RealReality

I think the narrative is that if someone is so bothered by whatever Candiace is saying or doing that they are at the point of physical violence and physical attack then that someone SHOULD walk away at that point. As this is a show about verbal altercations, drama and verbal insults I don't think either party should be under an obligation to walk away if they can use their words. Verbal jabs, responses and conflict are the bread and butter of the HW franchise. Demanding that Candace can only fight back in THEIR perscribed set of rules is nonsense. Especially here, where so many other castmembers have done far worse. However, if her castmembers are so offended by what she is saying they always have the option not to film with her or refuse to attend functions where she will be. If the words spoken are just too much for someone, then that person should walk away because they should realize that no one is under an obligation to walk away from a verbal confrontation on this show. And the same applies to Candace. She refused to do Monique's podcast because she didn't want to be around Monique, which is walking away. She refused to take the bait twice and walked away from Monique (once at a dinner and once at her lakehouse). She purposefully did not invite Ashley to her photo shoot, and she actively did not invite Ashley to the trip she was hosting.

And this is what people should see. Candiace is belittled for having a slick mouth, but most of the cast has a slick mouth, Candiace is not the worst, al all. That uncle ben shirt, when you knew your friend of 20 years was going through it, is incredibly foul. Ashley talking about Rays penis was mean spirited. So you have two women that undertook to use personal insults about a man who had been nothing but kind to them, who they both knew and who was merely married to a cast member. But Candiace is dragged all over the world for a 'yo momma joke about a woman she didn't know and hadn't laid eyes on.

Yes, because Candace doesn't resort to phyiscal violence and says the same slick shit they all say. The only one who needs public justification is Candiace, because everyone else talking the same slick shit and doesn't get the same blowback. There isn't anything that Candace has said or done that has been worse than what other castmembers have said and/or done, but she is the only one who is told that she deserves a beating for saying silck shit....when, as you said, they are all always talking slick shit.

I cosign this entire post. Short of becoming a mute, everything Candace says will be interpreted as something that warrants a beating. The clutched pearls over a 'yo momma joke, when the person doesn't even know your momma has been a revelation. This show is centered on conflict and personalities, trying to shut up any castmember is BS. Gizelle's is an absolute disaster and the people who should be cast out and banished are the architect and builder who told her that this nonsense was a good idea. I can't remember if it was Gizelle or someone else who had a tacky ass staircase in her backyard because she wanted it in the house. That should have been my first clue. Gizelle has bad taste in everything including homes, clothes and men.

Its so widely and well understood that you cannot define the concept. LOL. I see. I don't see any ambiguity in my point because it has always been a bright line between physical violence and everything else. Where I see ambiguity is with people who try to define what makes physical violence acceptable or understandable. And that makes sense because those concepts are ambiguous and dependent on each person. And because everyone who resorts to physical violence ALWAYS has a justification for it. They surely can explain to you how their physical violence is okay, acceptable and understandable. Deliberate acts of aggression is another term that will vary from person to person unless its physical violence. Some people are going to see a deliberate act of aggression when someone else steps on the foot, bumps them in line, gets that Black Friday parking space they wanted, honks their horn, flips them the bird on the freeway, but them off while they are driving or nabbing the last Yankee Candle in the clearance section at Ross when you had your eyes on it. As others have pointed out, a) people generally start up with Candiace and then cry foul when she hurts their feelings. If her castmembers are so sensitive about verbal combat than a Real Housewife show is not the right venue for them. and b) multiple cast members have done as much or worse than what Candiace has said or done, but barely anyone advocated violence against them. A collar flick is not the same or even equitable to smashing someones head onto a table, punching it wildly and then chasing the person outside. To me, to try to equate the two is a stretch worthy of a yoga instructor. And if people are inclined to think that something as benign as a collar flip is the type of "aggressive act" that would make physical assault acceptable or understandable, then they should have that same energy for Mia, who put her hands all over Wendy after being repeatedly asked not to. And for Ashley, who went back into a home that she had been kicked out of.

I'm watching news footage of the Ahmad Aubrey trail on CBS evening news. And of the black pastors speaking at the presser on the front steps was none other than Jamal Bryant!

