How about something like, ask their opinion on a contentious technical issue (like dynamic vs static typing). Then, after they've finished answering, ask them to argue sincerely for the opposite viewpoint, and see if they can. A common trait among cancel culture types is they're unwilling to hear/consider the perspectives of people who disagree with them, so they wouldn't be able to fairly present the opposing argument.

Another thing is to make it explicit company policy that people's non-work activities cannnot in any way affect their performance evaluation at work, to disincentivise cancel cuture behaviour. I think in some European countries this is even part of labor law (so a company can't e.g. fire a worker for hearing he went out drinking heavily on the weekend).

I initially liked the idea of empathy tests, however I'm not sure if it's a global personality variable - that someone might be emphatic to someone else and not be open to other technological viewpoints.

I now think that it's not empathy that's missing. The woke are able to empathize with many people. It's primarily that they believe certain others are not actually people and worthy of their empathy. Bigotry. Othering.

Perhaps questions about Ethical Source licensing might be rewarding? Or talking about types of users?

> I think in some European countries this is even part of labor law (so a company can't e.g. fire a worker for hearing he went out drinking heavily on the weekend).

That would depend. The industry I work in (infrastructure management) is very H&S focused, so if you weren't completely sober and able to work safely on Monday morning you would be at best sent home, and at worst fired.

Probably not, since it would inevitably be a proxy for some protected classes and would appear as an unfair hiring bias.

I simply unfriended everyone online who virtue signals and/or engages in hostile politics. That includes some family members. If asked, it’s simple enough to explain calmly and honestly.

That sounds a lot like you restricting the viewpoint diversity of your social circle.

I just don’t use social media for “viewpoint diversity” — I don’t use it to discuss politics or morals at all. It isn’t an effective venue. So it’s best IMO to remove the nodes who are using it for those purposes rather than get sucked into the vortex.

Sure, but then again viewpoint diversity isn't a universal good to be chased at the expense of everything else :)

But by the standards set down by their post at the top of this tree, callamdelaney wouldn't hire them.

Possibly, but if it saves his mental health...?