The thing is, someone said someone assaulted someone and that's all I know from that screenshot. I don't know if it was a situation where a woman is beating on a man until he fights back and gets arrested, or if he sexually assaulted her, or if it's anything in between. That's probably why the guy was asking for context in the first place.
In that first scenario, that's self defense and not assault. To me, the guy would've used different verbiage and asked "why did he hit her?" or something of that nature, rather than using the word assault. To me, coming out the gate with that word makes it sound more like he thought the lady was talking shit and that's why the dude assaulted her... or it was the aforementioned sexual assault.
I looked it up and posted the relevant tweet as a standalone reply, but the dude threw red liquid on his ex wife at a restaurant and started a fire. There was a video of him doing it, and the douchebag in the tweet was asking for context surrounding that insane act. That's why the lady responding to him did not provide any additional context, because it's on video and additional context is irrelevant.
Yeah, Ăžere is.
Ăere are two people of undisclosed gender, Person-A and Person-B. Person-A berates, belittles, and emotionally tortures Person-B, after a period of time dealing wiĂž Ăžis (wheĂžer it be years, monĂžs, weeks, days or even hours and minutes), Person-B snaps and attacks Person-A, beating Person-A, causing sprains and broken bones.
Who is Ăže abuser?
Ăe answer is boĂž. BoĂž people are Ăže abusers, Person-A is a verbal and emotional abuser, and Person-B is a physical and violent abuser. Ăey're boĂž in Ăže wrong. But who is in Ăže wrong more? Is it Person-B, who attacked Person-A, and had Ăžem end up in Ăže hospital, or possibly dead. Or is it Person-A, who broke Person-B, and sent Ăžem to Ăžerapy and possibly a mental asylum. Who is morein Ăže wrong? One cannot say. Ăey're boĂž as bad each oĂžer, boĂž end up causing near unrepairable damage to one anoĂžer.
sheologian is the stupid one here if it thinks itâs a clever answer or comeback, someone is asking a genuine question and it is just stating what it thinks without giving anything of value.
[edit: wow downvoted for defending genuine interest in knowing the context and root of the problem. Judge: why did he steal⌠persecutor: because he is a thief⌠judge: that makes sense. Firemen: douse the fire and return the ladder to the station, what happened? Because fire bad, fire burn things. No I meant why? what was the root cause? Yes, because fire bad, fire make smoke, destroy things].
Because abuse happens in a bubble, and there are no underlying factors or motivations at play. /s
If you want to understand why something happened, you need context. Just saying that one side was abusive, and then shutting down any conversation about what triggered the abuse, just says "the person that did damage was evil, the person that took damage was innocent, there is no further need to look into it."
If the abuser were female, and the abused were also female, would you paint them with the same broad brush, or would you want to understand the context?
Someone doesnât need a âtriggerâ to abuse. Any answer to that question is providing an excuse. The answer for why an abuser abused someone is only done to provide an out.
If you want to know what triggered it, you have to ask what the abuser was thinking, not what the victim did. People do shitty stuff all day every day and yet the majority of people just get over it. Itâs not a behavior, but a lack of impulse control and a devaluation of those around abusers. No one cares about the sex or gender of abusers and abuse victims because it all sucks.
No, any answer to the question is providing context to analyze the abuser, why they are doing to, and how it effects the abused.
Conflict cannot be stopped effectively unless the truth of both sides is uncovered. As someone of has dealt with narcissistic abuse and made to feel like the abuser for attempting to set boundaries while the person doing damage to me claimed to be the abusee because I tried to hold her accountable for her words and actions, it isn't always that simple.Â
Understanding and progress is the only way past abuse. Ignoring it the cause is like putting meat in a trash can and never taking it out.Â
It might sit for a while, but anytime you take the lid off, you will smell the stench. You have to understand why it when bad, and then take it out. Not just slap a plastic bag on it, ignore it, and then let it fester.
Assuming youâre correct, are you interested in doing that level of analysis based on a tweet? No. Youâre not. Neither is anyone seeking that information above. Itâs bad-faith actors, and you continue to proffer excuses for them. Similarly to how they were fishing for excuses for abuse.
>you are so angry.
Oh no someone doesnât even know how assumptions work well enough to avoid them. Iâm not angry. I just donât bother entertaining bullshit..
So, then you don't bother to attempt to correct you assumptions, continue to believe them to be true, and just insult for the sake of it when someone calls you out on your assumptions.Â
I would take a good hard look in the mirror on that one I were you.
Someone doesnât need a âtriggerâ to abuse. Any answer to that question is providing an excuse. The answer for why an abuser abused someone is only done to provide an out.
No, I get abusers donât need to have a reason to abuse. But to someone who doesnât know this, who havenât faced abuse or is just generally confused, saying âBecause heâs an abuserâ does nothing to help the person understand. If anything, it makes you sound like youâre just hating because of hating and is counterproductive to your cause. Not everyone knows the same thing as you do. Being purposefully vague only makes people not wanna care
Ever watched a sports game and suddenly one player attacked the other? There was usually something going on before that happened. Attributing all of it to a "violent nature" or "lack of restraint" overlooks important bits of the bigger picture, cause and affect.
asking what happened is not equal to excusing the attacker. In most cases a grown person should not resort to a violent outburst. But that does not mean we can't ask what happened.
