You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

The Author's account is classic DARVO. I wouldn't even describe "Chuck" as a bully. In fact, given the facts presented by the Author, I would consider the Author to be the initial unlawful assailant in any assault case. Consider the following...

I'm not much of a fighter, I suppose... more of an "arguer."

I'm usually the kind of guy who DE-escalates things with logic or humor.

The author claims to be the type of guy that defuses tense scenarios and issues with people he has problems with, with words, humor, and arguing logically (Much like I'm doing now). Let's see if his actions represent what he claims he does, and demonstrate that what he claims to do matches up with what he actually does...

this stocky, solid mass of aggression

He was the sort of guy who knew exactly how much he could bench

"Chuck" sounds like a pretty big guy. Lots of muscle translates out to lots of inertia, and lots of inertia translates out to lots of momentum when put into motion. The reason this is important will become clear in a little bit. Now, let's see how the author describes himself...

I'm not a giant of a man...

Well, that sounds like a far cry from a "Solid, walking mass". I think it's clear that the author intends for us to perceive a massive discrepancy in sizes and mass between these two subjects. "Chuck" is your stereotypical (at least in the author's narrative...we have no way of knowing what "Chuck" is like IRL aside from what the author tells us) frat douche that lifts every day. The author is tiny, by comparison, obviously being a guy who (allegedly) solves his conflicts with words instead of force or aggression. Fair enough of a claim, let's see if the facts bear this claim out...

I kept thinking, "Why am I always moving out of this guy's way?"

I had had enough.

What gave this guy the right to just expect that I'm going to move out of his way? And then another thought started tugging at my brain: "What if I didn't move? What if I just kept walking too?"

And here's where we run into the first issue. What makes the Author think he's entitled to do what he assumes the other guy has running through his mind? He just finished ranting about how horrible the guy was for doing what he just admits he plans to do, in retaliation, without even taking the guy aside and talking to him about the conflict. The author's claim that he solves his conflicts with words, and not aggression, is already looking pretty shaky...

I was done playing by his rules.

What "rules"? The author hasn't established that he thinks that way, and hasn't even given him the opportunity to explain what he actually does think! In fact, if anything, the author seems to be operating on his own set of rules, specifically that it's not okay for "Chuck" to force his way into people, but it's okay for HIM to...

And that evening, as he walked quickly toward me in the aisle of the restaurant (we both were fairly fast walkers), I walked toward him -- and I didn't move. I'm not a giant of a man, but I'm solid enough to hold my own -- especially when I see a collision coming -- and the impact spun him around.

And here's where we get to the crux of the issue. "Chuck", this "solid, walking mass of aggression (Translated: Lots of muscle and a confident, dominant demeanor)" was struck by enough force from this "not a giant of a man", to not only counter all of that forward momentum, but to actually spin him around and make him lose his footing. I think it's fair to say Author hit "Chuck" with a fairly large amount of force, probably with a shoulder check or a bum rush, to reach that level of striking force. Saying you "walked toward him" with enough force to disrupt his forward momentum like that, and then following it up with "I didn't move" is an intellectually dishonest contradiction of himself trying to shed responsibility for what was clearly an openly-admitted premeditated action. The author's claim that he solves his conflicts with words and not aggression/force is looking pretty slim, at this point. Let's see how he handles the aftermath of the initial assault (And yes, given the fact that the Author was the one to ram "Chuck", that means the Author is the one to initiate the use of force in this situation)...

Right there, in front of guests, he immediately said, "What the F*CK, dude!?"

I said, "You alright?"

He was furious, and insisting to know why I had just bumped into him.

I said, "Chuck, I was just walking. Why did you assume that I was going to move out of your way?"

So not only does the author admit to premeditating this scenario, he's too chickenshit to even stand by the strength of his convictions. Despite the obvious fact that he just rammed "Chuck", for whatever reason, instead of owning up to it and venting his beef then and there so it can get taken care of, he plays the innocent victim, and tries to offload responsibility for his violent behavior onto "Chuck". In the face of such absurdity and refusal to accept responsibility for one's own actions, I'd say "Chuck's" anger is perfectly reasonable.

He followed me around the restaurant, angrily attempting to escalate things. He ended up stopping me by another table, and when I said something along the lines of "Welcome to planet Earth," he shoved me. Hard. And not like a shove where you put your hands on someone and then shove.

It was the sort of shove where his hands were already moving really fast when they hit my chest, and it made a pretty loud noise. All of his bench-pressing muscles let lose on me -- this person who dared question his right of way -- and I was knocked about two steps back.

The Author was the one who escalated things. Before, it was a personal dispute, and possibly one "Chuck" may not even have been aware of. The opening salvo was not one of words, but of physical force on part of the Author, and enough to knock "Chuck" off his feet, to "spin him around", in the Author's own words, no less. "Chuck" wasn't upset about "having his right of way questioned", he was upset about the Author ramming the shit out of him, and he even vocalized as such. I'm starting to think the Author isn't very good at using words to solve his problems at all, if he can't even understand an opening argument like "Why in the fuck did you ram into me?"

I decided to just try to avoid him for a bit and let him cool off. About 15 minutes later, the GM asked to talk to me. He said that a guest had seen Chuck angrily shove me, and had complained and described what happened (describing it as him "hitting" me, but it was definitely a shove).

I told him what happened -- about him always assuming I was going to move, about me simply walking and not moving, and about the arguing and the shove that followed. It was a corporate restaurant, so he took everything very seriously. He filled out an incident report, asked me if I wanted to press charges, and told me if I wanted him gone, he was fired. I said that I didn't want the guy to lose his job. I just wanted him to recognize that other people had every right to be there that he did.

And there you have it. Author is a supposed mind reader, who doesn't have to solve his conflicts with words before escalating the situation to violence (Though he didn't tell the GM that, he told him he "Didn't move...", which is a blatant lie, given what he has admitted here, in this article, with the premeditation to actively bump into "Chuck" with enough force to "spin him around") because he automatically already knows what they are thinking (Funny how the SJW-types are so adept at mindreading, isn't it? It's almost like they project their prejudices onto others...The walking wall of muscle is supposedly the passive-aggressive bitch that uses subversion to get their way? I don't think so...people don't get ripped, just to let all that muscle go unused. My bet is it's the skinny, "Not a giant of a man" that would prefer and make use of those tactics). Then he tries to further make himself look like the good guy, by trying to "take the high road" by claiming he didn't want "Chuck" to lose his job, when it was the Author that started the violence.

What a quality, stand-up kind of guy... /s

I can't speak for "Chuck", because all I have to go on is what the Author tells us about him, here. At best, given the evidence presented in this testimony of the event by the Author, both are guilty of using violence, but "Chuck" didn't answer the situation with any more force than he initially faced. The Author was clearly the unlawful assailant, and he even admits to his premeditation of violence. "Chuck's" moral character may go unjudged, but I can unabashedly say that the author here, based on his own words, is an unethical shit-smear of an excuse for a human being. Dishonest, subversive, manipulative, antisocial, and violent...he's certainly not the kind of guy I'd want working in my business.


[–] kyro5411 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

TL/DR: author is a passive aggressive bitch boy starting shit to feed his victimhood complex.


[–] sLnTsRvC 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Sums it up perfectly. This author even admits that Chuck was a good server, probably why he got put in the good rotation of tables.


[–] kittysaysmeownow 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That is a most thorough and effective analysis, nice one