[Scrapped]

[Ashmoria]

because thats how life works.

... do you have any reasons more specific than that? o.o

no i dont. if you have so little understanding of life that you dont already know that specifics make a difference in the reaction of crowds you really arent capable of debating this topic.

[Hayteria]

I don't think she'd be regarded as a hero, but I do think a lot more of the blame would be shifted onto the guys for "provoking" her in the first place. In the anecdote's case, everyone sided with the girls despite their heavy verbal abuse directed towards the guy.

go figure.

he escalated verbal abuse into violence that could have killed her.

that makes him wrong. very very wrong.

He's in the wrong whether that applies or not, but what exactly do you base this on? And if a girl resorted to violence that could have killed a guy, do you think people would have reacted the same way?

[Ashmoria]

go figure.

he escalated verbal abuse into violence that could have killed her.

that makes him wrong. very very wrong.

He's in the wrong whether that applies or not, but what exactly do you base this on? And if a girl resorted to violence that could have killed a guy, do you think people would have reacted the same way?

yes i do.

[Ifreann]

This doesn't really warrant discussion. Obviously if a woman is justified in hitting a man, and man would be justified in hitting a woman in the same situation. Knowing so little about the facts of this anecdotal situation, there's nothing to be gained trying to hash out whether the responses of those present would have been the same had the genders been reversed.

[Hayteria]

This doesn't really warrant discussion. Obviously if a woman is justified in hitting a man, and man would be justified in hitting a woman in the same situation. Knowing so little about the facts of this anecdotal situation, there's nothing to be gained trying to hash out whether the responses of those present would have been the same had the genders been reversed.

Oh please, we know enough. That the girls were heavily verbally abusing him means we know that they intended to cause him emotional harm. That they persisted in it means we know they wanted to get as much in as they could get away with. That he resorted to violence means we know that either he thought the benefit of hurting one of them outweighed the trouble he'd get in, or he was upset enough not to think it through rationally. That everyone sided with the girls as a result of this means we know that the people around him didn't mind him being persistently verbally abused, but did mind him physically hurting one of them.

And Ashmoria, at least you're being consistent. I just think more consideration should be given to the impact of being upset on their rationality, and at least some blame should be shifted onto them for provoking him in the first place.

[Ashmoria]

This doesn't really warrant discussion. Obviously if a woman is justified in hitting a man, and man would be justified in hitting a woman in the same situation. Knowing so little about the facts of this anecdotal situation, there's nothing to be gained trying to hash out whether the responses of those present would have been the same had the genders been reversed.

Oh please, we know enough. That the girls were heavily verbally abusing him means we know that they intended to cause him emotional harm. That they persisted in it means we know they wanted to get as much in as they could get away with. That he resorted to violence means we know that either he thought the benefit of hurting one of them outweighed the trouble he'd get in, or he was upset enough not to think it through rationally. That everyone sided with the girls as a result of this means we know that the people around him didn't mind him being persistently verbally abused, but did mind him physically hurting one of them.

And Ashmoria, at least you're being consistent. I just think more consideration should be given to the impact of being upset on their rationality, and at least some blame should be shifted onto them for provoking him in the first place.

maybe that might be taken into consideration IN COURT where he should have been defending himself against battery charges.

but there is no particular reason for onlookers to take it into consideration when he reacted violently to a situation he could have walked away from.

[Hayteria]

Oh please, we know enough. That the girls were heavily verbally abusing him means we know that they intended to cause him emotional harm. That they persisted in it means we know they wanted to get as much in as they could get away with. That he resorted to violence means we know that either he thought the benefit of hurting one of them outweighed the trouble he'd get in, or he was upset enough not to think it through rationally. That everyone sided with the girls as a result of this means we know that the people around him didn't mind him being persistently verbally abused, but did mind him physically hurting one of them.

And Ashmoria, at least you're being consistent. I just think more consideration should be given to the impact of being upset on their rationality, and at least some blame should be shifted onto them for provoking him in the first place.

maybe that might be taken into consideration IN COURT where he should have been defending himself against battery charges.

but there is no particular reason for onlookers to take it into consideration when he reacted violently to a situation he could have walked away from.

You sure he could have walked away from it? The guy claims that the girls wouldn't leave him alone. What if that includes surrounding him and following him around to insult him?

[Ifreann]

This doesn't really warrant discussion. Obviously if a woman is justified in hitting a man, and man would be justified in hitting a woman in the same situation. Knowing so little about the facts of this anecdotal situation, there's nothing to be gained trying to hash out whether the responses of those present would have been the same had the genders been reversed.

Oh please, we know enough.

Not really, no.

