I am not the original commenter, but I think saying the jokes are “bigoted” shows a bias, and it was good to emphasize that by not addressing the other argument. We could have a discussion about whether getting fired for talking about conduct at your employer is right, but to link it with the idea that someone told “bigoted” jokes is to conflate two things.
To say those jokes are “bigoted” has a high bar, since comedy is about entertainment and not real. The jokes in the article don’t meet that bar, but one should be circumspect about drawing that conclusion because comedy isn’t real. To throw around that judgment offhand without supporting it is to lend support to a world based on censorship and conformity. It should not just be an assumption - “yeah of course these jokes are bigoted.” - that should be the substance of the discussion before we draw that conclusion.
So it’s proper to call out the bias of the commenter and not address their other argument.
>So it’s proper to call out the bias of the commenter
I think whether or not their words amount to bias is up for debate, but I don't object to that subject being brought up in addition to the subject under discussion so far.
>and not address their other argument.
This part I don't agree with. That other argument is completely independent, and worth pursuing. Abandoning it completely is conceding defeat on that front.
But if you're the kind of person to seize upon a shiny but irrelevant detail and leave the substantive parts unaddressed, I guess your work is done.