The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
To be clear the lawsuit thrown out was the wrongful termination one; it may weaken the lawsuit regarding discrimination against white male conservatives, but that one still exists.
Image piracy is a rampant thing on the Internet (the images I take for device reviews are regularly stolen, for instance) and content creation firms like Getty Images could see the "view image" button as promoting image piracy. On the other hand, it makes Image Search less useful for users, requiring extra clicks to get the image you want. Adhering to copyright law is still the user's responsibility, and a whole lot of images on the Web aren't locked down under copyright law. There are tons of public domain and creative commons images out there (like everything on Wikipedia, for instance).
It seems like Google missed the obvious solution: Create a white-list of websites that use public-domain or creative-common licenses and enable the "view image" option on these ones only. Solves the (legitimate) copyright issue while keeping a functionality users like and encouraging free use licenses.
A particularly spicy quote from Jayme Sophie at the NLRB (emphasis mine):
I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men. It is not based in any way on the portions of your post that discuss [the Employer’s] programs or trainings, or how [the Employer] can improve its inclusion of differing political views. Those are important points. I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the company. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Because companies have a duty to comply with equal employment laws and an interest in promoting diversity, “employers must be permitted to ‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace,’ rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action," Sophir wrote.
:?
Damore seems like he was lawsuit-baiting, but the general standard which extends "hostile workplace" regulations to... anything that might (reasonably?) foreseeably contribute to a future hostile workplace seems troubling. But maybe this is already the standard? idk, would be interesting to hear from someone who Is Law about how to think about how to read it.
It doesn't extend hostile workplace regulations. It protects the ability of employers to comply with hostile workplace regulations.
If a workplace is hostile, and the employer took no preventative or corrective action against the hostility, then the employer can be sued.
The NLRB is clarifying that preventative action against a hostile workplace can include telling their employees that certain materials are disallowed. If I will fully violate that workplace policy, I can be sanctioned up to and including termination.
That isn't novel.
There might be an argument here that the NLRB has expanded the scope of what sorts of materials might be reasonably expected to contribute to a hostile workplace; that such materials now include soberly written essays in which the authors "cloak [their] comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding [their] 'not all women' disclaimers." I dunno. I don't know if any similar cases have made it to the NLRB or courts before.
But the idea that employers are allowed, and in some cases even required, to "nip in the bud" behaviors that reasonably lead to a hostile workplace is not at all new.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+14
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Google’s practice of formally reprimanding—and in at least one case, firing—employees for comments the company deemed discriminatory toward white men suggests that Google made an effort to moderate speech by its liberal employees as well as its conservative ones. These efforts have left some Google employees concerned that they will face professional consequences if they voice support for Google’s diversity and inclusion efforts and wondering if the company’s HR system is being gamed by employees who want to stamp out diversity initiatives.
Tim Chevalier, who was fired in November 2017 from his role as a site reliability engineer at Google after he made several internal posts calling out racism and sexism at the company, sued Google today for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Chevalier, who is transgender, queer, and disabled, alleges that Google failed to protect its female, minority, and LGBTQ employees from harassment on internal forums—but was quick to crack down on those employees when they spoke out about their experiences with racism, sexism, and homophobia at work.
Chevalier is one of four current and former Google employees who said they were disciplined for speaking out internally against racism and sexism—speech that Google allegedly deemed discriminatory toward white men. One of them requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about their experiences at Google. The earliest examples documented by Gizmodo occurred in 2016, before Damore began working on his memo, but Google’s efforts appear to have escalated after the memo was published.
Google did not respond to multiple phone calls and emails from Gizmodo requesting comment prior to the publication of this story. In a statement provided after publication, Google spokesperson Gina Scigliano said, “An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace, that doesn’t mean anything goes. All employees acknowledge our code of conduct and other workplace policies, under which promoting harmful stereotypes based on race or gender is prohibited. This is a very standard expectation that most employers have of their employees. The overwhelming majority of our employees communicate in a way that is consistent with our policies. But when an employee does not, it is something we must take seriously. We always make our decision without any regard to the employee’s political views.”
