[awkwarddaturtle]

I agree with you. Barker got a bad deal. She made the mistake of using racial language that the media could latch onto.

Anyone who objectively looks at the situation would conclude that Suh was a spoiled entitled brat who exploited this situation. It's disgusting how she used her crocodile tears to exploit the media and the people.

[rhcom2]

> Suh was a spoiled entitled brat who exploited this situation

I really don't see how you conclude that. Barker approve the deal then reneged with racist language. What makes Suh entitled or spoiled? If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront.

[awkwarddaturtle]

No. Suh kept changing the terms of the deal.

> If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront.

She did cancel it. After Suh kept changing the terms. The deal was for 2 people. Then Suh added a few more people. Then added a few more dogs.

Sure, the racist language wasn't called for but Suh was in the wrong.

[rhcom2]

Suh changed the deal and got confirmation that Barker accepted the changes. Suh asked, Barker said yes for an extra $50 and then Barker exploded on her when she got here. Barker is in no way the victim here. Sure maybe Suh was a high maintenance renter, but she didn't do anything wrong.

This is the third time I'm posting this excerpt:

"When Suh later asked if it was OK to bring two friends and two dogs along, Barker said it was fine but the group would need to pay an additional $50 a night, according to screenshots of their text messages." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-ca...

[masonic]

  according to screenshots of their text messages

Which the Guardian does not show at all, and no source that I can find has published a complete, unedited account of the text exchange.

[rhcom2]

Here: https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/

I don't see a spoiled brat. Why is it so hard to believe that Suh wasn't in the wrong?