Either: * You're hypothesizing and I don't quite get it, * haven't read the text and are basing on some misinterpretation you have seen somewhere on the internet * or you're purposefully lying (which I assume you're not).

Please, just read the text: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

The issue is that time and time again the reaction to dissenting opinion isn't to discuss the merit of such opinion but to shut down the conversation and drown it out. Also, I haven't seen the original memo, my understanding is that it wasn't intended as a manifesto. Beyond this, I don't know that it called for anyone to die.

Maybe you can point out some things in the memo that you feel warrants someone's ability to make a living be taken away.

---

Edit: I would expect for people who preach in the name of diversity to be more open to criticism and opinions that don't match their own. I've said of myself repeatedly that I'd much rather have more politicians I can respect than those that I agree with. It's somewhat hypocritical of someone to espouse diversity, while simultaneously shutting out differing opinions.

Of course no one expects you to tolerate every point of view.

But we should tolerate moderate views across the political spectrum. The document was wrong in some points, but overall largely fit in with mainstream conservative politics. Many centrists also agree with parts of the document.

I think it's ok to fire someone for being a Nazi or (as in your example) issuing a death threat. I don't think it's ok for someone to be fired for being a progressive or a conservative.