You're providing counter-arguments against the correctness of the argument the parent suggested, but otherwise good people can believe incorrect arguments. You can't assume that someone was aware of all those studies, some of which have been conducted in the years since, and none of which are taught about in elementary school. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Mozilla CEO believed something incorrect, you also have to demonstrate that evil was the only explanation.
This is a common misconception which reduces structural discrimination to individual resentment. In reality, it does not matter at all whether the actor had evil in their heart — it only matters what the effects are (ability to adopt, hospital visitation rights, ability to immigrate etc).
Being right about everything that matters is an unreasonable standard to hold people to, because nobody is right about everything that matters. I guarantee that you and I are both mistaken in ways that cause us to support sub-optimal policies whose effects legitimately hurt people. If we keep open minds, we may even realize some of these errors in the future - unless we're just wrong so we can be evil, which is why there's a distinction between "wrong" and "purposely wrong in order to be evil."
In your life, how do you handle the guilt for your countless unknowing political sins? Does it look exactly the same as what you would do if you didn't think you were guilty?
