Don't you have a hard time believing that on a woman's first day in a place with a small minority of women, her direct supervisor, ON COMPANY CHAT, in a highly

Don't you have a hard time believing that on a woman's first day in a place with a small minority of women, her direct supervisor, ON COMPANY CHAT, in a highly educated, white-collar highly compensated office job for programmers (she must have earned well into the six digits), said he was in an open relationship and always getting in trouble for looking for a woman to have sex with? That is very hard to believe. Why aren't you incredulous - isn't that far harder to believe? Oh, right, because she has those screenshots in black and white. So instead you have to be incredulous about what she doesn't. This is like a black attorney receiving mail saying "You're not welcome in my classroom and if I could, I'd hang you from a noose. Because you're black." signed by a law professor. And the law professor then giving an F - no credit - on every assignment this person handed in. While, incidentally, the law student publishes a book on the area of law the professor teaches in. So, we get this write-up. And at that point, here you come with your statement "I have a hard time believing that a law professor really gave zero credit for well-written papers that aren't plagiarized. I find it far more likely that either the papers really were unworthy of credit, or perhaps were plagiarized. It just doesn't make sense for a professor to assign no credit otherwise!" I use this analogy because in this case you are not questioning the racist signed letter, what the author has in black and white. You're shifting and moving the conversation to whatever part has the least evidence, then adding that you find it hard to believe. How can you honestly do that? Why don't you question the part that has screenshots? The new hire being directly propositioned - on their first day!!! - by their direct manager? Come on. Withdraw your statement.