Reply to Should I Have Called the Police?

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Should I Have Called the Police? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

OMG! Are you his wife? You are a horrible, horrible person. I was ashamed to read this.[/quote]

I know, right? I feel dirty just reading this trash.[/quote]

Asking a person to evaluate the whole of a situation and how the fit into it is "dirty" to you?  Good to know.

Someone on this thread said they wanted to get the problem to stop (I'm assuming it was OP).  Understanding what caused it is pretty freaking important.  You can oversimplify with your bullshit platitudes all you'd like, but that's not going to solve the actual problem.

And if you truly believe that OP is a saint to hir completely wack-ass spouse, well, you're really fucking gullible.  This sort of thing has roots.  If you want to kill it, you have to kill it at the root.  Anything else is a band-aid, even if simpletons on the internet say otherwise.

OP had a part in this.  That doesn't justify hitting (hence my saying "there is no excuse to hit").  [/quote]

No, the totality of your post is trash. And dirty. And so are you. [/quote]

No, I'm just better educated and less reactionary than you.  It's really easy to believe that the anonymous person posting here is both honest and innocent.  It makes everything fit into neat little boxes for you, so you can give OP a cookie comment and move about your day.  It's a bit more complicated to actually examine the possible depths of this situation.  Clearly I've asked too much of the DCUM lot, but for those of you crying "Victim blaming OMG!!!!" you may wish to consider that my professed position on this issue (that there is likely far more to this story than you'll ever know and, thus, it would be wise to acknowledge your lack of scope and reserved judgment) is a fairly common point of dissent.  I mean, Google and/or Wikipedia would've found you this:

"Roy Baumeister, a social and personality psychologist, argued that blaming the victim is not necessarily always fallacious. He argued that showing the victim's possible role in an altercation may be contrary to typical explanations of violence and cruelty, which incorporate the trope of the innocent victim. According to Baumeister, in the classic telling of "the myth of pure evil," the innocent, well-meaning victims are going about their business when they are suddenly assaulted by wicked, malicious evildoers. Baumeister describes the situation as a possible distortion by both the perpetrator and the victim; the perpetrator may minimize the offense while the victim maximizes it, and so accounts of the incident shouldn't be immediately taken as objective truths."

But, please, stick to ad hominem.  It suits you, even if it doesn't serve.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics