Woah, hold up there. You're speaking for some progressives as if you're speaking for all. I generally like to think of myself as progressive.
I'm pretty sure that many progressives consider employing someone in your organization who posts hateful content online _is_ amplifying them. Look at the internal messages of Google employees in the John Damore lawsuit documents if you don't believe me.
Damore wasn't fired for having certain views. He was fired for making his feelings about his views in relationship to his company a national issue. I think many negative things about my employer, all not ideological, but I fully expect to get fired if my rantings about it end up as national news. On the other hand, if I act like an adult and minimize my impact, my employer doesn't give a rat's ass what my views are.
I'm not saying anything about why Damore was (deservedly) fired, I'm speaking specifically about the self-described activity of _some_ Google employees and managers to deliberately not hire or ensure the firing of non-progressives and to keep the company roster 'ideologically pure'.
I am purely speaking about the content of the internal messaging included in the court documents. It's a good read if you haven't gone through it yet.
He was fired for making his feelings about his views in relationship to his company a national issue.
Point of order: Regardless of Damore's thoughts, he posted them on an internal message board didn't he? It was the leaker who made it a national issue, and that person remains anonymous.
I'm pretty sure that many progressives consider employing someone in your organization who posts hateful content online _is_ amplifying them. Look at the internal messages of Google employees in the John Damore lawsuit documents if you don't believe me.
Breitbart fired Milo over the same shit.