Oh, for the love of fuck...
On one side, you have people trying to protect themselves by pushing back against the argument that they don't belong there because of their identity. On the other side you have hate and bigotry. You don't have to treat them as equal - in fact, you shouldn't.
Pretending that moderates/the left and the alt-right are two sides of the same coin is wearying. It's possible for someone to be so woke that they get a little hard to deal with in a work environment, but that's not the same as denigrating people for their race or gender. It's just a regular work problem, like wearing too much perfume or singing with headphones on.
I read that article this morning and it made me seethe. Google is literally treating someone with the opinion of "I don't want to work with people who think women are genetically inferior to men" as those with the opinion of "I think women women are genetically inferior to men and those women shouldn't work here."
I read that article this morning and it made me seethe. Google is literally treating someone with the opinion of "I don't want to work with people who think women are genetically inferior to men" as those with the opinion of "I think women women are genetically inferior to men and those women shouldn't work here."
At this point, there are only two root causes I see as probable:
One, Google leadership has the "difference of opinion" fallacy bad, and for some reason thinks they have to treat both sides as equal for some unexplained reason.
Two, the rabbit hole goes higher up the food chain than thought, and you have someone high ranking who supports the bigots.
I just can't really treat "discrimination against white men" seriously. Sorry, was the deck not stacked enough in your favor? Poor things
A white man who works at Google and isn't a contract service employee (like a janitor) is at the very pinnacle of career achievement.
Can you elaborate? I don't actually understand what you're trying to say, thanks
If you're hired by Google as primary staff, that's a pretty major achievement careerwise. There really isn't too much room to go upwards.
This is not great logic as it implies that *no one* at Google could be discrimimated against, which is absurd.
Sure, in theory, a white male engineer can face in-workplace discrimination at Google. In reality, no, that doesn't happen, and suggesting it is absurd. Someone saying "I won't work with someone who thinks women are inferior" is not discriminating against white males, and if someone does think that, they have a number of fucked up priors there, starting with the idea that white men inherently think women are inferior.
The worst punishment a company can inflict on an employee is to fire them, assuming no crime was committed. If a liberal is fired for railing against the company too hard, and an alt right white male is fired for thinly veiled hate speech, you might argue the company is treating those offenses as "equally wrong." I don't think that's a reasonable position though.
The worst punishment a company can inflict on an employee is to fire them, assuming no crime was committed. If a liberal is fired for railing against the company too hard, and an alt right white male is fired for thinly veiled hate speech, you might argue the company is treating those offenses as "equally wrong." I don't think that's a reasonable position though.
Depends on how strongly the company stamps down on the hate speech, and how early/often they do so.
Also, the example used was someone not wanting to work with people who think women are inferrior, and someone who thinks women are inferrior.
Pretty sure that one of these should not be a fireable offense.
And any company that considers not wanting to work with people who think that women are inferrior railing against the company, is probably not one you want to defend.
The worst punishment a company can inflict on an employee is to fire them, assuming no crime was committed. If a liberal is fired for railing against the company too hard, and an alt right white male is fired for thinly veiled hate speech, you might argue the company is treating those offenses as "equally wrong." I don't think that's a reasonable position though.
Depends on how strongly the company stamps down on the hate speech, and how early/often they do so.
Also, the example used was someone not wanting to work with people who think women are inferrior, and someone who thinks women are inferrior.
Pretty sure that one of these should not be a fireable offense.
And any company that considers not wanting to work with people who think that women are inferrior railing against the company, is probably not one you want to defend.
I can't say whether it was fireable or not without knowing the details of what they said and did. But being on the right moral side does not mean they conducted themselves appropriately. You make it sound like they just mentioned in conversation "you know, I really don't like working with bigots!'" and then got fired the next day.
