Make cold brew with it.

DARVO

So the thing that was regularly addressed is the thing you think nobody is talking about. And there's not a single comment saying non-consensual touching is okay or questioning if it can be, but somehow you imagined there was.

Meanwhile you're ignoring what I told you what I'm actually questioning. Don't pretend like you were ever trying to have a conversation when you were just looking to get angry about something nobody said.

What detail is that? It can't be the non-consensual touch since I've mentioned that in most of my comments outright, including my last reply to you.

Not only do you not understand how definitions work, you also don't know what gatekeeping means.

Here's a definition to look up: hysteria.

I'd trust you to define abuse as much as I'd trust you to not stab someone in the for accidentally bumping into you on the street because you can't tell the difference between touch and violent assault.

The only thing I'm normalizing is not reacting like a psychopath.

I really have to know what you think being patted on the head means because you're speaking as if the child was punched in the face.

It was, on me. And it happens because assholes like you normalize abuse and defend aggressors instead of victims.

This is not about you, and that's weird as hell that you're saying you've been traumatized and violated by reading a story of an old man getting beat up for patting a child on the head without asking first. This is a next-level martyrdom complex.

If you think I'm "normalizing abuse" by taking issue with your idea of abuse as irrational, ridiculous, and downright stupid, then you can follow through with what that means for your assertion that I'm normalizing abuse.

It does, the child’s consent was disregarded and her personal space was violated. This is unacceptable.

A pat on the head is not a punch to the face, the same way that tripping and falling because someone accidentally bumped into you is not the same as having someone break your ankles with a golf club. Flattening two very different actions to a common denominator in order to treat them both as extremely as possible is irrational and, interestingly, a highly aggressive and hostile act in and of itself.

I’m still not convinced you realize you’re literally trying to defend abuse.

Fuck off.

A pat on the head is not abuse. I question your notions of what abuse is if you're throwing around that term so liberally. I challenge you to go to a group of abuse victims and tell them that an old man patted you on the head so you're equally as aggrieved and traumatized as someone who experiences domestic violence that leaves bruises and black eyes.

Then we'll see who has to fuck off.

That's not the question at hand. The question at hand is why they're flattening the two things in order to describe the act as "child abuse", and generally overreact to the exact nature of the action. The fact of the touch being non-consensual is not in question but the description of it as violence, traumatic, and abuse is.

Jumping to extremes is not rational behaviour.

No, much of the language and ideas you expressed are more in line with if some great violence or trauma was inflicted. It does not line up with an unwanted head pat.

I am still not convinced you know what a pat on the head is compared to a punch in the face.

You have to know that's not in the brochure or spiel they give to these impoverished kids who barely have enough of an education to read a whole sentence.

And even if it was, it's not like they would have any of the tools to even start understanding the concept after 18 years of living under US conservative media as the sole source of information and perspective.

These kids sign up literally not knowing any better, for the promise of something better on the other end. It's stupid to suggest they're doing it to choose to advance American imperialism after surveying all other options and considering the moral and tangible outcomes of all the choices they think they have at 18 years old.

You gotta be socially inept to think there's no irony there.

I remember looking into getting Azure and GCP certs some years ago and went through a few prep courses. It turns out getting the initial certs for cloud services like them is basically to be a salesman for them. It's like they're training IT people inside companies to be embedded salespeople for them. Insidious, and kinda genius.

That was Phil Fish but his game FEZ is insanely well received.

I'm not talking about the amount of people, I am talking about who the people who go regularly now (i.e. the clientele) are.

They are not worse now than they were before. They mostly are the ones who were there before.

But it hasn't. It's always been the same. The people who were very loyal to Tim Hortons in the 80s and 90s and 00s haven't moved on to another ubiquitous coffee chain. There aren't any others to move on to for the vast majority of the country.

The clientele is the same as it always was.

Tankie saying everyone else is sheeple while espousing conspiracy theory YouTube playlist as objective truth.