> The health of democracy requires that individuals be able to speak their mind and advocate their beliefs. Exactly. > This doesn't work if their livelihood i

> The health of democracy requires that individuals be able to speak their mind and advocate their beliefs. Exactly. > This doesn't work if their livelihood is controlled by a group of hyper-intolerant political totalitarians. Exactly. Hence why we need to acknowledge the right to speak your mind. > a place like Google I know I'd have to be deeply closeted as others flagrantly denigrate my identity and ideas around me. The Google case is interesting. Maven was pretty equivalent to a peaceful demonstration. Management had one opinion, (many) employees had ethical objections and eventually got their way. Damore's case was.. messier, and more relevant to your point. Then again, this policy would just subject everyone to the same thing, while sacrifing the previous benefits. And it's all ultimately enforced by humans anyway, so if anything I'd expect it to lead to further polarization. > Here at least everyone can be closeted together, and live in a pluralistic way with different beliefs alongside each other. Many decisions don't have a neutral option. This policy just means that you won't have any say once those crossroads become relevant.