The worst punishment a company can inflict on an employee is to fire them, assuming no crime was committed. If a liberal is fired for railing against the company too hard, and an alt right white male is fired for thinly veiled hate speech, you might argue the company is treating those offenses as "equally wrong." I don't think that's a reasonable position though.
Depends on how strongly the company stamps down on the hate speech, and how early/often they do so.
Also, the example used was someone not wanting to work with people who think women are inferrior, and someone who thinks women are inferrior.
Pretty sure that one of these should not be a fireable offense.
And any company that considers not wanting to work with people who think that women are inferrior railing against the company, is probably not one you want to defend.
I can't say whether it was fireable or not without knowing the details of what they said and did. But being on the right moral side does not mean they conducted themselves appropriately. You make it sound like they just mentioned in conversation "you know, I really don't like working with bigots!'" and then got fired the next day.
You're conflating two people there (Chevalier was the individual fired, McMillen the one who said they wouldn't work with bigots.) As for the latter:
In the aftermath of Damore’s memo, McMillen wrote on internal Google Plus that he would refuse to work with other employees who supported Damore’s views. In mid-September, McMillen was called into a meeting with HR and told that a complaint had been made about his post.
“They asked questions like, ‘Are you saying you won’t work with white people?’ and ‘Are you saying you won’t work with men?’” McMillen recalled. “I was saying, ‘If you believe women are inherently worse at engineering, I’m going to have a hard time working with you.’”
The HR investigation into his comment lasted about two weeks, he said. During that time, McMillen said his HR representative told him that the department was processing a number of similar complaints and would endeavor to handle them all similarly. At the end of the investigation, McMillen was told that he should excuse himself from all hiring and promotion decisions. “The stated reason was there were concerns about my ability to be impartial in evaluating other people,” he explained.
After his manager pushed back on the decision, McMillen said, he was told that he didn’t have to remove himself from hiring and promotion roles—it was merely a suggestion—and he would be welcome to resume those roles after one year.
This is a failure on the part of HR. The questions they asked illustrate this completely.
The problem is that Google is treating this as "we have coworkers who need to learn to agree to disagree", when they really need to be treating it as "welp, we have a cancer in the corporate body, time to break out the chemo and scalpels."
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
I just can't really treat "discrimination against white men" seriously. Sorry, was the deck not stacked enough in your favor? Poor things
A white man who works at Google and isn't a contract service employee (like a janitor) is at the very pinnacle of career achievement.
Can you elaborate? I don't actually understand what you're trying to say, thanks
If you're hired by Google as primary staff, that's a pretty major achievement careerwise. There really isn't too much room to go upwards.
Ehhhhhhhh, kinda.
Google has a tendency to "overhire" for some roles. They end up hiring people who are overqualified and put them in positions where their skills are underutilized. If you're lucky you can transfer to one of Alphabet's more challenging positions. I also know a number of people who left Google because they wanted a more interesting job.
This isn't a defense of silly "poor white man" arguments.
I will say that having been in jobs like that, it definitely amplifies any Dunning-Kruger tendencies you might have. What you're doing is braindead easy, so it makes you feel like a superhero. You end up envious towards other people with more prestigious positions and its tempting to tell yourself, "I could do that, if they'd just let me."
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Well, if you define ugly as "not tolerating bigotry", then, sure.
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
Kinda. It will lead ugly places in that you will get a ton of negative attention from the neo-nazis and the right-wing media bubble that supports them and you run a serious risk of the rest of the media pulling a "both sides" on you.
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
I think picking sides at all is a terrible idea from a business standpoint, it's something of a Pandora's Box and sets precedent they probably don't want to set.
Whether or not it's the morally correct thing to do is somewhat tangential.
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
I think picking sides at all is a terrible idea from a business standpoint, it's something of a Pandora's Box and sets precedent they probably don't want to set.
Whether or not it's the morally correct thing to do is somewhat tangential.
If you're concerned about precedent it's way too late for that. "Picking sides" of this nature is *extremely* common in the corporate world.
