That assumes the activists are in the right. You’ve chosen a side. Would you say “the division didn’t start with the activists” if it was conservative activists advocating for modest dress codes or similar? Your position assumes that progressive activists are correct, justified in bringing their politics to work, and that if they have a problem it’s the company’s fault.

But you have to work with people you might disagree with, including conservatives, religious people, and so on. The point of keeping activism out of business is so that people with differing politics can work together. If you can't in good conscience do that, the honorable thing to do is resign, as happened at Basecamp.

Activism for modest dress codes? I'll just excuse myself, here. That is a farce compared to the subject at hand.

I believe you understand why someone would object to the above, but are not willing to universalize it.

I am unwilling to universalize a principle I believe to have only a farcical connection to the one at hand. So you're partly correct about me.

I understand you find it cognitively and rhetorically convenient to focus on an example rather than the point it’s exemplifying. But, if you’re capable of imagining alternative viewpoints, try swapping the example to one more to your taste to help you focus on the argument.

I do not consider it valuable to try to reason about fuzzy matters using only edge cases. It's not a matter of ability, but of value.

I agree it's a low value discussion, but I'm just fascinated that every comment you make exemplifies my point better than I did. The popularity of your style of interaction is precisely why policitcs should be kept out of the workplace.

I'm just fascinated that you would admit to being the kind of founder who sends a third of his company packing over personal policy.