Again, disagree. I read the comment differently. There is a certain type of person who thinks because they are smart and good at one thing, e.g. software devel

Again, disagree. I read the comment differently. There is a certain type of person who thinks because they are smart and good at one thing, e.g. software development, their powers of reason allow them to come to the right conclusions about everything. They are super vocal about this on social media, e.g. typical Twitter mob warriors. Because they think they are intelligent and their views are logical to them, everyone intelligent will agree with them ("the best and brightest will want to work with people like me"). Conversely, people disagreeing must either be dumb or have outright malicious intent (e.g. James Damore). This type of person has difficulty accepting that there can be highly intelligent people who come to entirely different conclusions about various issues. They can be intelligent, but they are also often toxic because they are loud and vocal and lead other people to just withdraw from the work environment, lest to provoke them. I am reading the original comment as the HR trying to avoid hiring such people, not that they don't hire someone who expresses dislike about Burger King's offerings or the latest Marvel movie. That sounds completely reasonable to me. In particular, this says nothing about the morals of the people you do end up hiring. I am not aware of any research investigating the correlation between doing good and virtue signalling on Twitter, but my guess is that you can do one without the other, and that in fact participating in vocal outrage is a distraction to serving your community in more productive ways (e.g. getting people to vote, or otherwise getting anything done to change what you believe must be changed).