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
I think picking sides at all is a terrible idea from a business standpoint, it's something of a Pandora's Box and sets precedent they probably don't want to set.
Whether or not it's the morally correct thing to do is somewhat tangential.
It’s the point of this thread.
A business, especially one as powerful and financially secure as Google, should absolutely pick a side when one side consists of bigots.
The main issue here is that Google does not exist in isolation here. The issue Google is dealing with internally is a reflection of a broader issue in mainstream culture and their reaction to it is either a fear of the consequences of stepping outside that or a result of that reflection of mainstream culture going all the way to the top of the organization.
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
I think picking sides at all is a terrible idea from a business standpoint, it's something of a Pandora's Box and sets precedent they probably don't want to set.
Whether or not it's the morally correct thing to do is somewhat tangential.
If you're concerned about precedent it's way too late for that. "Picking sides" of this nature is *extremely* common in the corporate world.
It's possible I don't know enough about Corporate America, that's true. I don't know much about it, I haven't worked in it.
Is this kind of thing common? I guess I'm just comparing it to places I've worked myself, I know I'd feel extremely uncomfortable knowing holding certain political viewpoints of either flavor would be grounds for dismissal, and I can only imagine the lawsuits.
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
I think picking sides at all is a terrible idea from a business standpoint, it's something of a Pandora's Box and sets precedent they probably don't want to set.
Whether or not it's the morally correct thing to do is somewhat tangential.
If you're concerned about precedent it's way too late for that. "Picking sides" of this nature is *extremely* common in the corporate world.
It's possible I don't know enough about Corporate America, that's true. I don't know much about it, I haven't worked in it.
Is this kind of thing common? I guess I'm just comparing it to places I've worked myself, I know I'd feel extremely uncomfortable knowing holding certain political viewpoints of either flavor would be grounds for dismissal, and I can only imagine the lawsuits.
There are only two states where political beliefs are a protected class, iirc. No lawsuits to speak of.
Also "You are genetically inferior and should get fired." <- you'd be uncomfortable if someone saying that to you got fired?
I've been working in a major (Canadian) corporation for something approaching 17 years.
Hold whatever political viewpoints you like.
Choosing to voice them, especially in a manner that demeans others and/or creates a hostile work environment, and you can expect HR to crawl up your ass in short order.
I have coworkers who hold differing political views. We even talk about them on occasion, politely, respectfully, and recognize that the differences don't mean we can't work together.
But if one of them went on a rant about how women or a given race of people weren't equal to others, I'd be surprised if it wasn't addressed.
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking this was just 'because he was a conservative'. It's because he was an asshole (a racist, sexist, and otherwise bigoted asshole at that). Conservatism was simply the cloak he wrapped around himself while expressing heinous opinions.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I doubt google wants to open that can of worms, they seem to be doing everything in their power to avoid it. I don't blame them, picking sides will lead down ugly roads.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
I think picking sides at all is a terrible idea from a business standpoint, it's something of a Pandora's Box and sets precedent they probably don't want to set.
Whether or not it's the morally correct thing to do is somewhat tangential.
If you're concerned about precedent it's way too late for that. "Picking sides" of this nature is *extremely* common in the corporate world.
It's possible I don't know enough about Corporate America, that's true. I don't know much about it, I haven't worked in it.
Is this kind of thing common? I guess I'm just comparing it to places I've worked myself, I know I'd feel extremely uncomfortable knowing holding certain political viewpoints of either flavor would be grounds for dismissal, and I can only imagine the lawsuits.
There are only two states where political beliefs are a protected class, iirc. No lawsuits to speak of.
Also "You are genetically inferior and should get fired." <- you'd be uncomfortable if someone saying that to you got fired?
I'd wager it's rarely said that bluntly. Usually it requires a certain amount of inference and reading-into and those steps bother me, yes.
