It's not that anyone thinks it is appropriate - they know it is inappropriate. It's more that they don't care, and are willing to do whatever it takes to levera

It's not that anyone thinks it is appropriate - they know it is inappropriate. It's more that they don't care, and are willing to do whatever it takes to leverage the power of institutions (such as companies, universities, and government agencies) to fulfill their personal political and ideological goals. This is a well-known strategy for activism, particularly on the left, and even has a name - "long march through the institutions" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institu...). Some call it "entryism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism). As we've seen in American tech companies, once a foothold is gained, these motivated activists immediately start to loudly push for the aggressive exclusion of opposing views, and cancellation of all who belong to a different political group. Signaling consequences for opposition leads to self-censorship from others, which in turn helps further cement the perceived institutional consensus around the activists' platform. This strategy is ultimately effective, both because institutional takeover can build silently and become visible suddenly, and because company leaders are often too timid in exercising their power to shut down or fire such disruptive employees.