Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: Around a month-and-a-half ago, our local rock gym was forced out of their location. They didn’t go out of business, but we’re essentially evicted from they building they were in for 20+ years so a developer could build some apartments and restaurants. They have made it clear that they are not going out of business, but finding a new location for a whole new gym will definitely take some time and effort. 

Yesterday I received a text from a friend of mine to an Instagram page of a gym south of ours is setting up a new gym in our local scene. In this post they imply that the local gym that was evicted is now closed for good, and that they were coming to “fill the void”. This really rubbed me the wrong way as the gym that was originally here has made it clear that they are working on getting set up in a new location. I’m not opposed to two coexisting gyms supporting the area. We have had multiple surf and skate shops coexist and support one another.

I left an anonymous comment on their Instagram post saying that they should change their language. I felt that implying that the other gym is gone for good will spread false information about the situation. I’ve felt that climbing should always be about support and community, and their phrasing seemed the complete opposite of that. AITA? 

I can provide screenshots for further context. 


accusing an up and coming business of capitalizing off of another's hardships