> Linux has changed the world -- in a very substantial way and much for the better -- even though Linus flew off the handle at people for years. That doesn't mean he is completely beyond criticism, but it does indicate to me that we need to put a significant check in place against these "feelings committees." Their sensibilities are becoming ever more delicate.
Even Linux admits his behaviour was unproductive and has apologised and improved his communication.
Personally, I think an expectation of a little professionalism from people is hardly "ever more delicate". Rather, it's people who feel entitled to spout any profanity or insult they want without reaction who seem unable to deal with the consequences of their actions.
> Otherwise, if a person is generally toxic enough, they will be worked around.
What you are describing is that if you are "valuable enough", you get to be toxic to people without consequence. That's a good way to breed toxicity.
There is this trope of the "genius asshole" who is too valuable to lose. I suspect that in a lot of cases these people are too valuable precisely because they drive away other contributors that would otherwise lead to a more healthy project.
> Unfortunately, some snowflakes like to believe that everyone contributes equally. That is simply not the case. And, in fact, some people contribute a _negative_ amount overall. Which is to say, the project is better off without their participation.
You intended this to support your argument, but it seems to undermine it. The odds are that one individual is going to contribute less than all the people they are likely to drive away with toxicity. Toxic developers are likely to be the net negative contributors as you describe.
It really seems like your whole argument is predicated on capability and toxicity being directly correlated, which in my experience—while something toxic people want to believe—is a nonsense excuse for enabling bad behaviour.