[bequanna]

Openly gay != in everyone’s face writing preachy DEI memos and forcing pronoun campaigns

Essentially, don’t advertise that you might bring drama to the workplace.

Some people are always looking to pick fights and create drama (they can be gay, straight, whatever) and employers screen for this personality type.

[DaftTomatoes]

I feel like you skipped a couple steps between "showing a rainbow", and "bringing drama to the workplace", there's nothing wrong with having a rainbow on your profile, and certainly nothing to suggest that the person would be insufferable, unless you're implying that by the _nature of being gay_, they're more likey to be insufferable? Which, honestly, is bigoted.

Edit for no half measures on calling out bigotry

[bequanna]

> _nature of being gay_, they're more likey to be insufferable? Which, honestly, is bigoted.

Ha, wow.

Please reread my comment. I’m discussing how an excessive virtue signaler may be viewed by potential employers as someone who creates drama.

Unfortunately for all of us and because of people who are so trigger happy with them, words like “racist”, “bigot”, “transphobe” etc no longer have much meaning at all.

[DaftTomatoes]

You're correct in that you didn't use those words, and it's fair to state that; I do however stand by my comment. What underlies my rephrasing of it into that form is this:

> Openly gay != in everyone’s face writing preachy DEI memos and forcing pronoun campaigns Essentially, don’t advertise that you might bring drama to the workplace.

The points you're listing (DEI, pronouns) are efforts to _address_ people who _are bigoted, but you word it in a way that makes it seem _bad_, using words like "preachy", "force" to describe what's really pretty low effort asks on the part of businesses towards it's employees to be more inclusive.

To put it bluntly, how is asking to _not misgender_ someone "a campaign" or "virtue signaling"? How is asking to reduce biases against people of color "a campaign" or "virtue signaling"? You're right in that you're not saying things like "insufferable", but you're specifically choosing to callout certain items, with certain phrasing, and the common denominator in all those are _minorities_.

Now you might make a rebuttal referring to something of the affect, "It's not about the content, it's about the _fact I have to participate in these activities_", and that very well may be a genuine response. But why, of all the things we _have_ to do at work, which are so much more insufferable and draining, are these the ones you take issue with?

[EatingWithForks]

Literally if the OP didn't bring up not putting rainbows it would've caused 0 drama, but now you have a bunch of people asking wait why are we calling gay people political.

[itqwertz]

I certainly wouldn't hire anyone that creates drama like this.

You could replace "rainbow" with "Ukraine flag" or "Russian flag" or NY Yankees logo and it would still hold to be true. Someone will find an issue with anything about you, so why even post it?

Be a cog in the machine and be employed, or be an unemployed individual that whines on LinkedIn.

[DaftTomatoes]

> You could replace "rainbow" with "Ukraine flag" or "Russian flag" or NY Yankees logo and it would still hold to be true

This _is_ the issue, making these "equivalent". Here we're drawing equivalencies between posting "the flag of a country interlocked in an international proxy war" with posting a "rainbow flag which LGBTQ people use to create solidarity, to feel normal, and not have their existence deemed controversial in the same breath as, amongst other things..." an international proxy war!