Unsurprisingly, the editor of the Philosophical Gourmet Report (PGR) is trying very hard to paint the recent criticisms of his [...] behavior as an "attack" on PGR itself. (No, I won't link to any of that. And no, don't find it yourself.) But this is wrong, and not just because so many of the people who have signed the pledge to boycott PGR until its current editor resigns have no general objections to PGR, including some who are (were?) actually on his "advisory board".
It's pretty well known that I have voiced some serious objections to the Philosophical Gourmet Report. I still have such objections. But my views now are much less strident than they were thirteen years ago, and that is partly because the Gourmet Report has changed since them. I still think ranking departments by reputation is a bad idea, because I think such a ranking will both reflect and reinforce gender bias, and other such biases in the profession. And I still wonder how it can be a good idea to let someone with extremely strong views (to put it mildly) about what is and is not "good philosophy" (who thinks, e.g., that Emory is a "shit department") be in charge of the ranking system. Etc, etc, etc.
But look: The fact that I have such objections simply does not imply that my support for the boycott of PGR is motivated by anything other than my fed-up-ness with Leiter's treatment of people in our profession. If I've got a bias here, it's because I personally have been on the receiving end of such treatment, and I know exactly what it is like.
Questioning my motives, and those of the other signatories and activists, is derailing, pure and simple.