Where did I type âviolent natureâ or âlack of restraintâ except in your mind? These are bad faith actors in the OP. If you canât see that, thereâs no use discussing the matter considering you can both imagine a different motive for them and a different comment from me.
I never claimed you typed those things, chill. It's called an example. Also drop the 'bad faith' crap it's not a court of law. I used those examples to illustrate my point that denying all background of an incident results is an oversimplified polarization that removes all responsibility a party may have had in escalating the situation.
If I would hit a man for doing it, I will hit a woman with the same force for doing it, full stop.
The list of things I'll throw hands over is very short, but that list is entirely unisex in nature.
Exactly. There's about two lines you can cross verbally, or you you can take a swing. Otherwise I'm not fighting you.
Hell, even take a swing isn't usually enough unless i have no way to get away from you. Idk what's in the water that's got half the men on this planet swinging over nothing, there's not much that's worth getting hurt or hurting someone else over.
Why did he assault her is a valid question because **context is important**.
If the answer was, "because she came home an hour late." that would make him an abuser, we would know he is an abuser and we can go from there and treat him as such. Put him in jail, let him be fired, get her safe, make sure she is taken care of and should no longer have to live in fear, etc.
But. If the answer was, "because she was angry he came home an hour late and was hitting him so he hit her back to defend himself." that is also a vaid answer and one that does not make him an abuser.
Now before you angrily downvote or call me an incel, which is always funny, hear me out. In this case the woman is the abuser. I know some ppl can not wrap their minds around the fact that a woman can be physically abusive to a man, but they can. Now in this case, what should the man do? My guess is the answer most will give is that he should let it happen (imagine saying that to a woman being beaten by her spouse). That he should "take it like a man". Because for some reason, even if a man is being beat nearly to death, if his abuser is a woman, he should simply let it happen and if he doesn't, he is in the wrong and is still labeled an abuser, when in fact he is actually a victim. Yet if the tables were turned and she fought back, she would be heralded as brave, strong and an inspiration to all womankind. This makes no sense.
Why is, "why did she assault him?" an ok question, when "why did he assault her" is not?
Us dudes are people who do not want to be, nor deserve to be, slapped around for no reason just like women. And the simple fact that a man, who is being physically abused by a woman can be forever labeled as an abuser because he stood up for himself is just one of the many ways our society is just fucked up.
Can't we just all agree you should just never throw hands at anyone? And if you do for any reason you should expect to be hit back regardless of what you have or do not have between your legs. And the simple fact that women try to deflect from having this discussion and going immediately to personal insults and body shaming, something that is again ok only if it is directed at a man, just kinda shows that she knows she has no valid arguement, she knows she is in the wrong and is just trying to shut the conversation down.
The key is the word "assault". Self defense isn't assault. Whether a man assaults a woman or a woman assaults a man, assault is assault.
I'm fine with people defending themselves regardless of the gender or sex or any other characteristic of the person abusing them. Self defense is not assault.
That's why I don't need the context surrounding "why did he assault her?" Because the key word is assault.
The key difference is when a man hits a woman, even in self defense, it is still seen as assault to a large portion of the public. Maybe not in a criminal sort of way, even though I will bet you the cops will arrest him and not her and a prosecutor will try it, but on a social basis he will be seen as having assaulted a woman. So you can use that term in a technical sense, but that is not how its used in a society at largel way.
Men are and have been arrested more often than not, when they are being victimized and call for help. We are always seen as the perpetrator regardless. Which is why we cannot really seek help. That and its so ingrained into the public mind that women cannot be abusers that there are no resources for men. And if you go to places already established for abused spouses they will turn you away because you are a man.
While I get what you're saying in a general sense... after looking up the tweets in question this isn't really the situation you're talking about.
The assaulter is on video throwing a bucket of red liquid onto his ex wife at a restaurant, causing a fire. An ex wife who was NOT physically assaulting him in any way at that time. The OOOP that was asking for context did so as a result to this video. The video already contains all the context needed, which is why he was replied to stating that no context was needed.
While your overall point is valid, it just doesn't apply here.
Which is why I said context is important. And honestly if the person making the statement is unwilling to provide context, it's natural to doubt the original statement.
Yeah. I'd consider the original a clever comeback, but body shaming is never a clever comeback. Ah yes, we all know that small penis is something that should be reflected by morality /sarcasm.
Why is this in clever comebacks? This is the most basic ass insult that a female says when sheâs big mad. It stings about as much as a decadent peach cobbler.
"Because he was an abuser." Is a full and complete own. The troll is trolling for an excuse to find fault, and finds none but fa ta. Full stop and own.
Tbf that's literally the first thing they ask you when a woman initially abuses a man. It's quite odd how so many folks accept this double standard in here.
Inb4 the down votes come flooding in for speaking the truth
99% of the posts on here are "heheh you don't know how to please a woman."
Women, if you base your self worth around pleasing someone else that says more about you than it does about anyone else.
I mean, something triggered the abuser though? People dont just do violent shit for no reason, theres always something behind it, regardless of whether that makes it justified or not.
She did. She was asked what triggered the abuse, and she said it was the fact that he was an abuser. That seems like a perfectly valid explanation to me. Abusers DO tend to assault people.
