Romney the Bully

The vast majority of childhood bullies are not, in fact sociopaths. Bullying is not itself a "sociopathic behavior." It's morally reprehensible, but this would be a good time to bring out your "Not all A are B" Venn diagrams.In fact, the articles quoted seem to focus more on fearmongering about sociopaths than actually describing them accurately. Just because someone's sense of emotional empathy is altered or even missing does not mean one will end up a serial killer. A sociopath is not a "bad seed" doomed to eventually murder his family, contrary to the words of the reporter you quoted. They are more likely to be prone to violence, but typically this is due to the addition of an additional psychological problem like poor impulse control. Most sociopaths are very good at integrating in society.I think "sociopath" and "psychopath" are too frequently flung around by armchair internet psychiatrists. I think it's getting to the point on some forums (not necessarily this one) that it may become a new Godwin's Law, akin to calling people Nazis.Romney's behavior, assuming the story is true, was absolutely reprehensible and not at all excused simply because he was likely around 17. And while change can happen, he's certainly given no reason to think that he's changed at all with the exception that he's not likely to express his bigotry and hatred so directly and physically. His behavior appalls but fails to surprise me given his stance on homosexuality and that of the Mormon church.A story of childhood bullying some 40 years past would not be sufficient to cause me to not vote for a man...but his continued stance against equality for homosexuals is, and this story acts as nothing more than additional confirmation that Romney's homophobia likely runs very, very deep.

I think this bears far more relevance to Romney's character than a single event some 40 years ago. It's only because his continued open advocacy of anti-gay policies that makes a single 40-year-old event in the same general theme even remotely relevant today.If Romney today was advocating for equal rights for all and the availability of gay marriage, I think we'd all be looking at his childhood bullying as an example of how far he's come.Instead, it's an example of how far he hasn't.

It's funny. This is one of the few topics that I see lots of support for amongst both the far right and the "liberal commies," and yet the idea is absolutely untouchable for any politician.Just seems to show that, as you say, "big business" is what drives the law, not the people.

...with a deadly weapon. Scissors stab and cut, after all.And interfering with the access of a member of a protected class (even if he's only perceived to be gay, he doesn't actually have to be homosexual) to a school (through extreme intimidation and assault on the premises) on the basis of membership in that protected class (attacking a gay guy for being gay) would qualify as a hate crime, nowadays.

Yet it's what he actually did. He assaulted a person, not simply with his fists, but with a deadly weapon. Thats not the intent at all - there is, in fact, a charge called "attempted murder." If the intent was to make it sound liek Romney tried to kill someone, I would have suggested that actual charge.Assault with a Deadly Weapon does not require intent to kill. If I shoot you with a gun in the leg, intentionally to wound, I have still assaulted you with a deadly weapon. If I stab you in the hand with a knife with the intent only to wound you, I have assaulted you with a deadly weapon.Romney committed an assault, and he used a deadly weapon in the commission of that assault. It's not "charging up," it's what actually happened. It's the real, appropriate charge, as well as the sentence increase that comes with the assault being a hate crime.

What matters is the fact that he hates homosexuals to the degree that, as a late-teenager, he assaulted a boy with scissors because he was gay.The fact that a deadly wepon was involved is relevant because it's what actually happened. It's not just a technical classification. As Ive stated, intent to kill is not required for the charge of Assault with a Deadly Weapon - the charge is intended to convey that the accused was being not only violent, but recklessly endangered the life of his victim by using a weapon instead of just his fists.That is what happened.Close. The fact that he was stupid and reckless enough to bring a deadly weapon into his assault says something about his character in general, and the degree of his hate for homosexuals in particular. If any "rhetorical points" are scored, they are scored through an accurate representation of what actually happened. There's no exaggeration going on here. There's no rhetoric. Mitt Romney assaulted a boy with scissors because he thought the boy was gay, full stop. Nobody is suggesting that Romney tried to stab the boy with the scissors, just that he assaulted him using them; an accidental stab is one of the reasons the charge of Assault with a Deadly Weapon exists, because by bringing a potentially lethal weapon into an assault Romney created a significant risk to the victim's life even though no murder was actually intended.How, precisely, can an accurate representation fo what actually happened in any way ever be considered an exaggeration?!In fact, if I were to "tone down" the description of events, would that not actually make me guilty of minimizing the actual events that occurred? Moderation is useful, but that doesn;t mean we should call a cigar anything other than a cigar.To the point, the truth does not lie somewhere between Assault and Assault with a Deadly Weapon.Assault with a Deadly Weapon actually accurately describes the precise event as it occurred.This is not a situation where finding a Golden Mean better conveys what happened.There is an accurate description of the events as they occurred, and there are inaccurate descriptions, both exaggerating and minimalizing what actually happened.I choose to convey the facts as accurately as I am able. Because telling the truth is somewhat important to me. Apparently, it's not important to you.

