I don't think the parent poster was pretending anything the parent-parent poster didn't share.
Again, where was that said? Disbelief is expressed nowhere in the post.
Even if that was the message, what in the world is the reply adding here?
The post is basically:
- points out the poster is emotionally invested in being discriminated against
- "well racism exists in 2020 idk what to tell you"
- You shouldn't expect people have any sort of productive discussion about the article
All of that is then followed by then saying they misrepresented everything. I'm not even directly tied to this in any way, and that made my blood boil a bit. The first line really sets the tone by leading with an apology, yet posting still. It ends in confusion while contributing nothing and basically saying "well the world is shit, expect it" but also trying to argue that all of this isn't shitty at the same time, tacitly adding to the racism. It's just incredibly unempathetic and doesn't really serve a purpose.
And yet, we have people now commenting in detail on the linguistic interpretation of the post to try and eke out some case for the response. What is this even for?
* They suggest that Black people are in general SJWs
* They attempt to litigate affirmative action rather than the claims in the article
* They argue that Black employees passed over for promotion were underqualified.
* They dismiss the entire article on the basis of it having appeared in the New York Times.
Take issues with any of these specific complaints if you want, but don't pretend that the comment simply said "there aren't enough anti-Coinbase comments here", because they didn't say that at at all.