The article was written by a woman, so why would you assume it was written by a man? We're discussing ideas, yes, and those ideas have a lot to do with gender.
Fiance: I am and will continue to sleep with other men.
Bukowski: You fing w*re [kicks].
Relationships are hard. While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I think in this case Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he did with his kick. It certainly didn't seem like he was kicking her because he "thought it was funny to kick women".
No, just there are people who understand why physical abuse and violence is not tolerable in _any_ situation, especially not against the weak. People who equate physical and verbal violence (by verbal violence I mean anything not physical) either have no idea what they're talking about or they're mentally ill.
I agree, physical and verbal violence should not be equated. But not because verbal violence is clearly less damaging than physical violence. It's complicated, and subjective and different for everyone.
I'm totally against _any_ type of violence. But I've met and studied enough people who carry around a lifetime of mental illnesses caused verbal violence (esp. at a young age) to be able to say that one is worse than the other.
Yes, and those people are the same folks who give women who are violent or abusive to men a free pass, as women can't be violent against men as men are so much stronger than women.
> While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I think in this case Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he did with his kick.
So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.
> So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.
That's absurd. Where did I say "if your partner says something that upsets you, it's totally OK to hit them"?
I stated that:
a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on him) more than he did by kicking her.
b) It didn't seem like his reasons for kicking her were because he "thought it was funny to kick women."
Please read more carefully before you troll me, sir.
> a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on him) more than he did by kicking her.
Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something someone said.
I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been, but these kinds of statements happen all the time as a way to create a justification for the abuse inflicted on someone. It's not only abusers that do this, but people that are friends and acquaintances of both the abuser and abused.
> Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something someone said.
1. I stated that I don't agree with abuse (physical or emotional).
2. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted on her. That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him with her infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive.
I don't know all the facts, only what I saw in the video. I don't know if Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's not relevant to what happened in the video, which is the subject of this discussion.
You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been" - the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever been cheated on by someone you're in love with.
> 2. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted on her. That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him with her infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive.
How exactly is being honest about not wanting and not committing to a monogamous relationship on an equal playing field as getting hit? Moreover, even if you considered that verbally and/or emotionally abusive, that in no way justifies hitting someone.
> I don't know if Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's not relevant to what happened in the video, which is the subject of this discussion.
If Bukowski was a serial abuser, it is most certainly 100% relevant to the video in question. Domestic abuse isn't about a single incident, its about a continuum of behavior and events.
> You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been" - the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever been cheated on by someone you're in love with.
I have, but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same playing field. In fact, it is a common tactic for abusers to accuse or blame partners for the abuse by insinuating or referring to actual past instances of cheating.
> "but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same playing field"
Hey man, I think we've covered some interesting ground here, but I think we just have to agree to disagree. I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I just do.
Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly unsolicited.
> I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I just do.
Cheating on someone is a violation of that person's trust. Hitting your partner is violation of their physical integrity.
> Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly unsolicited.
What is the point of making this statement if not to excuse her getting hit or to make her getting hit seem like "she was asking for it"?
It may well be that someone has a reasonable expectation of monogamy, but that's entirely irrelevant. If you don't like the way your partner acts in a relationship, you don't hit them, you talk about it and possibly break it off.
Whether or not monogamy is a gift or an entitlement depends entirely on your culture / value system. I think that abusing someone's trust is, well, abusive.
I agree that it was abusive of Bukowski to kick her. 100%. That's doesn't mean that he kicked her because, "he thought it was funny to kick women". I think it's clear from the video that he kicked her because he was upset that she was cheating on him. I think he was entitled to be upset, but not entitled to kick her.
What is it that you find offensive? The part that he was a drunk? The part that he kicked another human being? The part that he kicked a woman? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked women? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked a man?
Side opinion: If you consume content only by people who are perfect (which really means follow your ethical system, your values), your content sources are going to be incredibly narrow. Also, because I have to make it crystal clear. I am not advocating kicking anyone. I just think that him committing something that I disagree with doesn't necessarily mean that his ideas aren't worth thinking about.
> What is it that you find offensive? The part that he was a drunk? The part that he kicked another human being? The part that he kicked a woman? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked women? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked a man?
Are your questions anything other than pointlessly flippant?
And then somebody reduces the man to this awful youtube clip where he's drunk and fighting with his fiancé, where he kicks her meanly from across the couch, several times.
And I have to remember: that's just this thread, this thread will pass. It's Friday. I'm in a decent mood. Let's find something to eat, start thinking about what I will work on today.
Every argument is ad hominem nowadays. It is the sickness of the post-modern era[1]. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Charles Bukowski kicked a woman. Paula Dean once used a racial slur referring to a man that robbed her at gunpoint. Leonidas probably opposed women in the military.
Let's throw out all of human history and art and listen to the pious, sniveling PC morons of the last 10 years. That is the modern world for ya.
Thomas Jefferson said that [some well reasoned argument or opinion]
Yeah, but Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.
[and thus we shouldn't consider his argument]
But this crap still bothers me. It drags an otherwise nice discussion about good art into the gutter of reactionary judgements. A lot of really good artists had/have problems, but that doesn't discount their work.
Ah, the new logo is hideous! I don't see anything better about it other than the fact that it fits in a square. What's the purpose of the late-90's computer graphics style round triangle button thing? It's like a big skeuomorphic upvote button with an airbrushed Mario level in the background. Just get rid of it!
Additionally, this article only considers /static stretching/, which is far less helpful to me as a runner than /active stretching/: leg swings, kicks, or arm circles.
While this is true, technology and society are conspiring to make society even more coarse and making coarseness even more acceptable. (for example, tweeting and txting and expletive usage among teenagers and beyond). Not only that, but there is also a slow moving trend away from the separation of work and home, professional demeanor and casual demeanor at work. This blurriness contributes to this kind jocular humor creeping into the workplace. There is also the facet of how this is perceived by a people in a society (how in France double entendres are quite normal and sexual repartee btwn the sexes is in metropolitan areas present).
Watch family TV shows form the 70s. Did they say things like "Mom, this sucks"? Watch a family TV show from modern times. It's normal to hear teenaged characters say that on TV. Does anyone even think she meant to say "Mom, that sucks dick"? The ellipsis would have been tagged mentally in the 70s --not today.
What I'm saying is that college/crude humor has crept into society wholesale. Unless there is a societal move away from that, it'll be hard to decouple that from people, even in a professional setting. There would be two forces in opposition and the demarkation is getting blurry.
Poking around the wiki I noticed that work is beginning on GCLI, a gui command line. I'm not sure how it's going to get integrated into FF yet (I saw mention of an mdn command, though).