Those pink ones wouldn't cut hair.And did plastic safety scissors exist 40 years ago?

In other words, it's okay with Oni to denigrate and humiliate victims of assault, because if they were real men they'd have totally kicked the asses of that big group of guys armed with sharp pointy objects.Let's turn it around a bit - let's say that a woman was assaulted by a pack of guys, and one of them used scissors to cut her hair.Should she just "man the fuck up" and fight back? Would calling the cops just make her a "giant pussy?" If they specifically assaulted her because she was a woman, and cut her hair with the specific intent to humiliate and intimidate her for being a woman, would it be fair to call it a hate crime?

A group of men did assault the victim.One of the men was in fact armed with scissors, which can often be classified as deadly weapons.Intent to use a weapon for lethal force is not at all required for an assault to be classified as assault with a deadly weapon, specifically because of the reckless nature of endangering the victim's life and the increased intimidation and reduced ability to defend oneself from an armed assailant.Exactly how does this event not describe a group of men armed with a deadly weapon assaulting another man because they perceived him to have a "gay hairstyle?"You're so obsessed about what a "pussy" you think the victim was, you seem to be completely ignoring the actual facts of the event and how they would be rationally described.

You were raised wrong. Period.When you're unarmed and outnumbered and one of the other guys has a pair of fucking scissors, you don;t fight back. And you arent a "pussy" for not fighting back. You memorize faces and names, and you call the cops. Because they won't be taught any lesson at all from the few bruises you might be able to give them before they overpower you, and you'll just risk further injury because you're outnumbered and unarmed and they have a pair of scissors.Jesus fucking Christ, your attitude allows people who think it's absolutely fucking fine to intimidate and harass people and bring along sharp objects to get away with it. And your only defense of this position is to fall back on being a comedian, and call teh victim of an assault a pussy.If a group of guys assaulted me and held me down and cut my hair with scissors, I'd feel fucking humiliated, and while it was happening I'd be fucking scared out of my mind that they weren't just going to cut my hair, or that even if that was their intent they'd accidentally cut me or stab me in the fucking eye. They would have absolutely no right to do that and just "fighting back" won't result in anything but additional injury. "Manning up" according to you means dismissing the event, even though those assholes were completely in the wrong and deserve to be arrested for what they did.Nobody has the right to form a group of guys to assault another person. Bringing along a sharp pointy object just makes it worse. Taht their intent was "only" to humiliate and intimidate another person for having a "gay hairstyle" does not in any way diminish what they did - in fact, it makes it a hate crime.If this same goddamned story came out tomorrow at a high school in my city, the perpetrators would be expelled and very likely be facing jail time for perpetrating a hate crime. If I were on the jury at their trial and the evidence clearly demonstrated that the event actually happened as reported, I'd have absolutely no problem voting "guilty" for a charge of assault with a deadly weapon for the entire group of assailants, with sentencing enhanced because it was a hate crime.You're an amoral asshole, Oni, and no amount of comedic bullshit is going to change that. You actually think it's okay to humiliate and denigrate the victim of an assault. Despite your claim to the contrary, it's what you're actually doing every time you say only a pussy doesn't fight back and calls the cops. You're blaming the victim in every single case where that happened. I live out here, in the real world Oni. Apparently you live in a fantasy-land. Because the events, as described, do constitute an assault with a deadly weapon. What else is different in your world, Oni? If a woman says "no" in the middle of what was previously consensual sex, and you continue, is it rape? Or did you know "she wanted it anyway," and she should just "man up?"The law is a real thing, Oni. It doesn't change for you or me. If I get a group of guys to hold you down while I cut your hair with some nice, sharp, pointy scissors, I've committed an assault with a deadly weapon. If I do it to humiliate and intimidate you because you're Hispanic, then it's also a hate crime.Even if you decide not to press charges, that description still fits exactly what happened. Even if we're not in a court of law - the words still have definitions that still apply.By describing the events as an assault with a deadly weapon and also as a hate crime, I am simply describing the events with great precision. If you don't understand those words and inaccurately conclude that I'm describing an attempted murder or that the victim was stabbed, that's not my fault; you are simply making unfounded additional inferences based on incomplete information because you're ignorant of what the words actually mean.He can and could make his own decisions regarding his life. But to describe the events that occurred as an assault with a deadly weapon is simply to be completely honest. Describing the events as teenage bullshit is not accurate. This wasn't just "messing around." "Messing around" would have been just making fun of him for his hair. If they had only called him names or something we wouldn't be having this argument.This went far beyond "messing around." This was assault, possibly with a deadly weapon, in an attempt to humiliate and intimidate a boy for his appearance, almost certainly because he "looked gay." Saying as much doesn't make the victim a pussy or otherwise any less of a man.Take your accusations of "nerdy bullshit" and shove them up your ass, comedian. What happened to that kid wasn't a fucking joke.

