Things can tend to look backwards when you redefine words to mean something different than what the original speaker intended.

But, okay, suppose you just redefined the word “race”. Fine! Let’s not use that word any more because the argument isn’t about that thing that you’ve redefined to have to do with power structure.

Let’s say that a group of people with a common ancestral heritage, especially if it’s usually easily distinguished visually, is called a “theatotype”. “Theatotypism,” where you denigrate or dehumanize everyone with a particular theatotype, is barbaric, ignorant, and destructive. It has been used to justify horrible acts like slavery, terrorism, and genocide, not to mention softer forms of cruelty like segregation and discrimination in employment.

The comments highlighted were clear examples of theatotypism, and should not be tolerated as a matter of basic decency, regardless of whether the targets must immediately fear for their lives. The severity of our response should perhaps vary by the degree of harm caused, but we should not condone it regardless, unless we abandon the notion that we as humans are all of individual value.

(Whether it’s understandable or was provoked is a separate issue; how it should impact the commenter’s employment prospects is yet another issue.)