This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
You seem more offended by the response than by MTG.
It's debatable whether they should've rose above or responded (there is honor in defending someone from being attacked)... it's not debatable who is most at fault.
By focusing on the response and not the bad conduct that kicked it off, you're essentially making a "both sides" argument.
That isn't quite how it escalated though, is it? There were MANY words said between those two comments and the latter, while indeed low brow, was part of challenging the CHAIR for not enforcing rules of decorum, not a direct attack on MTG.
Yeah, I agree. My point is that they did it to prove a point....the chair should have been enforcing the rules against MTG, but didn't. Her attack was to prove that point, not just for the sake of an attack.
I don't agree with it, but that is different in intent than just making an attack.
This is one of those "it doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it" kind of things.
Defending a colleague from an unreasonable, unprovoked attack is a bad thing?
I hope not....
You can hate AOC, I'm not a fan of her myself, but this is how we want our colleagues to behave when people start attacking us, isn't it?
Both sides did not behave the same.
The only way that "both sides" works is if they're equally to blame. Sometimes they are, but this isn't one of those times.
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 8 months ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- businessinsider.com/hous...
Let's not both sides this please.
Maybe they should've just left it alone, but you're portraying them as equally culpable when they aren't.
MTG was off topic in the first place, insulted Crocketts appearance and AOC's intelligence...AOC did not respond in kind and Crockett only lowered herself to make the point that the chair wasn't enforcing the rules against MTG.