The article provided two potential definitions of the word. I mean the term to be inclusive of the whole situation the article described as a concept which encapsulates both meaning of the word--hence why I quoted it and referenced discrimination policies which usually address both definitions conceived of in the article in the workplace.

That makes sense, thank you for clarifying.

Maybe he's distinguishing it from light-hearted.

Like the article author, you sound like a self-elected cop of sorts. Have you considered channeling your energy elsewhere?

I was asking for clarification and got it. What's the problem with that?

Seemed to me that you were attempting to sniff out some heretical speech.