If procedure, law and facts are against you settle. If you can’t settle, go to the kitchen because you are about to be cooked.
–Thuranira, Twitter
.
.
.
I normally never link to Twitter/X, but I made an exception in this case for the sake of attribution.
Additionally, this is the Advocate of the High Court of Kenya. He isn’t offering a way to abuse the system, but explaining good strategy for working within it.
However, it always blows my mind how legalistic a certain kind of abuser is. Which is absurd since relationships are not a court of law. A relationship conflict has a different goal than a legal one: deeper understanding between both people, aligning on values, and repair. A legal conflict is for the purpose of determining fault so that the at-fault party is either sentenced and ‘brought to justice’ or has to ‘make the plaintiff whole’.
Abusers argue like they’re in a court of law, while victims of are often trying to use relationship repair strategies that leave them further vulnerable. The abuser judges them, prosecutes them, levies the sentence, and then punishes them. Usually in that order.
So if the ‘law’ (or reasonable relationship expectations) are ‘against’ the abuser, they will argue the facts.
If the facts are against them, they will argue that the relationship expectations aren’t ‘reasonable’ and therefore the victim is in fact being unfair.
If both the facts that the relationship norms are against them, they will argue that the victim didn’t approach the issue correctly.
If procedure, relationship norms, and the facts are against them, they will ‘settle’ for ‘both of us admitting that we’re wrong’.
Recognize these assholes for what they are doing. It’s about blame-orientation, and turning the blame on you and therefore being in the position of ‘executing’ you.