A follow up to Coinbase being a mission focused company

> especially libertarians are not aggressive

Depends on the subgroup.

> As for the belief that the left are intellectually superior, that's not specific to tech firms.

IMHO, I feel this is an organic collusion of messaging. Like the boomers felt a little envious to Leftist ideas and it shows in how boomers are teaching future generations. I don't think this is intentional but there does seem to be an implicit shift in the writings that teach the youth. I grew up in the public education system and various books almost assume that Leftists are more critical thinkers. It could be a phrasing of a topic or a popular narrative that has taken root in the culture. Compound this overtime, you have a new generation that assumes the indirect messaging that they've been conditioned on.

In conclusion, I think you're getting a lot of downvotes for two reasons. 1. You're making grand/general statements without supportive points. 2. You are contrarian to the current zeitgeist. I happen to agree with your main points (sheep are sheep and wolves are making sheep frantic). I wish more people were critical thinkers.

Statements that genuinely are an affront to human dignity are already prohibited under anti-harassment rules. Such positions are also rarely controversial: most people do not want to disrespect human dignity.

A substantial segment of people have realized that they can shut down any conflicting opinions on controversial issues by proclaiming that divergence from their orthodoxy amounts to an affront to human dignity. Over the course of my employment I've seen people claim:

* All positions must pursue at least 50% female representation, and anything less than that amounts to misogyny.

* Voting for the current president of the United States amounts to an act of overt racism.

* Opposing affirmative action amounts to overt racism.

* Supporting affirmative action amounts to overt racism.

These positions are not affronts to human dignity. Maybe some people genuinely do believe that it does, but their views are disconnected enough that it's no excuse:

* Say an anti-abortion activist genuinely does believe that terminating a pregnancy amounts to murder. I'm sure such a person would be deeply offended by someone who supports a woman's right to do so, and would see it as an affront to human dignity. Say they posted on Facebook to this effect, that abortion is murder and should be banned. A co-worker who has had an abortion complains to HR saying a co-worker accused them of murder because of their contraceptive decisions. No HR person worth their salt would take action in this case, since it's effectively firing ~30% of the population because of their political or religious beliefs. If you don't want to be exposed to your co-workers political views, don't friend them on Facebook and don't follow them on Twitter.

* Say Bob makes a tweet supporting affirmative action in hiring and promotion, and Lin (who is Asian and opposes affirmative action) sees this. She finds it an affront to her dignity and amounts to asking organizations to deprive her right to equal opportunity. Does Lin have grounds to ask the company to sanction Bob for openly espousing discrimination against her? If these statement were made in the workplace, maybe, but otherwise Lin should just not view Bob's out-of-work communications. The company's policy is to give equal opportunity to all races, and Lin has no proof that Bob brought his views into the workplace.

Crucially, though, these two examples occurred outside of the workplace. Had they occurred inside the workplace ,then they now have much stronger cases. Your co-workers are captive audiences, in the context of interactions in the office. If Bob says this to Lin in the office, Lin can't just block him.

As far as your example goes, If Taylor doesn't want to see Alex's political views Taylor should block Alex on Twitter. They're not a captive audience in this situation: there's zero reason why these two people need to see each other's tweets to do their job. But if Alex said this inside the office, then there'd be better grounds for taking action against Alex. That's why offices are increasingly telling co-workers to keep their politics out of the office.

> The opposite strategy is to talk about politics constantly, so that it's painfully obvious who's in the minority.

> Which is better for a gay man in Saudi Arabia? A company where people only talk about work, or a company where everybody is expected to take a stance on homosexuality?

You're talking about something completely different. What I'm talking about is basically falsely depoliticizing a political decision, so people think it's something that cannot be changed, like nature or something. The reference to Newspeak, which was imagined as a way of dismantling the mental machinery of political opposition, should have made that clear. That you missed it is ironic given your username.

If you want to map the experience of a gay man in Saudi Arabia onto what I was talking about, he would marry a woman and not even think things could be any different.

I’m responding to “I believe that this movement has made our society more racist and divided than it was before.” Effectively this means the parent thinks that no movement should be made at all, ergo the status quo should continue. You can debate the merits of the demands that BLM puts forth but how on earth is this not implying that the protests in response to police killings are making society more racist?

Generally common stock has voting power.