And call victims of assault "pussies."You go ahead and keep feeling proud of that.

Are you enjoying your red herring? Is it fun to go off topic? Do you get your jollies by attacking straw men?What I or you would actually do is not relevant to this discussion.What is relevant are the facts:Mitt Romney (yes, this thread is about him and what he did, not fantasies in dronester's imagination) gathered up a group of young men, and proceeded with them to assault another young man, using scissors to cut his hair because he "can't look like that," presumably meaning the victim appeared to be too gay.There was an assault. An item was used in the commission of that assault which could be considered a deadly weapon, as a simple slip in the commission of that assault could have caused severe, permanent injury or death. There is ample evidence that today we would have considered this to be a hate crime. Mr Romney now claims to not even remember the event, though literally everyone else involved, from the victim to the perpetrators, remember it clearly, meaning Mr Romney is almost certainly lying.. Mr Romney has almost certainly changed in the intervening ~40 years and would not likely repeat the assault, but has not actually changed his views on homosexuality.Those are the relevant facts.Tangentially relevant are the fact that Oni believes that it's okay to blame the victim under at least some circumstances, that it's acceptable to call the victim of a massed assault with a weapon a "pussy" and that anyone who accurately describes the events as they occurred is also a "pussy."You, apparently, agree with him. To use your own absurd hypothetical, if your girlfriend were gang raped, you would call her a pussy if she didn't fight back against a large group of men who were armed with a sharp pair of scissors.To you, dronester, every debate is actually just another excuse to repeat your vendetta against myself and crash, because crash vehemently disagrees with you regarding drone strikes and I am swayed at least somewhat by some of crash's arguments. This includes threads like this one, where you're just contributing off-topic nonsense and red herring bullshit with a side order of hinted ad hominem attacks.Why is that, exactly?