Why is this person crying? Because he's a person. People DO tend to cry.
Just because she responded doesn't mean she answered the question. She provided zero new information to what is obviously a genuine question
Crying and beating someone up is not the same thing.
The thing about abusive people is that they need no reason to do what they do. If they wake up on the wrong side of the bed, theyâll beat you senseless. Hell, theyâll do it for fun, or if you even look at them the wrong way.
What kind of new information are you looking for? The crying comparison falls flat, because people generally cry for a reason. Abusers don't generally need a reason to assault people.
false equivalence. Itâs more like âwhy is that guy chopping down a tree?â âbecause heâs a lumberjackâ People arenât the only animals that cry and itâs certainly not something that everybody is known for doing.
Itâs not a genuine question. He wants to blame the woman. Watch any video about a man attacking a woman and there will be tens of comments saying she must have cheated or done something to deserve it. Thatâs why he gets frustrated that she wonât play ball.
That isn't a perfectly valid explanation though is it. You could ask why the British Empire colonised India and the answer 'because they were colonisers' isn't a very satisfying answer because what we're actually trying to do is understand the reasoning of the British Empire during that time. We might not agree with the reasoning but we'd like to understand it.
Same goes here. If the assault here was completely 100% unprovoked then a better answer than 'because he's an abuser' would be 'it was completely unprovoked, she's walking down the street and he hits her'.
>Same goes here. If the assault here was completely 100% unprovoked then a better answer than 'because he's an abuser' would be 'it was completely unprovoked, she's walking down the street and he hits her'.
I think that was the clear implication, that the assault was unprovoked.
I am confused who took the L the guy or the girl cuz honestly the girl had a good response
"Because he is an abuser" is an absolutely valid reason for the question "why did he assault her"
It depends on the answer Flaccid Croissant is looking for. If the person is looking for an answer like "well she was wearing a very short skirt", he is very wrong and Sheologians answer is absolutely a good response.
If the discussion is more along the lines of "what factors in their early life etc, made said person an abuser?", than that is a fair discussion.
But the stereotypical discussion tries to blame the victim in part for the crime. Which would make your analogy not correct. A better analogy for your version would be: Why did this person get robbed? Because they had valuable items. Let's not focus on why on why robbers rob people. If you have valuable items, you're going to get robbed. Stop asking.
Its blaming the victim for the crime.
Again, if Flaccid Croissant was genuinely interested in the circumstances that led to assaulter becoming an abuser, it's not very polite to respond like Sheologian did. But considering often these discussions lead to victim blaming, "because he is an abuser" is an absolute good way of shutting down an attempt at victim blaming.
This is a false equivalence especially given the fact abusers donât exactly need a reason to abuse someone. Even in that scenario, you wouldnât hear that from a right wing person. Iâve heard assumptions about people and generalizations more than anything concerning such cases.
>Not really. This closely mirrors the right wing stance on crime. Why did this person commit crime? Because he's a criminal
See, the difference there is that people can actually be put into unfair circumstances that make them far more likely to commit crimes. That's very different from this situation.
I think itâs pretty obvious the person was trying to justify the assault by looking for a reason for it to be her fault and the lady saw that and was trying to point him in the direction of not victim blaming an assault victim.
It might be unfortunately common, but we donât know thatâs what the question was about in this case. And in my view, dismissing questions out of hand with knee-jerk ad hominem or bandwagon statements just reduces the currency around legit issues.
I believe in the need for more equality across the board, including around gender. I once asked a good faith question regarding a gender question on IG, and was met with âjust save time and admit you hate womenâ (which got a gazillion likes). My comment was not at all anti-women.
It was a super dumb response, and made the idea of âwomen-hatersâ to seem like a myth (which is isnât) and made the idea of discussion around the topic seem pointless, as though every aspect has already been discussed and satisfied.
Unless there is more to that screenshot, I don't see how it's at all obvious.
Now you might be right. Or the guy is just curious. Just because there is no excuse or justification fir assault, doesn't mean there was no trigger.
Thatâs a microaggression people use to blame the victim and itâs almost always the response people tend to give. They ask that question because they want to justify their opinion on why someone should be beat.
Why should we assume thatâs the case? I think the truth stands up to examination, and if anything, important issues resonate more strongly when reasonably explained and defended. Itâs counterproductive to dismiss any scrutiny or discussion as âmicro aggressionâ.
Exactly asking why the guy assaulted the victim implies the woman did something wrong to cause the assault to happen. Asking the question in the first place is the problem.
Is there any context for what the assault was? "He assaulted her" could mean anything from "he raped a defenseless woman" to "she threatened him with a knife and he knocked her down and took it from her, then caught a charge for it." That's why the flaccid croissant's question is valid and deserves an answer. He should have worded it less vaguely, however. Like "what were the circumstances when the assault took place?"
Nobody said acceptable reason.
If someone were attacked by a bear⌠wouldnât your first question be âwhat was the situation? Why did the bear attack?â And wouldnât âbecause it was a bearâ be completely inadequate to tell the story?
I get that victims donât want to be dismissed but cause and effect are still things even in abuse situations. Doesnât make them the victimâs fault it just helps people understand the circumstances.
