The argument here was that being offered assistance is personally insulting. In this case, I think the "same exact logic" holds. Yes, the line of questioning is a bit of an abrasive way of putting someone on the defensive, but I wanted to have a clear and direct answer for why the ghetto comparison held.

My point is that all the arguments used to rebut this line of thinking when applied to more conventional complaints from underrepresented people apply just as well here. If "the same exact logic" holds, what exactly makes the same exact rebuttals magically invalid?

What are the rebuttals?

Usually it's something like "you can't minimize someone else's experience if they're expressing that it's affecting their work life", "clearly there's a problem since they are underrepresented", etc.

They're usually pretty unfalsifiable, but they're not unreasonable, and the line of acceptable discourse has been firmly drawn to exclude questioning them.

I'm skeptical that you're actually unaware of these rebuttals: if I said to someone something like "what's the big deal, who cares that you're the only Latina in this company, the only one making a big deal out of it is you", I'm sure these rebuttals would readily come to mind. If not because you believe them, then at least because they're so ubiquitous.

Deciding that they're appropriate just because you disagree with the specific policy being criticized is kind of weaselly.

> "what's the big deal? just chill" type rhetoric