So first off, I wouldn't believe it. After the shit I've seen pulled over the last year most of what the media says is bull, made up, taken out of context, half truths, hyperbole, unfounded accusations. I'd have to witness Eich, in context, being a white supremacists, then yes I would support removing him.
I'm not saying Eich was a white supremacist. This is a hypothetical example.
However, all reports from employees stated Eich was respectful to them and he did encourage diversity. He had one anti-gay marriage view that he donated some money to support, but didn't discriminate against people based on that view.
It is also possible for racist people and white supremacists to be respectful. I question the ability of a white supremacist to be non-discriminatory, just as I question a straight marriage supremacist to be non-discriminatory, but I think it's possible for both to divorce their actions from their beliefs.
That donation was dug up and whipped into a social media storm that resulted in articles parroting rumors and slander to the point he and his family was being threatened with physical violence by people who were justifying it because he was a bigot.
Obviously it's not good that he and his family was threatened, regardless of how those people justified it.
This is thought policing at it's finest.
It's not thought policing. It's not illegal to be against gay marriage. It's not illegal to be a white supremacist. But even you said you'd support removing Eich for being a white supremacist. Is this not thought policing by your criteria?
A couple years ago I was pretty much on the bandwagon for politically correct culture, but now I see it's a tool people are using to ensure facts and opinions that disagree with them, what they see as "popular opinion", get shutdown.
While there certainly is a political correctness angle to this, there is more to it than that. I personally don't give a shit about political correctness. But Eich was the CTO of a private organization, who had bigoted views. As a Manager of a diverse group of people, I don't think he could be an effective leader without the respect of his subordinates. Furthermore, her wasn't removed by the internet, or even by his own company, he resigned.
. What's worse is the people that employ these types of shaming and mobbing tactics are the WORST hypocrites, as long as you agree with them they don't even care that your a self admitted pedophile, but they're extremely quick to accuse others of it based on guilt by association using fabricated evidence.
This is what happens when you divide everything into 2 sides. If someone from side A does something bad, it doesn't make side B automatically right.
So unfortunately my stance now is, if someone's making waves about a politically correct, gender, race and/or "diversity" issue THEY are probably the ones in the wrong and look very carefully at their claims, who they're accusing, what their motivations might be and what they're proposing as a solution before falling in with them.
Why not just evaluate every claim based on merit regardless of whether it's a "diversity" issue?