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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

I'm trying here, but you just seem to do all you can to avoid debate and confuse discussion