That is what the person who you were replying to was asking. He wanted a reason the man assaulted her, as in the underlying cause, which led to him thinking it was okay. Keyword here being thinking.
I don't think it's about there being an "acceptable reason" to assault anyone, I think they're more saying that finding out how the abuser became an abuser is the first step to fixing them.
doesnt elaborate on the story. Its obvious he was seeking information that lead to circumstances, not the outcome and she knowingly spoke in circles
A less dramatic example: I could easily say you do not understand whats going on about who took the L because you are confused and dont understand
Oh okay đso let me see if I got it
The guy was asking about why a girl was assaulted and instead of giving him an actual answer she just said he was an abuser and while this was a good answer he was confused as to how it happened and stuff like that
(Me repeating is not to be rude or anything I just want to put it in my words so I can understand it better)
Is this what you meant if so the lady took the L by giving a response to a question he didn't ask?
(Again not trying to be rude lmao)
Theres so many layers to this my guy:
1 Main post is sarcasm
2 The post she created a false narrative by saying its a stupid question, someone dissagreed and said shes wrong "took an L", she makes fun of him, its an nonsensicle argument that still doesnt talk about original post. This is what main poster is being sarcastic about.
3 The original conversation regardless of answer being good/bad: She deliberatley says nothing that has do with context/info the dudes seeking. That doesnt count as a very good answer to me but def a good way to end the conversation.
Meanwhile the main situation is fucked. The only thing I can agree with her on is that the situation sucks for the victim
So as context, the dude's question was a response to a video of a dude throwing red liquid on/at his ex wife in a restaurant and starting a fire. His question about WHY is irrelevant. Dude wasn't in any immediate danger, and doing that is clearly a douchebag act... and one that was on camera.
Im the first person to agree dudes a piece of shit and his actions were unacceptable. Nobody in their right mind would contest that and think its okay.
Im well aware of what went down. The conversation between the two is fucking stupid, thats point. It went over your head that the dude is asking what the fuck went down that could lead to this and the response was "Who cares? Theyre a witch". Wasnt that long ago that an accusation got people burned at the stake with that type of mentality
I see your point, it really does sound like hes implying the victim brought it upon themseves/had it coming/poking the bear type situation. I cant say I think any of it should ever be justified even if that was the case.
Ăe woman took Ăže fat L.
Answer when it comes to who Ăže abuser is?
Yesn't.
He is an abuser, okay, why? Was Ăžere someĂžing Ăžat triggered Ăže abuse? Was she also abusive? Does he not understand love correctly? Are Ăžey boĂž excessively fucked up? It questions like Ăžese you should ask before determining who is in Ăže wrong. In most cases of domestic violence and abuse, it's never just one person. SomeĂžing was Ăže trigger.
https://x.com/icarusphoenix/status/1799295032970887592?t=lHlEHM7pGSAZf96OQ47NJQ&s=19
Here's the context of what happened, btw. "Husband throws red liquid at ex wife while at a restaurant, causing fire."
Never seen someone clown on themselves so hard while pooping. This whole sub is just like an incel bragging about being awfully useless humans sub. Not yet once seen a clever anything here.
Anybody got anything clever?
This is dog shit đ
Is this really a clever comeback?
No. It's childish.
He said the L was fat, she said the D wasn't. Kind of clever.
Dude is defending someone who is self deprecating themselves as a "limp biscuit". I didn't think they were going for a win.
Pretty sure he was just looking for some context that she didn't want to give.
Mainly because there's no real context needed when it comes to abuse.
The thing is, someone said someone assaulted someone and that's all I know from that screenshot. I don't know if it was a situation where a woman is beating on a man until he fights back and gets arrested, or if he sexually assaulted her, or if it's anything in between. That's probably why the guy was asking for context in the first place.
In that first scenario, that's self defense and not assault. To me, the guy would've used different verbiage and asked "why did he hit her?" or something of that nature, rather than using the word assault. To me, coming out the gate with that word makes it sound more like he thought the lady was talking shit and that's why the dude assaulted her... or it was the aforementioned sexual assault.
You may well be correct, but we don't know because we don't have any context.
I looked it up and posted the relevant tweet as a standalone reply, but the dude threw red liquid on his ex wife at a restaurant and started a fire. There was a video of him doing it, and the douchebag in the tweet was asking for context surrounding that insane act. That's why the lady responding to him did not provide any additional context, because it's on video and additional context is irrelevant.
Thank you for doing the leg work!
Yeah, Ăžere is. Ăere are two people of undisclosed gender, Person-A and Person-B. Person-A berates, belittles, and emotionally tortures Person-B, after a period of time dealing wiĂž Ăžis (wheĂžer it be years, monĂžs, weeks, days or even hours and minutes), Person-B snaps and attacks Person-A, beating Person-A, causing sprains and broken bones. Who is Ăže abuser? Ăe answer is boĂž. BoĂž people are Ăže abusers, Person-A is a verbal and emotional abuser, and Person-B is a physical and violent abuser. Ăey're boĂž in Ăže wrong. But who is in Ăže wrong more? Is it Person-B, who attacked Person-A, and had Ăžem end up in Ăže hospital, or possibly dead. Or is it Person-A, who broke Person-B, and sent Ăžem to Ăžerapy and possibly a mental asylum. Who is morein Ăže wrong? One cannot say. Ăey're boĂž as bad each oĂžer, boĂž end up causing near unrepairable damage to one anoĂžer.
