Yes Bernie Sanders spoke up for gay rights. That was good, because gay rights are a good thing. Pol Pot advocated genocide. That was bad because genocide is ba

Yes Bernie Sanders spoke up for gay rights. That was good, because gay rights are a good thing. Pol Pot advocated genocide. That was bad because genocide is bad. Richard Stallman argued that pedophila was OK. Pedophilia is not OK. It’s really far from OK. Hence the problem. Perhaps you think it’s actually OK as well. Then the two of you agree. If you also advocate for pedophilia in public you may find people don’t want to hire you as well. All this talk of formerly unpopular opinions and leadership only makes sense if you think that the underlying problematic opinion will be vindicated by history, like the other examples cited. I think it won’t. You’re saying this: > We don't need to debate the morality of a leader because speaking against norms is already disqualifying Nope. Didn’t say that. I said this specific norm is well founded and valid. You can’t debate the morality of a leader’s statements in the abstract. There’s no generic class of “norms” there’s just the facts in question. Some statements are morally defensible, some aren’t. Saying it’s OK for adults to have sex with children is a problem, it’s gong to upset people and make them not trust you and be leery of having you represent them. As literally everyone knows.