| The "right-wing" categorization is probably not that helpful, I agree. If I understand you correctly, by turning the argument around (against LGBT, atheist, liberal, etc. people) you want to challenge my point that it is okay to criticize and resist certain opinions and draw consequences from them. I feel like there is a big difference between the scenario at hand and systematic persecution of certain groups of people. You seem to assign a huge value to keeping a job. Do you think this is equal to being tracked down and killed by police? That's what e.g. LGBT people face in some countries, is that what you mean by that? From my point of view, that employee actually tried to advance a very hostile political agenda with what he wrote, that might have harmed many people. Of course, this harm is not as visible as being fired, but it does hurt the opportunities for women, who have to try twice as hard in an environment, where you need to fight with people over whether you are even biologically capable of doing your job. On the other hand, following your example with the guy making pro-LGBT statements: you make it sound like LGBT is some sort of political agenda by itself. But people usually just _are_ lesbian or trans without making a huge fuss out of it… I do not see how this compares to writing a 10-page essay systematically attacking half of your co-workers. And, no, I would not defend Google for firing somebody for, say, being a lesbian. That's a completely different scenario. |
What's the difference? Persecution is persecution.
> You seem to assign a huge value to keeping a job.
It's one of the most important aspects of people's lives. One way of oppressing people is through their employment. What better way is there to intimidate and silence people other than attacking their employment?
> From my point of view, that employee actually tried to advance a very hostile political agenda with what he wrote
Care to point out where the hostility is? The guy was participating in a google led private forum. Nothing he wrote can be objectively and honestly construed as hostile.
> where you need to fight with people over whether you are even biologically capable of doing your job.
Pointing out biological differences is science. Saying that perhaps there are biological advantages that kenyans enjoy in long distance running
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/wh...
or that tibetans/himalayans are better adapted to high altitude environments
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-hi...
isn't hostile.
To say stating certain biological conditions exist is hostile is a form of anti-science rhetoric that all peoples on all side should be concerned with.
> And, no, I would not defend Google for firing somebody for, say, being a lesbian. That's a completely different scenario.
You say it is a different scenario but you don't explain why? A muslim company asks their employees to discuss on their private channel on how they could be a better company. A pro-lgbt person says we need more lgbt people in the company. Some muslim employees find it offensive and leaks this out to the media and the muslim media wages a media war against this pro-lgbt person. So they fire this pro-lgbt person. How is it any different?
All you are saying is that you just want your side to be protected. The "others" deserve no protection or empathy. That is very worrying.