Or, "if you're a public figure, or plan a public campaign supporting someone who is controversial, don't expect there to be zero criticism of your position because it's somehow sacred".
it's sort of strange that a mainstream candidate with enough support to win the whole election is considered controversial, plenty public figures endorsed hilary and none received the level of backlash that palmer did. max temkin even funded a similarly cringey billboard campaign:
unless we are to enforce a standard of public apoliticism for public figures across the board, uniquely singling out endorsements on one side regardless of wealth doesn't seem like a good way to generate effective discourse
>No? You don't recall the decrying of "Hollywood elites" by right wing media and supporters?
This is generalized, and it's not an active campaign of literal harassment to make it difficult for specific individuals to work. For whatever reason, the Right is much less interested in seeing their political enemies suffer than the Left. Perhaps it's because the Right sees the Left as naive, whereas the Left sees the Right as human garbage.
The literal inventor of JavaScript, totally irreplaceable and undeniably the most qualified person for his role, is forced out from Mozilla over a campaign contribution to another mainstream political cause (which also won). He had silently made that contribution 7 years prior, and it was only discovered due to campaign finance disclosure laws. Major sites like OKCupid ran blackouts against Firefox users to punish them for running a browser associated with Brendan Eich. Unlike Luckey, he was not trying to get involved publicly, and only quietly exercises his rights as a citizen.
Now, the guy who "kickstarted" the multi-billion-dollar modern VR revolution is harassed and chased out of his position for committing a slightly-more-public form of heresy against the Silicon Valley dogma.
The "criticisms" are not comparable across the aisle.
You should fact check your fake news [1] before parroting it, when you try to justify Trump bragging about grabbing women by the pussy without their consent [2] by making a false equivalence. An no, that wasn't just "locker room talk", so don't parrot that line either.
Wowee, I looked at your posting history, and all those racist and sexist remarks you've made certainly shed light on where you're coming from and what you believe, and why you follow the people whose lies you parrot. So don't bother trying to defend Trump sexual assaulting women by parroting pizzagate conspiracy theories, either.
Tech sphere: "After Trump's win, we need to get out of our bubble and learn about what others are thinking in America."
What about engaging public figures in your industry who are Trump supporters?
Tech sphere: "Palmer needs to lose his job."
Why does diversity initiatives never seem to care about diversity of political opinions? Isn't a diversity of perspectives one of the reasons for diversity?
If you haven't heard anyone address that point, you haven't looked very hard. It's an (IMO) important part of the left-wing philosophy to be intolerant of intolerance:
I voted for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general, but the hypocrisy of Zuckerberg publishing his travels to rural America like he's a politician while Palmer is pushed out of his company is too much.
I'm mostly responding to your "Why does diversity initiatives never seem to care about diversity of political opinions?" question.
I'm saying that it's legitimate for diversity initives to not support all political positions in the name of diversity. Yes, it's a paradox, but it's not something that hasn't been addressed.
And, yes, the Trump ticket was intolerant. You can make the argument solely on the grounds of the anti-muslim rhetoric, not to mention his running mate's public views on gay rights.
A lot of Trump voters probably don't want more Muslims immigrating into the US. Are you saying that can't even be discussed, despite the fact that Muslims don't approve of homosexuality, even in Britain?
Are Americans intolerant for questioning if we should have more of that intolerance?
Should we not let Muslims into this country "solely on the grounds of" their "public views on gay rights"? I mean my god, should a Muslim be allowed to work at Facebook's London office based on their homophobic beliefs?
It's a left-wing value that you can, and should, separate the person and what they believe from their actions.
If anyone were to suggest that we should ban Trump supporters from immigrating to my country, I would be very opposed to that. I would also be opposed to denying those people the ability to hold public office, or receive services, etc., based on their beliefs.
So it's fine to be a Muslim. But if a person wants to use public forums to push Sharia law, which includes the subjugation of women and punishment of gays, I support removing their access to those forums. What goes on in that person's head, or what they discuss in the privacy of their homes/email/etc., is none of my business, no matter how odious I find it. But if those beliefs start impacting the public and are discriminatory, then the hammer comes down.
You see it as hypocrisy to condemn specific actions without also condemning affiliated people. I see those as separate things, so you can have a different policy for each. You can't punish people for something you think they believe should be done, but that they haven't actually done or incited others to do themselves.
Trump and Pence have both taken substantive actions against Muslims and gays, not based on what those populations actually did, but based on what they believe or who they are. If a Muslim campaigned for and legislated in accordance with Sharia law, I would condemn them in exactly the same way (but more strongly).
But I will not condemn every Muslim a priori even though I completely disagree with their beliefs.