That the girls were heavily verbally abusing him

Allegedly.

means we know that they intended to cause him emotional harm.

That doesn't follow. That the alleged victim in this case considered the abuse to be so serious doesn't mean it was intended to be so. To use the TVTropes vernacular, for all we know the girls were ignorantly pounding his Berserk Button.

That they persisted

Allegedly. Do we have an actual time frame?

in it means we know they wanted to get as much in as they could get away with.

You make assumptions about their intents again, with no possibility of hearing their side.

That he resorted to violence means we know that either he thought the benefit of hurting one of them outweighed the trouble he'd get in, or he was upset enough not to think it through rationally. That everyone sided with the girls

Allegedly. Who is 'everyone' in this case anyway? The interpersonal relationships would certainly be a factor.

as a result of this means we know that the people around him didn't mind him being persistently verbally abused,

Assumption. Did they know he felt persistently verbally abused?

but did mind him physically hurting one of them.

Allegedly. Their knee-jerk reaction says little about their overall stance on gender.

[Ashmoria]

maybe that might be taken into consideration IN COURT where he should have been defending himself against battery charges.

but there is no particular reason for onlookers to take it into consideration when he reacted violently to a situation he could have walked away from.

You sure he could have walked away from it? The guy claims that the girls wouldn't leave him alone. What if that includes surrounding him and following him around to insult him?

the reaction of every one he knows being negative means to me that he is not aware of how utterly wrong he was.

[Ifreann]

You sure he could have walked away from it? The guy claims that the girls wouldn't leave him alone. What if that includes surrounding him and following him around to insult him?

the reaction of every one he knows being negative means to me that he is not aware of how utterly wrong he was.

It'd be helpful if we could hear their side of the story, but obviously that's impossible.

[Hayteria]

DISCLAIMER: For the purposes of this post, assume the guy was telling the truth. (Frankly, I don't think he'd have much reason to lie.)

That doesn't follow. That the alleged victim in this case considered the abuse to be so serious doesn't mean it was intended to be so.

Oh really? Then what was the point of it, if not to cause emotional harm to him?

Allegedly. Do we have an actual time frame?

See disclaimer, plus take into account that he claimed it was persistent and that they would not leave him alone.

You make assumptions about their intents again, with no possibility of hearing their side.

I don't need to hear their side. Their intent is pretty apparent from their described behaviour.

Allegedly. Who is 'everyone' in this case anyway?

Everyone the guy submitting the anecdote knew in person, including friends and family.

The interpersonal relationships would certainly be a factor.

What kind of interpersonal relationships do you mean?

Assumption. Did they know he felt persistently verbally abused?

Well, for the ones persistently verbally abusing him, I think it is fairly reasonable to assume they know that. It was kind of the point of verbally abusing him in the first place.

As for the people around him, note that he said his "friends" did not do or say anything when that group of girls was verbally abusing him. THEY know it happened, and given the way rumours tend to spread in schools, I would say OTHERS know it happened too.

EDIT: To be fair, your idea that they might not have realized the harm they were doing is at LEAST a refreshing perspective, and in some ways it seems to shed a new light on the story. But still, I would have to wonder why they would not be aware of it, and why they would bother with that kind of verbal abuse if they weren't.

[Hayteria]

You sure he could have walked away from it? The guy claims that the girls wouldn't leave him alone. What if that includes surrounding him and following him around to insult him?

the reaction of every one he knows being negative means to me that he is not aware of how utterly wrong he was.

What if it was everyone else who was in the wrong?

[Ashmoria]

the reaction of every one he knows being negative means to me that he is not aware of how utterly wrong he was.

What if it was everyone else who was in the wrong?

id have to doubt it. in the absense of any objective view of the case and WITH his description of it being horrifying, id have to go with the crowd. usually at least your best friend sides with you even if he thinks you were an asshole.

[Hayteria]

What if it was everyone else who was in the wrong?

id have to doubt it. in the absense of any objective view of the case and WITH his description of it being horrifying, id have to go with the crowd. usually at least your best friend sides with you even if he thinks you were an asshole.

What if they were only pretending to be his friends just to set him up? What if they and the girls were working together to prank the guy into resorting to violence just so they could all say he was in the wrong?

[Ashmoria]

id have to doubt it. in the absense of any objective view of the case and WITH his description of it being horrifying, id have to go with the crowd. usually at least your best friend sides with you even if he thinks you were an asshole.

What if they were only pretending to be his friends just to set him up? What if they and the girls were working together to prank the guy into resorting to violence just so they could all say he was in the wrong?

why are you going so far off the rails?

