I don't think that's a particularly valid or accurate "read". Here's what I understood: Tim had just just written about 8,700 signatures on an open letter, an

I don't think that's a particularly valid or accurate "read". Here's what I understood: Tim had just just written about 8,700 signatures on an open letter, and 3,000 tech workers participating in the climate strike. Then said "Fast-forward to the Covid-19 era." and "Instead, they just fired the activists." Then he make the statement under discussion: "I’m sure it’s a coincidence that every one of them is a person of color, a woman, or both. Right?" Then further down that post, he talks about a 9 hour long youtube video-chat, with workers from three different countries as wel as multiple locations in the US. It's obvious (to me anyway) that this statement has nothing at all to do with "biased against white men", in fact he's pointing out exactly the opposite. Zero white men got fired for being part of any activism discussed here. 100% of the people who got fired were POC and/or women. He is making it clear that Amazon's worker intimidation policies result in sexist and racist outcomes. Because as he concludes at the end "At the end of the day, it’s all about power balances." I'm really super curious - what thought process or line of reasoning led you to conclude he was accusing them of "being biased against hiring white men"?