I'd like to address some fallacies I see people make when defending the behavior of people like John De Goes

Fallacy 1: "The accused person was nice to me, therefore they couldn't have treated others poorly"

I believe this first fallacy is self-explanatory (1/4) https://twitter.com/skillsmatter/status/1168944236181557254

Fallacy 2: "The accused person has volunteered, donated, or otherwise helped people in noble ways, therefore these charges must be baseless"

This generalizes the previous fallacy. Evidence of good deeds or good intentions is not evidence of the absence of harm (2/4)

Fallacy 3: "You can't claim to promote tolerance while excluding people like the accused"

This is addressed by the "Paradox of Tolerance":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance (3/4)

Fallacy 4: "We can overlook people's political views and communities. All that matters are their technical contributions"

This is the modern day version of: "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?" The communities we build around technology matter (4/4)