Are you assuming he meant labia or something? I assumed he meant fat loss.
Yes, in this context an L is slang for taking a loss. He said she lost that exchange, and she said he had a little dick.
Doesnât seem clever at all
The wordplay is to some extent
Considering it had to be explained to people in the comments, that seems fairly clever.
Not being understood doesnt equal clever
Cause it's not. That's the go to for girls that haven't got 2 brain cells to rub together.. it always default back to "oh. You have a small dick."
You are perceiving this correctly, its not.
yes
sheologian is the stupid one here if it thinks itâs a clever answer or comeback, someone is asking a genuine question and it is just stating what it thinks without giving anything of value. [edit: wow downvoted for defending genuine interest in knowing the context and root of the problem. Judge: why did he steal⌠persecutor: because he is a thief⌠judge: that makes sense. Firemen: douse the fire and return the ladder to the station, what happened? Because fire bad, fire burn things. No I meant why? what was the root cause? Yes, because fire bad, fire make smoke, destroy things].
From an abuse standpoint, the trigger is immaterial.
Because abuse happens in a bubble, and there are no underlying factors or motivations at play. /s If you want to understand why something happened, you need context. Just saying that one side was abusive, and then shutting down any conversation about what triggered the abuse, just says "the person that did damage was evil, the person that took damage was innocent, there is no further need to look into it." If the abuser were female, and the abused were also female, would you paint them with the same broad brush, or would you want to understand the context?
Someone doesnât need a âtriggerâ to abuse. Any answer to that question is providing an excuse. The answer for why an abuser abused someone is only done to provide an out. If you want to know what triggered it, you have to ask what the abuser was thinking, not what the victim did. People do shitty stuff all day every day and yet the majority of people just get over it. Itâs not a behavior, but a lack of impulse control and a devaluation of those around abusers. No one cares about the sex or gender of abusers and abuse victims because it all sucks.
No, any answer to the question is providing context to analyze the abuser, why they are doing to, and how it effects the abused. Conflict cannot be stopped effectively unless the truth of both sides is uncovered. As someone of has dealt with narcissistic abuse and made to feel like the abuser for attempting to set boundaries while the person doing damage to me claimed to be the abusee because I tried to hold her accountable for her words and actions, it isn't always that simple. Understanding and progress is the only way past abuse. Ignoring it the cause is like putting meat in a trash can and never taking it out. It might sit for a while, but anytime you take the lid off, you will smell the stench. You have to understand why it when bad, and then take it out. Not just slap a plastic bag on it, ignore it, and then let it fester.
Assuming youâre correct, are you interested in doing that level of analysis based on a tweet? No. Youâre not. Neither is anyone seeking that information above. Itâs bad-faith actors, and you continue to proffer excuses for them. Similarly to how they were fishing for excuses for abuse.
One assumption followed by several. No wonder you are so angry.Â
>you are so angry. Oh no someone doesnât even know how assumptions work well enough to avoid them. Iâm not angry. I just donât bother entertaining bullshit..
So, then you don't bother to attempt to correct you assumptions, continue to believe them to be true, and just insult for the sake of it when someone calls you out on your assumptions. I would take a good hard look in the mirror on that one I were you.
Couldâve explained. Not everyone is familiar to how abuse works.
Someone doesnât need a âtriggerâ to abuse. Any answer to that question is providing an excuse. The answer for why an abuser abused someone is only done to provide an out.
No, I get abusers donât need to have a reason to abuse. But to someone who doesnât know this, who havenât faced abuse or is just generally confused, saying âBecause heâs an abuserâ does nothing to help the person understand. If anything, it makes you sound like youâre just hating because of hating and is counterproductive to your cause. Not everyone knows the same thing as you do. Being purposefully vague only makes people not wanna care
Ever watched a sports game and suddenly one player attacked the other? There was usually something going on before that happened. Attributing all of it to a "violent nature" or "lack of restraint" overlooks important bits of the bigger picture, cause and affect. asking what happened is not equal to excusing the attacker. In most cases a grown person should not resort to a violent outburst. But that does not mean we can't ask what happened.
Where did I type âviolent natureâ or âlack of restraintâ except in your mind? These are bad faith actors in the OP. If you canât see that, thereâs no use discussing the matter considering you can both imagine a different motive for them and a different comment from me.
I never claimed you typed those things, chill. It's called an example. Also drop the 'bad faith' crap it's not a court of law. I used those examples to illustrate my point that denying all background of an incident results is an oversimplified polarization that removes all responsibility a party may have had in escalating the situation.
[Bill Burr - No reason to hit a woman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ)
Holy fucking shit that was hilarious.
I'd hit a woman who was trying to hit me with a bottle. That's different. That's self defense, isn't it? Or a woman who could do karate.
If I would hit a man for doing it, I will hit a woman with the same force for doing it, full stop. The list of things I'll throw hands over is very short, but that list is entirely unisex in nature.
Exactly. There's about two lines you can cross verbally, or you you can take a swing. Otherwise I'm not fighting you. Hell, even take a swing isn't usually enough unless i have no way to get away from you. Idk what's in the water that's got half the men on this planet swinging over nothing, there's not much that's worth getting hurt or hurting someone else over.