1) Only an immediate display of aggression will eliminate his feeling of transgression. He has been attacked, and so he feels the need to attack back, right now. It's simple fight-or-flight, and the flight option has been removed.2) Calling the cops is functionally identical to "tattling," which we all learned as children is looked upon poorly by our peers (particularly those who have been "tattled" upon, and most people tend to side with the aggressor when no lasting harm is perceived because the aggressor is identified as the "stronger" or socially dominant party relative to the victim). The long-term view of events required by waiting until after the assault has already transpired to call the cops necessitates waiting long enough for the adrenaline-fueled fight-or-flight response to wear off; at that point, he can no longer respond with an act of personal aggression and so his sense of transgression can no longer be satisfied. He feels like he's "done nothing," and that somehow, if only he'd been "brave enough," he could have prevented the assault or at least paid it back, even if that idea is patently ridiculous.Bluntly, calling the cops doesn't feel enough like fighting back because it does not involve a display of personal aggression. Our social instincts function such that only personal displays of aggression can prove social dominance, while relying on the support of others to act entirely in your stead is viewed as weakness...even though the actual results of each tactic should prove the opposite.It seems that dronester somehow believes that fighting back personally and calling the police afterward are mutually exclusive, when this is only the case if fighting back will result in the death of the victim (so that he/she cannot call the police). And in fact, when faced with a group of assailants wielding a deadly weapon, it may prove unwise to fight back at all, because resistance will simply increase the risk of injury or death. In other cases, where death or injury is obviously the intended goal, you lose nothing by fighting back and gain a small chance at survival.Which, of course, is why "what if you saw your girlfriend being gangraped, hur hurr" is not at all equivalent to "a group of guys, one armed with sharp scissors, tackles you in an attempt to cut your hair."What disappoints me, however, is the insistence on identifying the victim of a crime as a "pussy." I understand the whole social pecking order macho displays of dominance blah blah blah, or rather I understand that it exists. But it offends me greatly to play the "blame the victim" game, and it is absolutely nothing more than blaming the victim to identify the victim as a valid target for denigration and insult, regardless of that victim's behavior. I don't care if the boy cried for his mommy and wet himself while set upon by multiple assailants - the victim is not the one in the wrong, the bullies are. If anyone should be identified as weak pussies, it should be the morally deficient assholes who needed a whole gang of guys and a pair of scissors to feel safe enough to express themselves.

How is that different from calling the victim a pussy if the victim were to go to the police or school authorities and call the incident an assault? You've stated multiple times that you agree that technically the events described constitute an assault, but that actually calling a spade a spade makes one a pussy.That's irrational, Oni. If the spade is a spade, you call it a spade, and you shouldn't be mocked for it. If a series of events meets the precise definition of "assault," then you call those events an "assault." There's no reason to call someone a "pussy" just because he understands the English language and uses what you agree is an accurate word to describe the events.In fact, acknowledging that the events did technically (and thus actually) constitute an assault means that to then call those same events "just a prank" is in fact disingenuous and dishonest. It diminishes the import of the events as they happened. It minimizes the trauma of the victim, simply because you (presumably) think that there could not possibly have been significant trauma involved, and that the victim should "man up." Because there is no functional difference between calling crashfrog or myself a "pussy" for calling the events an assault, and calling the victim a "pussy" if he were to call the events an assault. Sicne there are victims of similar assaults who do in fact report those assaults to relevant authorities, you are in effect calling every victim who does so a "pussy."I've been the victim of bullying. I've been assaulted by classmates, typically in large groups. In one case I actually sustained a real injury, though that wasn't the intent of the bullies. In another incident, I was sexually assaulted and mocked by a group of girls (had a boy done to a girl what those girls did to me, he would have gone to juvenile hall). The school authorities, of course, viewed those incidents as you must - just "pranks," which was certainly true of the intent of the assailants, and I was just a "pussy" or a "tattletale" for making such a "big deal" out of it. I felt almost as humiliated reporting the sexual assault as I did when the event actually occurred. I was a victim, Oni, and in discussing this other incident that dealt with the actions of Mitt Romney, you in effect called me a "pussy" for being a victim who accurately describes events that have actually occurred. Some of those events were deeply traumatizing to me at the time, and some still make me feel shame and humiliation today, decades later, when I recall them, even though rationally I comprehend that I was a victim and my victimization was not my fault. Calling victims "pussies," even when you were only doing so unintentionally and indirectly, still strongly triggers those feelings, and is in fact why it's wrong to even suggest that a person is a "pussy" for either reporting an incident to the authorities or for accurately identifying what happened.I'm glad that you found my uncharacteristically emotional reaction to having those buttons pushed entertaining. I, of course, was and am not laughing. Will you now call me a "pussy" for having been a boy who was sexually assaulted by a group of girls? Should I have just "manned up" and enjoyed it? Should I have fought back, even though they were girls and I would have gotten in far worse trouble than they ever did?If the boy whose hair was cut had called the incident an assault and reported it to the authorities, I would not call him a "pussy," regardless of whether he fought back with his fists or not. I'm capable of dispassionate argument largely because I'm sitting at my computer screen. I have the exact same instincts and social conditioning I've described - but wen I'm thinking about it instead of just going with it, I can accurately describe what's actually happening and decide for myself if those instincts and socially conditioned responses actually make appropriate sense in a given situation. They very often do not, and so as I argue dispassionately while sitting back at my computer screen, I'll say something that runs directly counter to those same instincts and socially conditioned responses.There's no fallacy in identifying a heat-of-the-moment reaction as less wise than an alternative. There's absolutely nothing wrong with analyzing a situation from the perspective of a neutral third party. In fact, the best way to "judge" irrational behavior like male dominance posturing is from a detached, intellectual standpoint. It's the only real way to analyze which of our behaviors are rational, and which not.

