[@Odin]

Being involved and being directly involved are two different things. Being not involved in the slightest would imply a lack of all involvement, information, and connection. I [i]was[/i] involved the moment I was dragged into the situation. I think you misunderstand what I mean by confrontation; that or you and I have two different definitions of confrontation. Merriam-Webster describes it as “to face especially in challenge” and Cambridge describes it as “to deal with a difficult problem, situation, or person” – both of these definitions describe the situation. 

What I mean about the situation is simple and not convoluted or complicated.

In a case of this situation, I commented with a general state and two replies to force two parties to directly confront issue. Did I on a moral (see: self-righteous asshole) level have issues with it? Sure. But I did cause a genuine confrontation to happen that was festering for weeks. 

An indirect and direct confrontation may be different, but both can cause uncomfortable feelings to be unearthed. Both are still objectively confrontations. You obviously think direct confrontation is better and I don’t entirely disagree, but in this situation I felt an indirect one was better for all parties involved. What is done is done, I can’t lament over what would happen if I had confronted it directly instead. I can explain myself, however. You don’t have to agree with it. Hell, I do not expect you to.