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.
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 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.
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".