[pgeorgi]

The theory states that person A is in a state on all 4 sides and encodes that into a message. That message is transmitted (in case of twitter: verbal only, no other cues), and then decoded onto the 4 sides by person B. By then, it can mean something else entirely because encoding and decoding aren't idempotent. They likely don't even weight the 4 sides in the same way.

Now, it's hard for me to imagine a less threatening interpretation of "Someone will rape and kill you" (to paraphrase most of the femfreq collection) than what the average person would make of it, but the rule I responded to was made a general assertion.

If the victim defines its status universally, the best way to live is to shut down all communication, since the sender has exactly _0_ control how things end up being received.

"The victim defines it" means that a simple "hello" can be considered abuse. Given the right circumstances, that might even be true (to stick to the theme: stalker contacting victim), but western society (that twitter probably subscribes to) doesn't typically hand out sanctions without having a third party determine the circumstances. Taking your the stabbing example, accepting the pain (and calling the ambulance) is one thing. Throwing the assailant in jail has a higher standard.

The discussion is about sanctions which are closer to the latter than "accepting their pain".