> Added some clarifications in bold, because Reddit users having enough reading comprehension to understand what Christoph said and why it's exactly* what I described with other words is apparently a Lv.100 impossible challenge boss.*
https://web.archive.org/web/20250206022420/https://social.tr...
> And if you're wondering why you didn't realize this: It's impossible to change people by telling them they're wrong. What does tend to work is explaining different perspectives, so that they can figure it out themselves. And sometimes that's just way too subtle to ever register.
https://chaos.social/@sima/113961285815637787
> when you're that harmful with your calling out, eventually I'm going to be fed up, and you get a live round shot across your bow and if that then causes you to ragequit, because you can't actually deal with the heat you've been dishing out coming back around the corner: fuck off
>or as Dave put it "Being toxic on the right side of an argument is still toxic, [...]"
(that second comment made apparently without any sense of irony re: the first)
The meaning of
> "Being toxic on the right side of an argument is still toxic, [...]"
Is very straightforwards. Toxic behavior is toxic behavior. Sima shouldn't lash out in "toxic" ways even if she thinks she's right.
Otherwise shouldn't Hector be given grace because "his buttons were pushed until he exploded"?
Like, you fundamentally can't have it both ways. Excuses for Sima's comments work for Hector. Condemnations of Hector's comments apply to Sima. Anything else is a double standard.
Sima's responses can be excused. Even Hector's initial frustrations and his reactions to it can be excused. Hector's continued public reactions and escalations, however, are a different story and the reason folks are piling on him.