> Your comment is the least charitable possible interpretation of the above user's statement
Please, do tell, then. Because "that's not a nice reaction" is not the same as an uncharitable interpretation.
It's ridiculous on its face to call for employees of a company to not engage in politics and define the use of oil and gas as political and therefore out of bounds, when the actions being taken here are engaging with the actions of oil and gas companies.
(leaving aside the idea that it's ok for me, internet commentator, to have strong opinions, but not the employees that make some product I use)
You interpreted "employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals" as "companies not push[ing] for political goals" in order to sarcastically respond.
There is a difference between a company and it's individual employees, and rephrasing the statement such that "employees of a company" is replaced with "a company" in order to mock a user is rude and also not substantive.
> There is a difference between a company and it's individual employees, and rephrasing the statement such that "employees of a company" is replaced with "a company"
Unless there's a good argument that managers and executives are somehow different than other employees, companies pushing for political goals absolutely are employees of a company using their position to push private political goals.
Please, do tell, then. Because "that's not a nice reaction" is not the same as an uncharitable interpretation.
It's ridiculous on its face to call for employees of a company to not engage in politics and define the use of oil and gas as political and therefore out of bounds, when the actions being taken here are engaging with the actions of oil and gas companies.
(leaving aside the idea that it's ok for me, internet commentator, to have strong opinions, but not the employees that make some product I use)