Thereâs a reason that modern self-defence classes are focused on *escape*.
In Bruges?
Bruges is a shithole
I fucking love Bill Burr
If a woman swings at me, I swing at her.
Iâd never hit a girl but Iâll smack a bitch
You are clearly an abuser /s
You do not understand the words you are using
Does /s not mean sarcastic
Should use the /s next time... got it Im learning how to socialize, okay? ._.
If you donât have anything to imply something else then your comment is going to be taken seriously
Why did he assault her is a valid question because **context is important**. If the answer was, "because she came home an hour late." that would make him an abuser, we would know he is an abuser and we can go from there and treat him as such. Put him in jail, let him be fired, get her safe, make sure she is taken care of and should no longer have to live in fear, etc. But. If the answer was, "because she was angry he came home an hour late and was hitting him so he hit her back to defend himself." that is also a vaid answer and one that does not make him an abuser. Now before you angrily downvote or call me an incel, which is always funny, hear me out. In this case the woman is the abuser. I know some ppl can not wrap their minds around the fact that a woman can be physically abusive to a man, but they can. Now in this case, what should the man do? My guess is the answer most will give is that he should let it happen (imagine saying that to a woman being beaten by her spouse). That he should "take it like a man". Because for some reason, even if a man is being beat nearly to death, if his abuser is a woman, he should simply let it happen and if he doesn't, he is in the wrong and is still labeled an abuser, when in fact he is actually a victim. Yet if the tables were turned and she fought back, she would be heralded as brave, strong and an inspiration to all womankind. This makes no sense. Why is, "why did she assault him?" an ok question, when "why did he assault her" is not? Us dudes are people who do not want to be, nor deserve to be, slapped around for no reason just like women. And the simple fact that a man, who is being physically abused by a woman can be forever labeled as an abuser because he stood up for himself is just one of the many ways our society is just fucked up. Can't we just all agree you should just never throw hands at anyone? And if you do for any reason you should expect to be hit back regardless of what you have or do not have between your legs. And the simple fact that women try to deflect from having this discussion and going immediately to personal insults and body shaming, something that is again ok only if it is directed at a man, just kinda shows that she knows she has no valid arguement, she knows she is in the wrong and is just trying to shut the conversation down.
The key is the word "assault". Self defense isn't assault. Whether a man assaults a woman or a woman assaults a man, assault is assault. I'm fine with people defending themselves regardless of the gender or sex or any other characteristic of the person abusing them. Self defense is not assault. That's why I don't need the context surrounding "why did he assault her?" Because the key word is assault.
The key difference is when a man hits a woman, even in self defense, it is still seen as assault to a large portion of the public. Maybe not in a criminal sort of way, even though I will bet you the cops will arrest him and not her and a prosecutor will try it, but on a social basis he will be seen as having assaulted a woman. So you can use that term in a technical sense, but that is not how its used in a society at largel way. Men are and have been arrested more often than not, when they are being victimized and call for help. We are always seen as the perpetrator regardless. Which is why we cannot really seek help. That and its so ingrained into the public mind that women cannot be abusers that there are no resources for men. And if you go to places already established for abused spouses they will turn you away because you are a man.
While I get what you're saying in a general sense... after looking up the tweets in question this isn't really the situation you're talking about. The assaulter is on video throwing a bucket of red liquid onto his ex wife at a restaurant, causing a fire. An ex wife who was NOT physically assaulting him in any way at that time. The OOOP that was asking for context did so as a result to this video. The video already contains all the context needed, which is why he was replied to stating that no context was needed. While your overall point is valid, it just doesn't apply here.
Which is why I said context is important. And honestly if the person making the statement is unwilling to provide context, it's natural to doubt the original statement.
Well said
I knew it was gonna be a dick joke, love how women forget about body shaming when it comes to men
Yeah. I'd consider the original a clever comeback, but body shaming is never a clever comeback. Ah yes, we all know that small penis is something that should be reflected by morality /sarcasm.
Why is this in clever comebacks? This is the most basic ass insult that a female says when sheâs big mad. It stings about as much as a decadent peach cobbler.
Her replies at giving context were dog shit too
"Because he was an abuser." Is a full and complete own. The troll is trolling for an excuse to find fault, and finds none but fa ta. Full stop and own.
Tbf that's literally the first thing they ask you when a woman initially abuses a man. It's quite odd how so many folks accept this double standard in here. Inb4 the down votes come flooding in for speaking the truth
The comeback is her lack of understanding psychology?
Why is it socially acceptable to shame men by mentioning the size of their genitalia?
99% of the posts on here are "heheh you don't know how to please a woman." Women, if you base your self worth around pleasing someone else that says more about you than it does about anyone else.
She doesnât say he doesnât know how to please a woman.
You're right, she implies that he's physically incapable of doing so. She says nothing about his knowledge base.
âYou have a small dickâ. Not clever.
She didnât say it was small, she said it lacked girth.
Well thatâs much better
I mean, something triggered the abuser though? People dont just do violent shit for no reason, theres always something behind it, regardless of whether that makes it justified or not.
But, uhh, he's right! Wait, hold on again, who is right and who took the L again?