+1
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
edited February 2018
Creating a hostile work environment for pretty much any reason is/should be grounds for dismissal. That makes sense because if you do so, you're crippling the ability to do work for your coworkers and thus hurting the business. So it is less a matter of being fired for being a conservative and more a matter that some political beliefs are inherently hostile ("You are inferior because" XYZ reason) and voicing them within a professional context is absolutely unacceptable because it will cripple a business, and HR policy reflects that.
One of the reasons that almost all corporate HR briefs look like progressive talking points: Legal liability. Much of what conservatives want is a change in what counts as protected classes for employment laws, because it is currently illegal to discriminate as business along the lines that the alt-right wants to discriminate along, mainly gender and race. If your political beliefs are bigoted, well guess what? Its illegal for your employer to act on what you want, and for good reason.
Edit: This is also why tort reform is/used to be a big conservative talking point, because companies that weren't subtle enough about their bigoted managers firing minorities/women got their asses sued into oblivion. The law is pretty damn clear, you don't get to discriminate overtly against protected classes. This dynamic also drives the conversation about systemic racism nowadays vs talk of personal prejudice in the 90's, there is absolutely no right to personal prejudice within employment law, whereas a system that just so happens to benefit white dudes is harder to prove with the cover of a solid HR policy that says that they will comply with the law.
Posts
Not really related to this thread but here you go https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/
It seems like Google missed the obvious solution: Create a white-list of websites that use public-domain or creative-common licenses and enable the "view image" option on these ones only. Solves the (legitimate) copyright issue while keeping a functionality users like and encouraging free use licenses.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It doesn't extend hostile workplace regulations. It protects the ability of employers to comply with hostile workplace regulations.
If a workplace is hostile, and the employer took no preventative or corrective action against the hostility, then the employer can be sued.
The NLRB is clarifying that preventative action against a hostile workplace can include telling their employees that certain materials are disallowed. If I will fully violate that workplace policy, I can be sanctioned up to and including termination.
That isn't novel.
There might be an argument here that the NLRB has expanded the scope of what sorts of materials might be reasonably expected to contribute to a hostile workplace; that such materials now include soberly written essays in which the authors "cloak [their] comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding [their] 'not all women' disclaimers." I dunno. I don't know if any similar cases have made it to the NLRB or courts before.
But the idea that employers are allowed, and in some cases even required, to "nip in the bud" behaviors that reasonably lead to a hostile workplace is not at all new.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Thanks, that’s helpful. Also for the heads up about the NLRB letter, which looks like it’s available online.
Oh, for the love of fuck...
On one side, you have people trying to protect themselves by pushing back against the argument that they don't belong there because of their identity. On the other side you have hate and bigotry. You don't have to treat them as equal - in fact, you shouldn't.
At this point, there are only two root causes I see as probable:
One, Google leadership has the "difference of opinion" fallacy bad, and for some reason thinks they have to treat both sides as equal for some unexplained reason.
Two, the rabbit hole goes higher up the food chain than thought, and you have someone high ranking who supports the bigots.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
A white man who works at Google and isn't a contract service employee (like a janitor) is at the very pinnacle of career achievement.
Can you elaborate? I don't actually understand what you're trying to say, thanks
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
If you're hired by Google as primary staff, that's a pretty major achievement careerwise. There really isn't too much room to go upwards.
This is not great logic as it implies that *no one* at Google could be discrimimated against, which is absurd.
Sure, in theory, a white male engineer can face in-workplace discrimination at Google. In reality, no, that doesn't happen, and suggesting it is absurd. Someone saying "I won't work with someone who thinks women are inferior" is not discriminating against white males, and if someone does think that, they have a number of fucked up priors there, starting with the idea that white men inherently think women are inferior.
Also, the example used was someone not wanting to work with people who think women are inferrior, and someone who thinks women are inferrior.
Pretty sure that one of these should not be a fireable offense.
And any company that considers not wanting to work with people who think that women are inferrior railing against the company, is probably not one you want to defend.
