> The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them.

And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.

> "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this."

NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). DSA candidates and members are regularly interviewed. Here's CNN talking about antifa, with quotes: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.... A very sympathetic profile, with the only opponent CNN chose to present being an actual Nazi (they couldn't apparently find anybody else willing to say "physically assaulting people of another ideology may be bad").

> the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world

Indeed, there are widespread violations of human rights - including and in particularly egregious forms concerning LGBT people - in many countries. And the fact that the mainstream Western press ignores that is a travesty. However, I suspect the reason it is ignoring it is not what you seem to be implying - that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism.

> except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia

And here you go. How you can reasonably discuss human rights in country X if when you try to do it you're told "yeah, you're just criticizing them because you hate people with dark skin!"? That derails the discussion immediately and you spend you time slot arguing (unsuccessfully) that you're not a racist. Who needs the trouble?

> Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him

And here we go again - we are all for basic civility and inclusion, and hearing everybody. Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience.

> Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions

Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. There was no any defense, there was an attack and then Eich was out. That's how it works - accusation is a sentence (and it's always "guilty and unpersoned"), and that's the whole due process you get.

> using company political contributions

Eich used his own money, didn't he?

> then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class.

Yes you can. This is what "basic civility" is all about. If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless - anybody could sign under that, the worst criminal in the world would be nice and genial and civil if everything goes exactly as he likes. It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Just tell us "if you agree with us, you'd be fine and if not, we'll mess you up like you won't believe it". And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.