This sounds like you're strawmanning the GP.

GP said it's not a common statement, not that they haven't encountered it before.

> companies discriminate against black people

They actively discriminate for black people.

> there is police discrimination against black people in the US, not just in one or two regions, but in every sizeable city in the US

Source? Did you control for crime rates? Violent crime rates? Armed encounters?

You need to take your blinders off and get some reading glasses.

> What is the scope of our mission?

> Coinbase’s mission is to create an open financial system for the world. This means we want to use cryptocurrency to bring economic freedom to people all over the world. This is difficult and important work, and every employee at Coinbase signed up because they are excited about this mission.

More details here: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-comp...

The fact that you immediately jumped to calling it a "screed"—not once, but twice—despite allegedly not knowing this reveals your motives quite clearly. You are simply ideologically opposed to the message, not its form, and in favor of the imposition of a woke monoculture.

Your dishonest use of an obvious motte-and-bailey in your last sentence is just the cherry on top.

They are assuming no such thing. You are simply putting words into people's mouths, shamelessly.

But perhaps it's not such a bad thing for you to push people away from your position with such shameless behavior.

Your second paragraph is a word salad and non-sequitur. Treating a human who claims they're a deer as a human isn't denying their existence.

No one in this thread is asking anybody to do that. I was responding to a question that was asked of me.

Treating a man who claims they're a woman as a man isn't denying their existence.

> Criticizing retaliatory and intellectually dishonest hit pieces makes him sound like he isn't open to dissent

Non-sequitur.

Despite being a socialist, Orwell was very critical of the socialists of his time (especially the Soviets and Spanish communists), to the extent that he gradually became a Labour reformist later in life. In all, his most significant contribution, as he himself perceived it, was opposition to totalitarianism and to the corruption of language and thought by the political Left. On that, one can certainly "agree with his politics" without agreeing with all of it.

I would argue that he was in opposition to the corruption of language and thought period. It doesn't matter by whom. It does not matter if those who abuse other are fascists, communists or capitalists. Left and Right are not sane political words, they are the very thing he criticized.

Orwell was a well reflected critical thinker and he spent a lot of time studying propaganda, social-political-philosophy and the life and reality of the lower class. He was a social-liberal but not a free-market-libertarian. These words have far more meaning then left and right. But more even then a social-liberal he was against "ideological-identity-ism" for lack of a better word.

Those who believe he was primarily an author of dystopian fiction should probably read "The Road to Wigan Pier" for some dystopian non-fiction. Those who claim to know his political opinions should read his collected essays. Anyone who can think critically will not not agree with all of them, but the world would be a better place if more people agreed with some of them.