Sorry--I don't understand your apparent objection.

Natasha was saying that the being upset certainly wasn't about race, but failed to explain the reader's perception that they were not just ordinary-upset but so upset.

You called my comment sad, but then proceeded to reiterate personal experience of one of the possible explanations I offered (#2): that is, your ordinary-level disagreement was interpreted as an "attitude problem" (presumably because of bias on the part of the people telling you this).

It's pretty well-documented that this kind of thing happens, which is why I included it as a possible explanation for an impression of so angry not just ordinary-angry.

Why is my comment sad when you're giving the same explanation as (one of the ones) I offered?