> But when “supporting” someone’s emotions means someone should lose their job, the reasonableness of those feelings needs to be assessed to see if, in this case, there is a true risk of a threat.
Good point. You do need to take into account the reasonableness, and I think everyone agrees that things aren’t simple. I think Catherine Bracy said it well:
The other side of this is to recognize that Thiel’s “job” is not an ordinary job. At Facebook, he sits on the board so he has the ability to affect a large amount of change. In addition, since it’s not his livelyhood, losing his job has a different meaning than for a more normal “job”. So there are multiple elements of the “reasonableness” that go beyond the argument I made here.
Most importantly is that Zuckerberg addressed the wrong problem in his response. Had he said “we recognize the need for safety, and have decided to address this via X, Y and Z”, then that would be very different.
> There is no actual threat to women or minorities from people who support the Republican nominee
I have heard different. Some examples: