"This person's horrible behaviour kept out other contributors" is a common take, and sure it could be (probably is?) true.
But it's way too neoliberal for me. That take says we shouldn't accept horrible behaviour only because it reduces some other metric (eg contributions). The flip side is that an org should accept bad actions if the results are good.
Y'know, I don't care about metrics like that. Immoral behaviour shouldn't be accepted *because it's immoral*. Simple as that.
The biggest problem with using metrics like this to advocate equality? What if you're wrong? What if a free software project kicks out a productive asshole, and 3 years later noone has picked up the slack? What if a company promotes women, and their business isn't doing so great?
Does that mean the company/org should now give up on equality, or diversity? That they should invite the jerks back? The promised benefits never materialised! What should those who advocate for equality say?
People used to think that slavery was economically inefficient, that free labourers would produce more. But much recent scholarship has shown that an enslaved workforce can produce more, and at lower (business) cost! (cf. Baptist's 'The Half Has Never Been Told').
There are things more important than business profits, and sometimes businesses profit from bad things.
@ebel abolitionists persuading slavers that more money can be had with freemen. Typical.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!