How is using the exact same logic of the initial argument in a different way hyperbolic? It simply shows the absurdity of the original in a different light.
How is this a fallacy? It's just extending their argument to show/highlight the absurdity that it could lead to.
Why stop at basic arbitrary things like skin color? Why not break it down by country of origin, way of speaking, etc. Every tv show should have someone with this list of accents, etc.
I'm not insecure about any of that. I'm just agreeing with the guy who sees this blatant hypocrisy and calls it out.
It bothers a bit because it such an obvious thing, where they had to go through and find the exact people they wanted and you know that they purposely did it because it's "the thing" right now.
But it's never enough for these types of people that want to push their narrative forward and over anything that stands in it's way. There's never an end to it until the collective just says "No".
You can fight it with agree-and-amplify:
"Well Google you included dark skinned people of west african descent, but none of east african. I won't buy your product."
"Well google you only included asians of Han origin, and none of Mongolian descent"
Thought you started out sarcastic, then realized you might not be sarcastic.
Amazing that people went from "we need all colors represented in ads as best as possible" which was completely reasonable, to "maybe we don't need white people in ads at all sometimes, ok? maybe it's a good thing!" which is objectively an absurd stance.
Sitting and playing some random story-type game for 50 hours seems like a complete waste of my time.