But by extension you did call every victim a "pussy" who actually calls an assault an assault. You didn't call this one victim a "pussy," but your reasoning leads you to be calling a large subset of other victims pussies. Myself included. That's wrong.The law isn't something you "cower behind." I'll admit that not all laws are good laws, and I'd absolutely participate in jury nullification were I part of a jury on a relevant case. But if you're not "cowering behind" the law when you call to report a rape or a murder, I fail to see how you're "cowering behind" the law if you call to report an assault. I understand what you're saying. But I firmly believe that, at the point where you're being held down against your will by a group of guys that line has been solidly crossed, regardless of their intention. I've been ganged up on, for "pranks" and for violent assault. It doesn't feel much different, except for the physical injury.I wouldn't call shoving in a line assault any more than you would. I do call an incident involving a group physically attacking an individual an assault. Yes, even if they just want to cut his hair. Their intent and the effects of their actions are little different from an assault that actually involves a severe beating - they are attempting to intimidate their victim, to make the victim afraid. They want to hurt the victim, and just because not all hurts leave physical scars doesn't make them any less real. He was a victim of events that are precisely described as an assault, possibly with a deadly weapon, and almost certainly a hate crime. The degree to which he was wronged certainly says nothing negative about the victim; if he was "more" or "less" a victim, that reflects nothing bad about him. It only reflects the degree to which the assailants have transgressed.And since I've only ever used the accurate and precise terminology when describing these events and have not at all exaggerated what actually happened, I think that young-adult-Romney needed no help at all in appearing to be a terrible person. I think he managed that just fine all on his own. Well, maybe with a few of his friends to help hold the other guy down for him. Yet those words are not dramatic - they are accurate. You've even admitted as much yourself. It was an assault - a group of guys attacked the kid and held him down. If that, by itself, doesn't qualify as an assault, then I don't know what does.If I were being "dramatic" and exaggerating the actual events, then I;d be saying things like "they beat the shit out of him" or some other inaccurate description.Instead, I've used only precise and accurate terminology. You've even agreed to that. Your only problem is that you feel like the attack was insufficiently bad to warrant the terms...but you don't have sole right to define terminology and the degree to which events match that terminology.

quote:

---

willfully and unlawfully use force or violence upon another. You can be convicted of this offense even if you don't harm or injure the other person, as long as you make some type of unwanted physical contact.

