Not only against criticism, but against actual understanding.
See: the usage of recently coined, or at least re-popularized words ("minoritized", "gaslighting") that are weighty with implication, and light on concrete claims or accusations.
> Which rights are they missing exactly?
Forcing this explanation would move the debate into an area they worry they can't win, so they couch their complaints in -isms and -ations, and go no further.
Like most people, I know that racism, sexism and inequality exist. But they are not magic words that absolve you of actually making an argument.
It's infuriating, to be frank. The issues are too important not to have a serious, sober debate about how to address them. We just can't seem to get there.
At the very least, the burden of proof must be on the accuser to point out where and how they are taking place.
Chances are these Apple employees are mostly middle-upper class trust fund whites who went to expensive colleges, often exclusive ivy leagues. They use emotionally charged language and minorities as a shield against criticism. Saying that you're doing something on behalf of the marginalized is highly effective at disarming people.
"we are faced with a pattern of isolation, degradation, and gaslighting."
This is also a disarming tactic. In reality they are gaslighting us.
"When our stories are collected and presented together, they help expose persistent patterns of racism, sexism, inequity, discrimination, intimidation, suppression, coercion, abuse, unfair punishment, and unchecked privilege."
A bog standard laundry list of critical social justice language. That "unchecked privilege" makes the list of grievances betrays any possible seriousness.
"aren't all given equal rights."
Which rights are they missing exactly?