3 ms·

> If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader. Isn't the whole point of a 'leader' that they challenge the status quo n

> If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader. Isn't the whole point of a 'leader' that they challenge the status quo not bite their tongue to follow it?

viraptor 7y ago
The point of a leader is that they do/present something that gathers followers. If the followers say "no, that's not ok", they're by definition not a good leader anymore (or not for that group of people - RMS can definitely create an FSF clone with people who accept him). There's lots of leaders who love the status quo and organise people around it. No challenging needed. (for example priests being leaders for a small local community)
- twelvechairs 7y ago
  There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which I can't disagree with more. This isn't the followers saying "no, that's not ok", this is large institutions saying "no" on behalf of a vocal few.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Mu. You asked if leader is defined by challenging things. I gave an alternative definition with an example of leaders not challenging things. (and sure, there are also those who do challenge) No-platforming is a completely different topic, and I have expressed no opinions about it.
    - twelvechairs 7y ago
      You haven't responded to my point here, this is just playing semantics and making me guess your definitions. Despite how you are dancing around responses, from where I see it: You are clearly denying him a platform by saying he shouldnt be a 'leader' (ie. keep his posts). You are making that decision by institutions instead of individuals. You are holding all the worlds 'leaders' to your own moral views which is logically inconsistent.
      - viraptor 7y ago
        You've made multiple assumptions about my opinions that I disagree with, and honestly it's too much work to unwind. I'd rather leave now.
        twelvechairs 7y ago
        I'm trying here, but you just seem to do all you can to avoid debate and confuse discussion
    - sergioj97 7y ago
      You didn't just give an example of a leader who doesn't challenge things. You literally stated that if a follower disagrees with the leader, then "by definition" he/she is not a good leader. You are implying that the definition of "leader" includes that you can't challenge things people may not find ok (disagree with).
- chii 7y ago
  a minority of followers didn't like what RMS did (from what i hear). Do we now aim to please every body, even if it means removing the awkward visionaries that would've otherwise have contributed more, and replace them with crowd-pleasing socialites that navigate people gracefully?
tom_mellior 7y ago
How would it be the point of a leader in free software to challenge the status quo that women are welcome in the workplace and in free software?

> If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader. Isn't the whole point of a 'leader' that they challenge the status quo not bite their tongue to follow it?

viraptor 7y ago

The point of a leader is that they do/present something that gathers followers. If the followers say "no, that's not ok", they're by definition not a good leader anymore (or not for that group of people - RMS can definitely create an FSF clone with people who accept him). There's lots of leaders who love the status quo and organise people around it. No challenging needed. (for example priests being leaders for a small local community)

twelvechairs 7y ago
There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which I can't disagree with more. This isn't the followers saying "no, that's not ok", this is large institutions saying "no" on behalf of a vocal few.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Mu. You asked if leader is defined by challenging things. I gave an alternative definition with an example of leaders not challenging things. (and sure, there are also those who do challenge) No-platforming is a completely different topic, and I have expressed no opinions about it.
  - twelvechairs 7y ago
    You haven't responded to my point here, this is just playing semantics and making me guess your definitions. Despite how you are dancing around responses, from where I see it: You are clearly denying him a platform by saying he shouldnt be a 'leader' (ie. keep his posts). You are making that decision by institutions instead of individuals. You are holding all the worlds 'leaders' to your own moral views which is logically inconsistent.
    - viraptor 7y ago
      You've made multiple assumptions about my opinions that I disagree with, and honestly it's too much work to unwind. I'd rather leave now.
      - twelvechairs 7y ago
        I'm trying here, but you just seem to do all you can to avoid debate and confuse discussion
  - sergioj97 7y ago
    You didn't just give an example of a leader who doesn't challenge things. You literally stated that if a follower disagrees with the leader, then "by definition" he/she is not a good leader. You are implying that the definition of "leader" includes that you can't challenge things people may not find ok (disagree with).
chii 7y ago
a minority of followers didn't like what RMS did (from what i hear). Do we now aim to please every body, even if it means removing the awkward visionaries that would've otherwise have contributed more, and replace them with crowd-pleasing socialites that navigate people gracefully?

tom_mellior 7y ago

How would it be the point of a leader in free software to challenge the status quo that women are welcome in the workplace and in free software?