---

From a law firm in California. Technically, that was "battery," at least in this state.To anyone actually familiar with the use of the terms I have used, I have accurately and precisely conveyed my meaning. I have not exaggerated. I have not been overly dramatic in describing these events as an assault, or to be more precise, assault and battery. If I, even alone, did exactly the same thing these boys did, but to my fiance (holding her down and cutting her hair against her will in an attempt to frighten and intimidate her), I would rightfully be charged with spousal assault and battery. It may have been possible to plead down to a misdemeanor version of the same charge (yes, assault and batter of a spouse in California can be either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on severity among other factors), but I would still be guilty of having committed an assault. And battery. And very few people would have a problem with voting "guilty" in a jury if the events were not in question.I simply cannot see how describing a group of people attacking an individual, holding him down against his will, and cutting his hair as assault can possibly be any form of overdramatism or hyperbole or exaggeration whatsoever. By every definition I know, it fits perfectly. In the case of assault from other boys? I did. But they were many, and I was one. When a bunch of other kids start throwing rocks at you, there's not a lot you can do. I don't feel particularly humiliated about those.The one that gets to me is the girls. Maybe it was because it was a sexual offense, and boys aren't "supposed" to be victims in that sort of case. I was tall but scrawny and underweight as a kid, but I was still stronger than any of the girls...just not four of them at once. And I couldn't hit a girl - I was raised to believe that was absolutely wrong and unacceptable, and if I had fought back violently, I would have wound up suspended or expelled or even charged with a crime. I did try to resist - I just didn't throw any punches. I had grabbed two wrists and was trying to hold them back, but combined the four of them were too much. I tried to slide off the chair even when it became apparent I couldn't hold them off for much longer, but I moved too late, and it wouldn't have done much to move anyway. It was quick, and wasn't in any way as bad as what a lot of people go through - some (you?) might even question calling it a sexual assault. But I was touched, sexually, against my will, saying "no, stop, quit it, get the hell off me" and physically resisting. If I had grabbed some girl's crotch while she yelled at me to stop and tried to hold me back, I would have been in pretty big trouble. Instead, the "incident" was treated as "no big deal." As an adult, I'm now sure the school administration was actually thinking "hey, a group of girls grabbed his junk, that's a good thing." I felt humiliated and embarrassed and emasculated. And worse. After the results of reporting it, I didn't talk about it any more, because of people who treated it like it wasn't a big deal, or that I was a "pussy."But, see, saying "you should have fought back," particularly when you didn't have enough of the details to know if I had, is just another way of blaming the victim. If some guy on the street gets attacked by a group of guys, they assaulted him whether he fought back or not. He shouldn't be told that he'd "feel better if he had fought back," he'd actually feel better if those assholes hadn't attacked him, and no part of that attack is the fault of the victim. In other words "Rahvin, you're a pussy because I don't think you stood up for yourself sufficiently."Going to the authorities doesn't make one a victim. A rape or assault victim, as an example, does not become a victim when he/she calls the police. He/she is a victim when the rape or assault happens. The actions of the victim after the attack are irrelevant to their status as the victim of that attack.Going to the authorities does not make one a "pussy." It's the appropriate response when someone has done something seriously wrong to you and you don't want it to happen again, to yourself or others.In fact, in many cases, it takes more courage to stand up and tell otehrs what happened and admit to a humiliating experience than it does to remain silent.I think it's wrong to encourage silence. I think victims of assaults, even minor ones, should be unashamed to tell others, including the authorities, what happened.The victims shouldn't be the ones who are afraid. Or humiliated. Or embarrassed.The assailants should be afraid. And humiliated. And embarrassed.And for the record, Oni...I didn't go to the authorities when kids threw rocks at me. The only time I went and told a teacher was when I was groped by a group of girls who wanted to humiliate me, and had been doing so verbally for an extended period of time without stopping regardless of what I did until it culminated in what I described above.They even waited a whole school year after I told before starting again. I reacted, Oni, to your actual words. I reacted to the fact that you identify anyone who calls getting attacked by a bunch of bullies as an assault a "pussy." Romney's prank was an assault, and he brought what may have been a deadly weapon along to pull it off. I think that conveys exactly the right amount of "sting," because it's what actually happened.I think that calling it "just a prank" is like calling spousal battery a "marital dispute." I'm not exaggerating - you're minimizing. You;re portraying it as less than it really was because "hey, they were jsut kids and they didn't intend any real harm."...Except to scare and humiliate and intimidate their victim. I do. But I still think you're absolutely, completely wrong. And I still think that you're indirectly saying that any future victim of an identical "prank" who does call the "prank" what it is - an assault, possibly with a deadly weapon, and very likely a hate crime - is also a "pussy." And I think that's wrong. Except this was not a push at the mall.This was a group of guys, holding another guy to the ground against his will. One of them was armed with scissors, which may or may not have been sharp and dangerous, and which were used to cut the victim's hair in a blatant attempt to humiliate and frighten him.I hope you see the difference.