> 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)
This seems like a perfectly reasonable response given Hector's prior comments. Pushing someones buttons until they explode and then pointing out they exploded isn't the indictment people think it is.
> "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.
I fail to see anything in Sima's post that you linked that could be interpreted as toxic, rather than a perfectly normal human response. It's absolutely unreasonable to expect everyone to be perfect, always take the high road, or otherwise shrug off personal attacks.
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.
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)