laughing dog
Contributor
Your argument,might be convincing it requires the audience to be hypersensitive literalists who ignore context and hyperbole whenever it is convenient to wave their virtue to their ideological brethren or convervative nimrods or to white nationalists. Fortunately for the US, those groups still do not add up to a majority of the population.
Except as Rhea has pointed out, that is not what she was doing.Keep in mind that to an unemployed person who's unemployed because he was discriminated against, his personal unemployment rate is 100%, not whatever the average rate is for whichever demographic you consider him a faceless representative of. Pointing at 96 other people and saying they all have jobs is not a justification; it's merely adding insult to injury. I think TB's point was that belittling people for reacting negatively to having been denied jobs because of the color of their skin is unbecoming in a hiring manager.Ha ha, that was the objection? That I made a joke about a poster here at IIDB, in the most highly employed racial group, bitterly complaining about the oppression?He didn't get it out of “valuable to the team”; he got it out of "Help! I'm being oppressed!1!".How did you get “mocking and disdainful” out of “valuable to the team?”
What are you talking about?
So strawman then. Got it.
It's not as though you can get away with it, so why do you guys even bother trying to gaslight us? That is exactly what she was doing. She can claim until she's blue in the face that it was only "a joke about a poster here at IIDB", but it wasn't a poster here at IIDB that she put those words in the mouth of. She put those words in the mouths of the 4.7% of white Americans who are unemployed.