| >OP had set up an excluded middle between a conspiracy and an emergent behavior unrelated to bias. Nobody said it was unrelated to biases except for you. What was being suggested is that it's not a conspiracy (a.k.a an explicit agreement) against older employees. Nobody is suggesting systematic biases don't exist, which is the strawman you are attacking. >So am I, and that is also irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter whether you, I, or s/he are in that group. It's relevant (to me at least) in discussions where you have opportunities to hear anecdotes from the victims. We aren't lawyers deliberating a case. > I wasn't hostile to anyone, only to an argument that had no place in this discussion. FFS, it's not an argument anyone was making. I don't know why you're being defensive because OP was not defending ageism or claiming that an age bias didn't exist. It was just a suggestion that it was a product of the complex layoff strategies rather than some backroom hand shake of "let's get rid of the olds". >who presents facts that don't support your "perspective" on an objective question. You didn't present any facts and I don't have a perspective to support on this matter. I just pointed out that you're attacking people you appear to largely agree with because you're not understanding what they are saying. |