pg4g0001

entropys said:

I don't think it is well put at all.  If someone disagrees with the approved position, according to Soli this person is "some misogynistic dickhole who now feels, as you put it, ostracised that he cant express his hate filled views to his colleagues". There is no middle ground, Soli believes if you don't conform absolutely to the approved views, you are total scum. No Ned Flanders types, people that are conservative when it comes to values, just hater scum.

The problem is, when a company just says it is "Pro XYZ" and those are it's values, and you say "I disagree with the company on it's values", that means you have to be anti X, Y, or Z, or a combination. There is no logical other conclusion.

In this case, being anti any of those policies of inclusion is deliberately hurting at least one of those groups because you "disagree" with it...

If you believe discriminating against someone for being trans, gay, a person of color, or disabled, or any other minority group, you're a hate filled bigot. That's not generalisation. If its a person of color you discriminate against, you're a hate filled bigot. If it's a person who's gay, you're a hate filled bigot. If you're discriminating about some guy who's disabled... you're a hate filled bigot. Does it change anything when I tell you that he lost use of his legs in Afghanistan? If it does, you're a hate filled bigot. All people who are disabled deserve respect and dignity, not just those who lost it due to war (despite how honorable their sacrifice was, and I say that as a veteran).

This isn't generalisation and "shades of grey". "I only killed a few people" isn't a defence, neither is it here.

Can anyone explain why the image is of the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull?

They are different countries, you know...