how do i deal with domestic abuse

Obviously. I speculate that this is because you don't know me and you are peeved that I don't adopt your reading of my words as my own. Thus you deny me my human dignity and replace me with a shadow.

This hypothetical is hard for me to relate to the claims of posts #1, #16, #55 and #60. What really happened, if it did happen, happened a month ago in the UK. The question of the factualness of the claims made is not relevant to the advice given or rebuttals of the shoddy rationalizations given for inaction. The question of the reporter's history is relevant to how we should tailor our advice and how we should feel should the reporter not claim to take action on the very advice he solicited.

My models are going to differ from your models. But since posts #55 and #60 are all about how the attack in post #1 was all provoked by t-c, I don't accept the principle advanced that violence is an acceptable response to non-violent provocation, therefore I find much in posts #55 and #60 to argue against.

To advance the advocacy of the call to action and to reject shoddy arguments based on untruth and poisonous principles.

The discussion moved on past the report in post #1. The report in post #60 is that t-c was a "drunken idiot" which I have no basis to take issue with and he "got what [he] deserved" which I reject on the grounds of humanity and civilized standards of justice.

That doesn't connect with any of the sentences you quoted. It's obviously about you and me because I'm answering your criticism of my post #61 referring to the bulk of t-c's 2000+ posts as nonsense.

No, my problem is with your mischaracterization of my words, which apparently results from a rather myopic focus that deprives them of their natural context and your parochial viewpoint which leaves you unable to ascribe good intentions to people who attempt to teach differently than you. Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

To what end? t-c was perma-banned on the tenth of March. By t-c's reports #55 and #60, he provokes both hostility and violence. By James R's post of #40, he rejects rushing to endorse t-c's uncorroborated claims. How can I further advance the cause of action on t-c's part without confronting his principles and untrue facts that he used to rationalize inaction. When we see our less competent brothers sitting in a house that is on fire, we do not listen to their excuses for inaction, because we do not treat our fellow human beings that way.

You and I can read the same bits on this thread and come to wildly different conclusions about what parts of it disgust us, but please don't diminish my humanity and deny my viewpoint on my own words.

Because you are chiming in two weeks after a user has been banned that he should have been treated nicer three weeks ago based on criteria which has not been provided us and without benefit of example of the right way to do it.

I reject your naked assertions, just like I rejected t-c's assertions that men can't report abuse by female partners and that in a credible system of justice he provoked getting lumps on the face. This is a discussion forum, so it isn't my "problem," but rather my "position."

I see no spectacle in posts #19 or #20.

As I am not site staff, unlike several who chimed in on this thread already, none of that is relevant to my posts because I did not and could not know about those speculations. Thus those factors could not have influenced my thinking and writing.

In what system of justice, logic or civilized dialog does truth not matter? How do you even have a discussion if you only have unquestionable, indivisible and irrevocable "reports?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's a spectacle here in that y'all aren't doing this in PM.

Granted, TC is an idiot grasping for help in the wrong places and in the wrong ways, but as rpenner says, he's gone.

Why is this thread still being posted to again?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but the exchange between rpenner and Tiassa goes beyond that, and isn't helpful in addressing your valid point.

 

The exchange between the two seems to me to be a comparrison of different animals.

I have been both, one of the guys and an employer, or at times a member of management.., and in both situations seen not issues of abuse but issues which here in California, are treated and seen very differently by persons in different positions.

As an employer and later as a member of management, even any hint of abuse or harassment must be taken literally without any reguard for the reporting party's past history. This is in a way the position I see represented in Tissa's comments.., and one that we as a society might strive for as a general attitude.

On the other hand, it is common for coworkers to very literally filter anyone's complaints and accusations through past experience. To a limited extent I see this as at least a part of rpenner's comments, though I think he also is looking more closely at the discussion as a whole rather than the underlying or inciting posts and claims.

Yes, we should all take any report of abuse, by anyone seriously. But in truth and in practice, setting aside any leagal issues that may dictate how anyone in authority must respond, most of us do develope some sort of filter based on past experience... We don't always believe what a person says just because they say it.

That said I was not following the conversation. I for some unknown reason dropped in just today. I understand both sides of the discussion and think they are actually motivated differently. There are two different discussions, crammed together.

Looking back at T-C's posts I think the early advice was mostly as best as one could give on a forum like this. The latter discussion drifts back and forth, between two different discussions, or two sides of a discussion talking past one another from different perspectives and it seems with different motivations and objectives.

 

What if everyone wasn't from California? Wouldn't that be nice?

Fuck all the PC crap, please?

 

Sorry I don't understand, what PC crap refers to.

Basically, I understand what Tissa has been saying and agree with Tissa's underplaying position and Fraggle Rocker's point. I also understand rpenner's comments... And I believe they are really two different discussions.

Essentially, though I did not say it directly at the time, I agree with your post below.

That does not make the comments of either invalid. They are just not discussing the same thing as I understand it.

 

Politically correct.

 

Ahh.

 

Above underplaying should have been underlying.

 

The hostility shown in this thread is but a mere example of the myriad reasons survivors are reluctant or ashamed to admit that domestic violence is occurring. It is a reason why the difference between posting to a message board and actually speaking, even anonymously, to another human being about what is happening, is so complicated and difficult.

That's the only reason I got involved in this thread↑ in the first place.

As to the legal question our neghbor Danshawen asked, the answer is unsatisfactory: It depends on circumstance and context. But I also think it true that such was never the point of the post he inquired about; it is so difficult to conceive just how our neighbor rpenner thinks his input in this thread has been remotely anything other than detrimental that I simply don't believe the excuses he's trying to make now. And at this point, I intend to drive a certain nail: We do not hang our fellow human beings out like that.

Not just rpenner, but everyone who blew this one.

Think about it this way: Remember the time police in the District of Columbia arrested an eleven year-old girl because she reported being raped?

It's all the same attitude. Calling abuse survivors idiots, calling for the thread to be closed because a reporting abuse survivor is behaving like many abuse survivors do, trying to guilt-trip a reporting abuse survivor, victim-blaming, accusing lies, mixing in other issues in order to disdain the reporting abuse survivor, disbelief, personal attacks.

Now maybe it seems to some a quantum leap to what happened in D.C., but this is the roadmap for how to get there. This is what people are taking part in.

And we do not hang our fellow human beings out like that.

These are the priorities some have chosen, and the result is pretty much as disgusting as it ever is.

 

Both #41 and #61 read fine to me. As usual, Tiassa’s response is disproportional. He’s overly defensive. He’ll never even consider RP’s viewpoint. As the old saying goes, "once bitten, twice shy".

 

Oops! Sorry, my bad.

 

It's not that. I just misinterpreted Bells' answer.