Where we seem to find ourselves today is in a position where if you have very progressive politics, you can say whatever you like - no matter how radical - whereas if you have conservative politics you can't even admit that without any specifics without being thought of as evil.

This is how we can get away with saying it's "encouraged" while really making sure any meaningful counter-argument is "forbidden" at the same time.

I work at an oil company in Houston and if I expressed a shred of progressive thought I would be run out of town. Maybe this place is more your speed?

The context here is obviously tech companies and media, which appear to be entirely in control of extremists. Keeping of course in mind that it's most likely a small but very vocal minority that dictates the general perception.

> The context here is obviously tech companies and media

That's not obvious to me at all. The parent said "Where we seem to find ourselves today..." which pretty clearly implies a universalist statement, and one that happens to be dead wrong.

The opposite of progressive intolerance is not intolerance toward progressives. One can (and should) object to both.

Probably, but what if we both got something that improved our quality of life? I don't want to hear preaching any more than you do. Wouldn't we all get along with our coworkers better if there was less of this in general?

I meant middle ground as in "you can talk about it, but you're neither forced to nor is it banned".

Also, there used to be a political spectrum and not just "progressive" and "conservative": This is something completely different than left/right - a right-wing person can easily be a progressive about his right views, while a left-wing person can be conservative [or even reactionary] about his left views.

[Edit: Note, I'm a non-native speaker: Maybe this differentiation is different between English than in German?]

Your English appears to be excellent and your original point seemed quite clear to me.

@core-question's reply under yours wasn't an indication that yours was unclear; it was just taking the conversation in a slightly different direction (which is normal).

I think you're wrong that this affects conservatives significantly more than other groups (and maybe that betrays your personal bias).

What is true is that people who are beliefs much are out of far outside the norm for their workplace are discouraged. For example, if you're someone who believes that profit is theft, and you make that clear during work, it will probably have negative effects for you. Whether "conservatives" are the victim of this depends on their workplace and just what views they espouse.

Not a conservative, more of a third positionist myself. Even in places where conservatives are comfortable, I've still got opinions they'd hate.

So I shut up.

yes but large organisations find the middle ground difficult to cultivate.

It requires that people avoid becoming excessively emotionally invested in the discussion; such that disagreements do not negatively impact their working relationships.

Small teams with good temperaments are easily capable of this. Large organisations tend to look for more definitive policies that can be easily laid out and enforced.

You have a point there (and hence no downvote from me ;-): GitLab is a 961-strong company (all remote, says the website). However, we have much larger nations and, as a society, we should try to get along with each other, despite differences.

Mind that this rule even prevents discussing legitimate concerns about customers with your team mates.