I can't say whether it was fireable or not without knowing the details of what they said and did. But being on the right moral side does not mean they conducted themselves appropriately. You make it sound like they just mentioned in conversation "you know, I really don't like working with bigots!'" and then got fired the next day.
You're conflating two people there (Chevalier was the individual fired, McMillen the one who said they wouldn't work with bigots.) As for the latter:
This is a failure on the part of HR. The questions they asked illustrate this completely.
Ehhhhhhhh, kinda.
Google has a tendency to "overhire" for some roles. They end up hiring people who are overqualified and put them in positions where their skills are underutilized. If you're lucky you can transfer to one of Alphabet's more challenging positions. I also know a number of people who left Google because they wanted a more interesting job.
This isn't a defense of silly "poor white man" arguments.
I will say that having been in jobs like that, it definitely amplifies any Dunning-Kruger tendencies you might have. What you're doing is braindead easy, so it makes you feel like a superhero. You end up envious towards other people with more prestigious positions and its tempting to tell yourself, "I could do that, if they'd just let me."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Nah. Picking the side that doesn’t call for oppressing people because of their gender, skin color, etc generally works out pretty well long term.
Well, if you define ugly as "not tolerating bigotry", then, sure.
Kinda. It will lead ugly places in that you will get a ton of negative attention from the neo-nazis and the right-wing media bubble that supports them and you run a serious risk of the rest of the media pulling a "both sides" on you.
I think picking sides at all is a terrible idea from a business standpoint, it's something of a Pandora's Box and sets precedent they probably don't want to set.
Whether or not it's the morally correct thing to do is somewhat tangential.
If you're concerned about precedent it's way too late for that. "Picking sides" of this nature is *extremely* common in the corporate world.
It’s the point of this thread.
A business, especially one as powerful and financially secure as Google, should absolutely pick a side when one side consists of bigots.
It's possible I don't know enough about Corporate America, that's true. I don't know much about it, I haven't worked in it.
Is this kind of thing common? I guess I'm just comparing it to places I've worked myself, I know I'd feel extremely uncomfortable knowing holding certain political viewpoints of either flavor would be grounds for dismissal, and I can only imagine the lawsuits.
There are only two states where political beliefs are a protected class, iirc. No lawsuits to speak of.
Also "You are genetically inferior and should get fired." <- you'd be uncomfortable if someone saying that to you got fired?
Hold whatever political viewpoints you like.
Choosing to voice them, especially in a manner that demeans others and/or creates a hostile work environment, and you can expect HR to crawl up your ass in short order.
I have coworkers who hold differing political views. We even talk about them on occasion, politely, respectfully, and recognize that the differences don't mean we can't work together.
But if one of them went on a rant about how women or a given race of people weren't equal to others, I'd be surprised if it wasn't addressed.
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking this was just 'because he was a conservative'. It's because he was an asshole (a racist, sexist, and otherwise bigoted asshole at that). Conservatism was simply the cloak he wrapped around himself while expressing heinous opinions.
I'd wager it's rarely said that bluntly. Usually it requires a certain amount of inference and reading-into and those steps bother me, yes.
One of the reasons that almost all corporate HR briefs look like progressive talking points: Legal liability. Much of what conservatives want is a change in what counts as protected classes for employment laws, because it is currently illegal to discriminate as business along the lines that the alt-right wants to discriminate along, mainly gender and race. If your political beliefs are bigoted, well guess what? Its illegal for your employer to act on what you want, and for good reason.
Edit: This is also why tort reform is/used to be a big conservative talking point, because companies that weren't subtle enough about their bigoted managers firing minorities/women got their asses sued into oblivion. The law is pretty damn clear, you don't get to discriminate overtly against protected classes. This dynamic also drives the conversation about systemic racism nowadays vs talk of personal prejudice in the 90's, there is absolutely no right to personal prejudice within employment law, whereas a system that just so happens to benefit white dudes is harder to prove with the cover of a solid HR policy that says that they will comply with the law.