the organisation is pretty small, I would be concerned. Matt Levine recently had a piece on the Wells Fargo events: >“The 1% that did it wrong, who we fired, terminated, in no way reflects our culture nor reflects the great work the other vast majority of the people do,” he said. “That’s a false narrative.” >You hear bank CEOs say that sort of thing all the time when a few rogue employees do bad stuff that incurs a big fine for the bank, but there are never 5,300 of them. It is the sorites paradox of "a few bad apples": If one or two or eight rogue employees don't reflect the broader culture, why should 5,300? At one point actions do reflect on the entire project, though the line is fuzzy. I think the last line is a bit strong. I've seen much worse language elsewhere, of course, but I don't know if it serves the point. Though empathy should be had for Leah, I imagine it was not a decision taken lightly.