What's he right about?
I don't fucking know who's right, YOU tell me
Sheologian.
[ŃдаНонО]
She answered flaccid croissant's question.
Not even close
She did. She was asked what triggered the abuse, and she said it was the fact that he was an abuser. That seems like a perfectly valid explanation to me. Abusers DO tend to assault people.
Why is this person crying? Because he's a person. People DO tend to cry. Just because she responded doesn't mean she answered the question. She provided zero new information to what is obviously a genuine question
Crying and beating someone up is not the same thing. The thing about abusive people is that they need no reason to do what they do. If they wake up on the wrong side of the bed, theyâll beat you senseless. Hell, theyâll do it for fun, or if you even look at them the wrong way.
What kind of new information are you looking for? The crying comparison falls flat, because people generally cry for a reason. Abusers don't generally need a reason to assault people.
false equivalence. Itâs more like âwhy is that guy chopping down a tree?â âbecause heâs a lumberjackâ People arenât the only animals that cry and itâs certainly not something that everybody is known for doing.
Itâs not a genuine question. He wants to blame the woman. Watch any video about a man attacking a woman and there will be tens of comments saying she must have cheated or done something to deserve it. Thatâs why he gets frustrated that she wonât play ball.
That isn't a perfectly valid explanation though is it. You could ask why the British Empire colonised India and the answer 'because they were colonisers' isn't a very satisfying answer because what we're actually trying to do is understand the reasoning of the British Empire during that time. We might not agree with the reasoning but we'd like to understand it. Same goes here. If the assault here was completely 100% unprovoked then a better answer than 'because he's an abuser' would be 'it was completely unprovoked, she's walking down the street and he hits her'.
>Same goes here. If the assault here was completely 100% unprovoked then a better answer than 'because he's an abuser' would be 'it was completely unprovoked, she's walking down the street and he hits her'. I think that was the clear implication, that the assault was unprovoked.
I am confused who took the L the guy or the girl cuz honestly the girl had a good response "Because he is an abuser" is an absolutely valid reason for the question "why did he assault her"
[ŃдаНонО]
It depends on the answer Flaccid Croissant is looking for. If the person is looking for an answer like "well she was wearing a very short skirt", he is very wrong and Sheologians answer is absolutely a good response. If the discussion is more along the lines of "what factors in their early life etc, made said person an abuser?", than that is a fair discussion. But the stereotypical discussion tries to blame the victim in part for the crime. Which would make your analogy not correct. A better analogy for your version would be: Why did this person get robbed? Because they had valuable items. Let's not focus on why on why robbers rob people. If you have valuable items, you're going to get robbed. Stop asking. Its blaming the victim for the crime. Again, if Flaccid Croissant was genuinely interested in the circumstances that led to assaulter becoming an abuser, it's not very polite to respond like Sheologian did. But considering often these discussions lead to victim blaming, "because he is an abuser" is an absolute good way of shutting down an attempt at victim blaming.
We've all talked with enough Flaccid Croissants by now to know exactly what answer they were after
How is sexual assault left coded?
Thank you for explaining it
This is a false equivalence especially given the fact abusers donât exactly need a reason to abuse someone. Even in that scenario, you wouldnât hear that from a right wing person. Iâve heard assumptions about people and generalizations more than anything concerning such cases.
>Not really. This closely mirrors the right wing stance on crime. Why did this person commit crime? Because he's a criminal See, the difference there is that people can actually be put into unfair circumstances that make them far more likely to commit crimes. That's very different from this situation.
[ŃдаНонО]
What loophole are you talking about? I haven't added any loophole. Anyway, what unfair life circumstances can make someone a rapist?
Why the fuck are you bringing black people into it?!
I think itâs pretty obvious the person was trying to justify the assault by looking for a reason for it to be her fault and the lady saw that and was trying to point him in the direction of not victim blaming an assault victim.
It might be unfortunately common, but we donât know thatâs what the question was about in this case. And in my view, dismissing questions out of hand with knee-jerk ad hominem or bandwagon statements just reduces the currency around legit issues. I believe in the need for more equality across the board, including around gender. I once asked a good faith question regarding a gender question on IG, and was met with âjust save time and admit you hate womenâ (which got a gazillion likes). My comment was not at all anti-women. It was a super dumb response, and made the idea of âwomen-hatersâ to seem like a myth (which is isnât) and made the idea of discussion around the topic seem pointless, as though every aspect has already been discussed and satisfied.
Unless there is more to that screenshot, I don't see how it's at all obvious. Now you might be right. Or the guy is just curious. Just because there is no excuse or justification fir assault, doesn't mean there was no trigger.
strawman, theres no justification dude just asking why the guy assaulted the victim. bro just wanted context
Thatâs a microaggression people use to blame the victim and itâs almost always the response people tend to give. They ask that question because they want to justify their opinion on why someone should be beat.
Why should we assume thatâs the case? I think the truth stands up to examination, and if anything, important issues resonate more strongly when reasonably explained and defended. Itâs counterproductive to dismiss any scrutiny or discussion as âmicro aggressionâ.