[Hayteria]

What if they were only pretending to be his friends just to set him up? What if they and the girls were working together to prank the guy into resorting to violence just so they could all say he was in the wrong?

why are you going so far off the rails?

Another sidestep. Are you going to answer the question or not?

[Ifreann]

DISCLAIMER: For the purposes of this post, assume the guy was telling the truth. (Frankly, I don't think he'd have much reason to lie.)

It's the internet. People lie about things all the time.

That doesn't follow. That the alleged victim in this case considered the abuse to be so serious doesn't mean it was intended to be so.

Oh really? Then what was the point of it, if not to cause emotional harm to him?

I said they didn't necessarily intend this so-called abuse to be as serious as the troper felt it was. He says verbal abuse, they could say harmless jokes.

Allegedly. Do we have an actual time frame?

See disclaimer, plus take into account that he claimed it was persistent and that they would not leave him alone.

Even if he is telling the truth about his perceptions of the events, that doesn't necessarily mean that his perceptions are accurate. 'Persistent' to this troper could mean three times over the course of a month, or it could mean every day for five years. We don't know.

You make assumptions about their intents again, with no possibility of hearing their side.

I don't need to hear their side. Their intent is pretty apparent from their described behaviour.

Good to know that you're not interested in the truth. This troper says it was so, and it suits your purposes for it to be so, so fuck all other possibilities it is so.

Allegedly. Who is 'everyone' in this case anyway?

Everyone the guy submitting the anecdote knew in person, including friends and family.

And their relationships to these girls?

The interpersonal relationships would certainly be a factor.

What kind of interpersonal relationships do you mean?

How did 'everyone' feel about these girls before he hit one of them?

Assumption. Did they know he felt persistently verbally abused?

Seeing as how they were the ones persistently verbally abusing him, I think it is fairly reasonable to assume they know that. It was kind of the point of verbally abusing him in the first place.

Unless they thought they were just having a bit of fun and were unaware of how much it bothered him. Perhaps justifiably so, since we don't know what this abuse entailed.

[Ifreann]

id have to doubt it. in the absense of any objective view of the case and WITH his description of it being horrifying, id have to go with the crowd. usually at least your best friend sides with you even if he thinks you were an asshole.

What if they were only pretending to be his friends just to set him up? What if they and the girls were working together to prank the guy into resorting to violence just so they could all say he was in the wrong?

What if the whole thing was the drug fuelled fantasy of a dwarf caused by his exposure to his unicorn mount's dung?

[Ashmoria]

why are you going so far off the rails?

Another sidestep. Are you going to answer the question or not?

no im not. its a ridiculous question.

[Hayteria]

I said they didn't necessarily intend this so-called abuse to be as serious as the troper felt it was. He says verbal abuse, they could say harmless jokes.

I think if they were just joking, he probably would have known. In any case, I do not think a prolonged barrage of insults about everything from appearance to lifestyle was likely to have been just joking.

Even if he is telling the truth about his perceptions of the events, that doesn't necessarily mean that his perceptions are accurate. 'Persistent' to this troper could mean three times over the course of a month, or it could mean every day for five years. We don't know.

He said they would not stop, which seems to imply that it was continuous. (ie. Non-stop insults for long enough to make him severely upset enough to resort to violence.)

Good to know that you're not interested in the truth. This troper says it was so, and it suits your purposes for it to be so, so fuck all other possibilities it is so.

Nice strawman there. I am interested in the truth, it's just that other possibilities don't seem all that plausible.

And their relationships to these girls?

You mean their friends were in romantic relationships with these girls, or something else? I would think that even that would not be sufficient excuse to refuse to criticize them when they are doing something hurtful.

How did 'everyone' feel about these girls before he hit one of them?

What difference does that make? If how they feel about these girls impacts upon whether or not they side with them, rather than it being a function of what they did, wouldn't that reflect poorly on the moral standing of the people reacting anyway?

Unless they thought they were just having a bit of fun and were unaware of how much it bothered him.

Now we might be getting somewhere. Still though, a bunch of girls surrounding a guy and continuously insulting him sounds like a rather sadistic kind of fun, and sounds like the kind of thing that would get its fun FROM how upset the guy would be.

Perhaps justifiably so, since we don't know what this abuse entailed.

To be fair, all we are given is a few examples of the kinds of insults... gays, dorks, and the ugly are kind of considered fair targets of contempt in our society, though, so it sounds like the kinds of things one would say when intending emotional harm.

[Hayteria]

What if they were only pretending to be his friends just to set him up? What if they and the girls were working together to prank the guy into resorting to violence just so they could all say he was in the wrong?

What if the whole thing was the drug fuelled fantasy of a dwarf caused by his exposure to his unicorn mount's dung?

