I learned from a handful of circle-jerkers in the ED that abusive managers exist, and that moving the goalposts to talk about how factory workers are frowned upon is completely relevant.

As it appears, a topic about "rude interviewers" comes up, and an interviewer/employer ding-bat comes in to make the topic all about himself and how it's "justified" (can't stand that word) to be impolite whilst victimizing himself like the typical, ungrateful, overpaid a**-hat that he is. Afterwords, he decides to say that he's never been impolite... Oh great, apparently he's such a great "interviewer" that he can't even read something on the internet properly. This overpaid numb-skull then acknowledges that he likes to "can" abusive managers. Apparently though, since he already victimized his position, and since he's a "higher up", no one that's beneath anyone in the field of "Employerdom" can be negated. Not even the employees, because they're "entitled libruls."

As it seems, it's not possible that an employer can be abusive, not in the field, or as it appears, not online, either. It's like, because of his position, he thinks he owns every train of thought and word that gets typed. Corrupt judges can't exist, corrupt police officers can't exist, and surely a topic about abusive employers can't possibly bring up the possibility of abusive employers existing.

So, I'd like to conclude that this topic was made of 2 failures in reading comprehension, him and his "White Knight", "E-butt-buddy". The topic's all about you, now, when it never was in the first place. Soak it up and think you've won.