Says the person vilifying someone for stating their requirement for romantic consideration is that the other person has the basic requisite for a stable lifestyle.

*No I don't want to hear edge cases about what constitutes a job; the context here was clear enough.

I think they didn't say unemployed for a reason, which is why I didn't say unemployed for a reason. Not having a job is different than needing a job for food and shelter and any flexibility, the former is "not having a job" the latter is "unemployed". I don’t consider that an edge case.

What I got out of it is that they had a bad experience with someone not occupying their time with something.

I "vilify", or more-so call out, their overfitting. You’re assuming they didnt have a basic stable lifestyle AND that they became a burden to OP. I’m assuming they could have had any level of stability and became a burden to OP for any reason, that at least removes the predictive capability for determining if the other potential partners would become a burden to OP.

They didn't "overfit" though. They shared their experience - they didn't say that their experience is normative (although I expect it is). People are allowed to share anecdotes.