Appeals to ridicule much? You really want to deny that people can pretend to be friends with someone for the purposes of a prank?

[Dakini]

Since you're so fond of anecdotes:

When I was in grade 4, my family moved to a new house which meant moving to a new school. As the new kid I was repeatedly bullied, mostly by the boys at my school, but also by some of the girls. As a nine year old, I knew well enough not to resort to violence in response to teasing. When I was in grade five at the same school, one boy bullied me more than everyone else. I think he did this because prior to my arrival, he was probably the most common target of bullying and after a year people had started to let up on me. At any rate, one day we had a supply teacher and this boy decided that he should both punch me and trip me in the same day (in class, mind you). He received no punishment despite hitting a girl and despite my total lack of violence before or after these incidents. In fact, when I complained to the supply teacher that he did this, the teacher only took some notes and when our regular teacher was back, she gave us both detention.
The boy who hit me wasn't any more socially ostracised than he was prior to this incident, nobody jumped to my aid, nobody told him that what he had done was wrong. Instead, many of my classmates laughed.

So don't act like everyone jumps to the defence of girls when they're hit by boys because it definitely isn't always true.

[Hayteria]

Since you're so fond of anecdotes:

When I was in grade 4, my family moved to a new house which meant moving to a new school. As the new kid I was repeatedly bullied, mostly by the boys at my school, but also by some of the girls. As a nine year old, I knew well enough not to resort to violence in response to teasing. When I was in grade five at the same school, one boy bullied me more than everyone else. I think he did this because prior to my arrival, he was probably the most common target of bullying and after a year people had started to let up on me. At any rate, one day we had a supply teacher and this boy decided that he should both punch me and trip me in the same day. He received no punishment despite hitting a girl and despite my total lack of violence before or after these incidents. In fact, when I complained to the supply teacher that he did this, the teacher only took some notes and when our regular teacher was back, she gave us both detention.
The boy who hit me wasn't any more socially ostracised than he was prior to this incident, nobody jumped to my aid, nobody told him that what he had done was wrong. Instead, many of my classmates laughed.

So don't act like everyone jumps to the defence of girls when they're hit by boys because it definitely isn't always true.

Not always, no, it can of course depend on the circumstances to some extent, but your case is different because, like you said, they treated you like an outsider. (EDIT: As for the teachers, I figure if the "supply" teacher just took notes it was because he/she didn't know what the punishment for such stuff was supposed to be, and if the regular teacher gave you both detention it probably suggests she didn't know what happened.) Aside from specific circumstances like that, though, a guy hitting a girl does seem to be thought of worse than a girl hitting a guy. That is, after all, the point of other double standards like "wouldn't hit a girl."

Though in any case, those people are most certainly scumbags for laughing at you after you were the target of violence.

[Dakini]

Since you're so fond of anecdotes:

When I was in grade 4, my family moved to a new house which meant moving to a new school. As the new kid I was repeatedly bullied, mostly by the boys at my school, but also by some of the girls. As a nine year old, I knew well enough not to resort to violence in response to teasing. When I was in grade five at the same school, one boy bullied me more than everyone else. I think he did this because prior to my arrival, he was probably the most common target of bullying and after a year people had started to let up on me. At any rate, one day we had a supply teacher and this boy decided that he should both punch me and trip me in the same day. He received no punishment despite hitting a girl and despite my total lack of violence before or after these incidents. In fact, when I complained to the supply teacher that he did this, the teacher only took some notes and when our regular teacher was back, she gave us both detention.
The boy who hit me wasn't any more socially ostracised than he was prior to this incident, nobody jumped to my aid, nobody told him that what he had done was wrong. Instead, many of my classmates laughed.

So don't act like everyone jumps to the defence of girls when they're hit by boys because it definitely isn't always true.

Not always, no, it can of course depend on the circumstances to some extent, but your case is different because, like you said, they treated you like an outsider. Aside from specific circumstances like that, though, a guy hitting a girl does seem to be thought of as considerably worse than a girl hitting a guy. That is, after all, the point of other double standards like "wouldn't hit a girl."

Though in any case, those people are most certainly scumbags for laughing at you after you were the target of violence.

So my case is different, but the case where a group of girls tormenting a guy isn't? I've never seen a group of girls torment a guy, hell, I've never seen a group of anyone torment anyone else who wasn't considered an outsider.

So my case is special, but this other case is par for the course because it fits your paradigm of unfair social interactions?

Also, girls tend to deal with the standard of "nice girls never hit anyone".

[Gagatron]

I personally think it is unacceptable for anyone to hit someone unless in dire need of self defense.