3 ms·
While, in reading this thread, I understand how people might take offense to someone being excluded based on a privately-held belief, especially one which has n
by etchalon 10y ago
While, in reading this thread, I understand how people might take offense to someone being excluded based on a privately-held belief, especially one which has not manifested into an actual issue of conduct.
But I'm not sure I mind when different standards are applied to any given community's "leaders" vs. its participants. Leaders ultimately represent what a community believes it should stand for. We have, perhaps unrealistically in some case, but justifiably always prosecuted leaders, in any context, for behavior, beliefs and statements that we would absolutely forgive/ignore for the "public".
- lgleason 10y agoIt's one thing if we are talking about their actions that are part of being a community leader. IE: if a Drupal leader showed porn during a talk at a Drupal conference. It's another to say that their personal actions outside of this official role represent the community. This is why people say that their Twitter views do not represent their employer etc. because there can and should be a separation between the two.
- etchalon 10y agoMy point was that "leaders" can not compartmentalize the same way a participant, employee or guest can. Leadership roles are generally, in our society, held to higher standards. I'm also keeping in mind that had this person held views not that women are inherently inferior to men, but that blacks were inherently inferior to whites, there'd be absolutely no discussion about whether they should be removed. You simply cannot hold that type of view and have any credible moral claim to a leadership role, even if your actions as a leader are spotless.