[seemingly]

I both disagree and dislike both Trump and his supporters. Yet, I realize if you want to diversity of opinion like YC says it wants you can't throw people out when they annoy you. Diverse political discussion among laymen where no one gets annoyed essentially doesn't exist. Peoples opinions follow their perspective, what they understand and what they care about. Just as I take offense to what Trump says people who like Trump will take offense when people say he's a populist, racist or sexist. They will get frustrated and express themselves in ways that aren't productive, but also don't seem that bad to them since they don't think what Trump says is bad.

I've excluded people for less, but then I haven't as YC asked sometimes awkward people to be stressed out for a long period of time while saying that diversity of opinion is valued.

[zo1]

People with opposing opinions to the current pervasive narrative are for the most part, part of a minority (yes). For most of us one miss-step or one bad outburst because we're frustrated, and then you're fired (or kicked out). Because you cross that "imaginary" line between dissenting but tolerable opinion and into the "we can now legally and without consequence say you're abusive and shut your opinion down by firing/excluding/arresting you". That's the problem with faux-free speech.

To be fair, I think companies and individuals should have a right to disassociate with anyone for any reason they choose (yes including the bad reasons). But they should at least be honest about it, rather than hiding behind some veil of "it's abusive behaviour". Just admit you don't like the opinion before it cross that line, and purge appropriately.