I agree this is not fair nor beneficial, but from the Hollywood blacklist to Jim Crow to Martin Luther to "should we/shouldn't we build this golden calf", this has pretty much always been around.
Yep, the difference now is that it's less predictable. In the past if you were a part of the existing power structure you could expect to be safe, even if the political landscape changed under your feet. For example, plenty of powerful white men held pro-segregationist views in the 60's and recanted in the 80's without getting blacklisted.
In constrast, those outside the power structure were not safe. Any views or actions from the past could be resurrected to get them fired or worse when the landscape changed. The beginning of the Hollywood blacklist, for example, was as much about getting rid of Russian Jews as it was about finding communists.
Now it seems that nobody is safe and our political landscape is changing more quickly than ever. That makes it more frightening to step out, especially for those of us like myself (white guys) who had previously been protected implicitly.
Really? Why? If you're referring to Brendan Eich, keep in mind that he never recanted his contribution to Proposition 8. If he had, I'm pretty sure things would have turned out differently for him.
That is, I believe, the definition of how a marketplace of ideas is supposed to work; you get to have your view, somebody else gets to have a different view, and if one of them "wins" then... it wins.
Majority rule is a feature (or bug) of democracy. If you disagree with the prevailing views of the, in your words, tyrannical, majority, then you need to be more vocal, not less, in order to foster change. Yes, there will be consequences, but depending on the strength of your conviction and the fundamental correctness of your (minority) views, change can be brought about. Cases in point: Gandhi, MLK and leaders of other social movements who did it. At great personal price, yes, but nonetheless, did create change.
TL;DR: Put up or Shut up. Change comes at a price.
What if I have a family, need my job, and don't have the luxury of being a Gandhi or an MLK?
I don't know what kind of dream world you live in, but most people are just trying to get by. If given the choice between speaking out and perhaps facing consequences or keeping quiet, I think most people will just say forget it and keep quiet.
You may see this as a feature, but this outcome is contrary to the stated goals of the founders of this nonprofit.
Seriously, I really don't want to live in a world where I have to be a Gandhi or a MLK on every issue on which I disagree with the majority.
For the record, both Gandhi and MLK had families. They were NOT some retro-day techno-nomad free-agent dude-bro single males, with no responsibilities and little to lose.
[A]. Well, no, I'd really prefer the tyranny of no one.
[B]. I don't know what kind of dream world you live in, but most people are just trying to get by.
To me [A] and [B] appear self-contradictory. You call me out on living in a dream world, but start your answer by describing your own. Wake up and smell the coffee. It is bitter and burnt.
My point about everything coming at a price still stands. Your refutations are beating around it, not on it.