A note to our employees

I can't see why not.

>Or did it simply fuel a growing narrative of censorship and persecution which is driving the counter-PC culture and electing people like Trump?

No. And besides, on the logic that it might make people angry or convinced of their delusional views therefore we shouldn't do it is very poor reasoning.

>because these changes can and do have negative externalities.

In the same way that naive tolerance does?

>had the majority of the country not been sympathetic to Nazi principles, then Nazis wouldn't have gotten elected?

No.

"Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with extreme brutality the nucleus of our new movement." (A Hitler at the 1933 Nuremberg Nazi Party rally)

"If our opponents had been clever, considering that political weapons were so unevenly distributed, they could have undoubtedly found ways and opportunities to make our success impossible." (J Goebbels, 1934)

"If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly. It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work" (J Goebbels, 1934)

>Tolerance is justified by the recognition that all people have intrinsic value ala Kant

Not in democratic society; can you point me to which Kantian thinkers (including Kant himself!) whose thought formed the basis of any modern state? Tolerance as we know it emerged only with the emergence of widespread democracy after the French revolution beginning in Western Europe and the American revolution in the New World. Both republics founded on democracy (and therefore tolerance), not a Kantian maxim. As Marcuse said in 1965,

"Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought."

>The only time violence is justified is in response to violence.

I disagree, and as I said earlier, it's no crime to disagree with liberal dogma like this. But if we must go this route, what does violence say of structural violence, for instance?

They want to makes some news they're doing something, but regardless of organization or politics, the rules often don't apply to those in power.

If you have that policy and then start down the road of first-offense warnings, or trying to match the punishment to the crime, you end up in exactly the place where a lot of companies are now. (This isn't a new idea; it's how companies have always operated.) Without a specific set of policies, the company literally cannot do anything right: If you fire someone because his coworkers say they cannot work with him, everyone starts frothing at the mouth. If you pay someone else to leave because he's too important to fire, everyone digs out their pitchforks and torches. If you do nothing, it blows up in your face, spectacularly.