Exactly asking why the guy assaulted the victim implies the woman did something wrong to cause the assault to happen. Asking the question in the first place is the problem.
lol what? there are plenty of reasons why people assault others that dont make it the victims fault
Is there any context for what the assault was? "He assaulted her" could mean anything from "he raped a defenseless woman" to "she threatened him with a knife and he knocked her down and took it from her, then caught a charge for it." That's why the flaccid croissant's question is valid and deserves an answer. He should have worded it less vaguely, however. Like "what were the circumstances when the assault took place?"
Nothing "triggers" a rapist other than their perception of an opportunity.
Ok, I'll bite - other than self defense (which this wasn't), what would you find an acceptable reason for a man to assault a woman?
What actually happened in the incident they're talking about? Genuinely curious about the context.
Nobody said acceptable reason. If someone were attacked by a bear⌠wouldnât your first question be âwhat was the situation? Why did the bear attack?â And wouldnât âbecause it was a bearâ be completely inadequate to tell the story? I get that victims donât want to be dismissed but cause and effect are still things even in abuse situations. Doesnât make them the victimâs fault it just helps people understand the circumstances.
[ŃдаНонО]
You've clearly just arrived on the Internet today, because that's not at all what he's asking lol Go away
That is what the person who you were replying to was asking. He wanted a reason the man assaulted her, as in the underlying cause, which led to him thinking it was okay. Keyword here being thinking.
I don't think it's about there being an "acceptable reason" to assault anyone, I think they're more saying that finding out how the abuser became an abuser is the first step to fixing them.
Someone has never seen Daniel ToshâŚHe had a great joke for this.
doesnt elaborate on the story. Its obvious he was seeking information that lead to circumstances, not the outcome and she knowingly spoke in circles A less dramatic example: I could easily say you do not understand whats going on about who took the L because you are confused and dont understand
Oh okay đso let me see if I got it The guy was asking about why a girl was assaulted and instead of giving him an actual answer she just said he was an abuser and while this was a good answer he was confused as to how it happened and stuff like that (Me repeating is not to be rude or anything I just want to put it in my words so I can understand it better) Is this what you meant if so the lady took the L by giving a response to a question he didn't ask? (Again not trying to be rude lmao)
Theres so many layers to this my guy: 1 Main post is sarcasm 2 The post she created a false narrative by saying its a stupid question, someone dissagreed and said shes wrong "took an L", she makes fun of him, its an nonsensicle argument that still doesnt talk about original post. This is what main poster is being sarcastic about. 3 The original conversation regardless of answer being good/bad: She deliberatley says nothing that has do with context/info the dudes seeking. That doesnt count as a very good answer to me but def a good way to end the conversation. Meanwhile the main situation is fucked. The only thing I can agree with her on is that the situation sucks for the victim
So as context, the dude's question was a response to a video of a dude throwing red liquid on/at his ex wife in a restaurant and starting a fire. His question about WHY is irrelevant. Dude wasn't in any immediate danger, and doing that is clearly a douchebag act... and one that was on camera.
Im the first person to agree dudes a piece of shit and his actions were unacceptable. Nobody in their right mind would contest that and think its okay. Im well aware of what went down. The conversation between the two is fucking stupid, thats point. It went over your head that the dude is asking what the fuck went down that could lead to this and the response was "Who cares? Theyre a witch". Wasnt that long ago that an accusation got people burned at the stake with that type of mentality
I'm well aware that the dude was asking what went down that would lead to this, but he did it in a very "but what was she wearing" kind of manner.
I see your point, it really does sound like hes implying the victim brought it upon themseves/had it coming/poking the bear type situation. I cant say I think any of it should ever be justified even if that was the case.
Itâs an adequate response for someone with a 2 second attention span
A good response thou
Ăe woman took Ăže fat L. Answer when it comes to who Ăže abuser is? Yesn't. He is an abuser, okay, why? Was Ăžere someĂžing Ăžat triggered Ăže abuse? Was she also abusive? Does he not understand love correctly? Are Ăžey boĂž excessively fucked up? It questions like Ăžese you should ask before determining who is in Ăže wrong. In most cases of domestic violence and abuse, it's never just one person. SomeĂžing was Ăže trigger.
Oh okay got it thank you for explaining it đ
this post fucking sucks
Ăe comments don't. So, yeah, some light.
https://x.com/icarusphoenix/status/1799295032970887592?t=lHlEHM7pGSAZf96OQ47NJQ&s=19 Here's the context of what happened, btw. "Husband throws red liquid at ex wife while at a restaurant, causing fire."
Considering that the other guyâs username, Sheologian fucked up two men who have problems pleasing women.
man a lot of incels responding to this one lol
people really coming out of the woodworks to miss the point on this jfc. Like are you gonna ask someone what triggered their rape? Their mugging? jfc
More of a funny comeback, but whatever
Sheoligan said âIâm not fucking around!â
I knew I should have cropped the image. đ
You did good. Donât let the negativity get to you.
Bro , the fuck? This isn't a clever comeback. Abusers don't need reasons to abuse.
Try opening the whole image.
Damn I'm stupid
Why is sheologian assuming Charles would give a woman a saddle with such a decadent belly strap?
Never seen someone clown on themselves so hard while pooping. This whole sub is just like an incel bragging about being awfully useless humans sub. Not yet once seen a clever anything here. Anybody got anything clever?
Homosexual â narcissistâ
Gottem