Arguing with BLM stats is like arguing whether Mary was virgin - it’s a matter of religion not science. Would you expect 16th century religious Spaniard argue with you intricacy of Bible? No, he will just drug you to inquisition and let them deal with you. The same here - BLM/DEI crowd would want you gone and HR will oblige.

Courage today is removing a 3.5mm jack plug socket, not reasoned discussion with accompanying evidence to back up assertions.

FWIW, I would never discuss anything remotely politicisable on work systems. Vi vs emacs and branching model debates are enough to remind me how vitriolic people can be.

It may be true that politics have permeated the workplace such that in certain industries and circles it has become important to signal your support for the popular movements of the day for basic job security.

To the extent it is innappropriate, it is equally innappropriate is for the workplace to become the venue for those who hold less popular ideas to tilt at political windmills of their choice, even if they do work at a news company.

All this post is really saying is that "shoot first, ask questions later" policing affects whites no less than blacks, controlling for relevant factors. But it's quite plausible that the detrimental effects of this style of policing (euphemistically referred to as "proactive" within OP's post) are nonetheless most relevant to Blacks and Black communities due to the aforementioned factors. So "Black Lives Matter" as a shorthand for the movement towards more sensible policing seems like a reasonable claim, even though whites would also benefit from being shot at less.

the craziest thing about this whole saga is that a skilled politician might have been able to nip this in the bud and improve america by guiding people on both sides to a solution that works for both.

The cops are not systematically murdering blacks, BUT this does not mean that there are not significant problems with the policing system that can be worked on. I think both sides would be able to accept that huge benefits could be reaped from police reform such as better training, better support for non-police based interventins etc. stuff that has been shown to work elsewhere. some of it might work in the USA and some might not, but BLM should appreciate that something would be being done and the cops should appreciate that they are getting extra support and aren't getting blamed for something they aren't doing.

maybe I am naive. I am not an expert here; in fact I am Australian so I don't even have first hand knowledge, but the solution looks worth a try from the outside, just needs the right leadership and commitment.

While I'm open to discussion that things just might more complicated than the standard narrative (basically: "disproportionate shootings of unarmed blacks versus those of whites is explained entirely by racial bias on the part of the police") -- this guy's line of thinking veers straight off into the deep end of spurious, unchecked reasoning. For example:

While it may be difficult to pin down an exact number, what’s clear is that thousands of black people have been murdered as a result of BLM’s falsehoods villainizing the police, and the resultant anti-police sentiment that makes police even more wary of confronting criminal suspects

The thing is, even you want to lend 100 percent credence to the so-called Minneapolis Effect (and not everyone does) -- this isn't what it says. Cassell's argument was based solely on the diversion of police resources, period. It did not attribute the 2021 homicide spike to "BLM falsehoods", "villainization of police", or "anti-police sentiment".

It's just spurious and off-kilter what he's saying (in addition to being inflammatory). On that point, and in a whole bunch of other places in his screed (which I'd rather not dissect right now).

Not that that explains his firing, though. The reason for that is pretty clear:

Receiving no support from HR, I raised the issue with my colleagues and senior leadership over email, for which I was fired.

That is, for expressly violating HR's request not to discuss this (alleged) harassment over company communication channels.