[strlen]

> It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made. If your narrator has an agenda it becomes difficult to trust that narrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

In brief, saying "X is wrong, because X subscribes to ideology I" is not a logically valid argument. Willing to hear X's argument and consider it on its own merits does not grant legitimacy to I.

The narrator's argument isn't "white people are colonizers, so...", he merely enumerates what he has experienced. That phrasing is unfortunate (but pales in comparison to being told far more offensive things _at work_) it doesn't detract from (or add to) his argument, i.e., it's an irrelevant detail.

[columbo]

To be clear, I'm not dismissing his argument, I was simply answering the question "WHO CARES".

There's a time to vent and a time to make a case. I personally feel that the author would have been better served making a case (EEOC) instead of venting in a public method. Especially since the identities of the author and the company in question are very easy to track down. This could have long term negative consequences for the author, and may make his claim harder if he does decided to take his former employer to court.

YMMV.