But what you've termed "aggressive" personal boundary violation, as you said, can differ with each person. It seems just as intimidating to try to threaten someone's job if they aren't nice to you. Can you define what a "violent element" or "extreme infliction" is that isn't open to wild subjective interpretation? You don't know what a person has been through so if someone is offended by being bumped in line or having their shoe stepped on does this allow for them to administer a beating if you don't apologize or you blow them off? You say you can't be nuanced but it seems like the entire point rests on things that are subjective, without much of a bright line rule which seems pretty nuanced to me. Whereas a bight line rule that physical violence is not acceptable when you can walk away IS a bright line rule. Violence is defined as "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something" So by its definition it appears that violence is only physical force and therefore likely would not include the things you've mentioned.

I think trying to lob out "well if you like her you must be a friend or acquaintance" is kinda weak reasoning to me. I strongly disagree with people but I assume it's just two people disagreeing. Not that they have to have some ulterior motivation beyond simple ideological differences. Physical aggression is both physical AND psychological. Particularly in moniques case where she didn't feel any real threat from a collar flick so was only, AT BEST, using violence to try to shut someone up who said something she didn't like. And was trying to make sure that her victim couldn't escape. That's not just physically aggressive there is a high psychological component to that that the other person cannot walk away from. Monique later admitted that what candace did and said wasn't the real reason she hit her. But then MONIQUE continued the "psychological warfare" by making that pathetic song and music video and running to social media first to say that candace deserved the beating (and then later saying that candace didn't at all deserve it). Verbal disagreements are what this show is about. Moniques problem was that she followed up physical assault with psychological aggression. It's not impossible to come back from a physical attack even on this franchise, look at Porsha Williams. But when she dragged Kenya, she was off the show for a while and certainly wasn't out there making music videos and talking a load of shit. And then trying to say she blacked out, or was bullied as a child, or was from a poor neighborhood or whatever moniques excuse of the day was.

I don't think it's deflection to talk about legal standards because those are generally a reflection of societal beliefs and ideals. If society doesn't have a bright line between words and violence then you cannot really protect speech and even abborent actions that aren't savory but also aren't per se dangerous. And that's why self defense generally requires an imminent threat of physical harm as judged by a reasonable person. Because society likely doesn't want to encourage a society where only the physically strongest or the person with the best weapon to be allowed to speak or act. And if you're gonna physically attack someone to punish someone or teach them a lesson about propriety, what's to stop anyone from doing the same to you? It's not really my job to physically punish another adult. Because I'm sure whomever is doing the "physically intimidating" act ALSO feels like they are punishing/teaching a lesson/have a good reason. You don't know if someone is going to be triggered by you looking them in the eye, bumping them in line at the store or inadvertently stepping on their shoe. If the argument is "you don't know what I've gone through that might trigger me" then by that same token you don't know what someone else has gone through and may physically trigger them. Does this mean it's the same to step on someone's shoe as it is to hit them?

I dont particularly think the show has borne that out. Wendy came on the show as candaces friend and she spent a lot of last season sticking up for Candiace and looking out for her. They were friends this season too. Karen started out this season by saying that she knew she had a lot of work to do to get back her relationship with Candiace, which suggests that she likes candiace enough to want that relationship back that they had. Apparently grace was close enough to candace to see her as a "cool older sister " type figure and that's why she had been worried about scraping her car tires. Sounds like gizelles own kids may like candace more than they like her. But having a relationship with grace suggests that gizelle likes her.. otherwise why even allow for any relationship to form with your kids? So, it doesn't seem like the "no one likes candiace" narrative is borne out. BUT, even more to the point, if they are TOLERATING Candiace it's because they realize she is necessary. They can keep crying about icing her out but they don't have a show without her, unless people want more boring scenes of gizelle refusing to talk about her personal life, Mia lying, Ashley breastfeeding and concern trolling and Karen trying to sell whatever La dame thing she has going. They should be dared to put their money where their mouth is. But I'm guessing that they will all fold.

There is this case we read about in crim law that ALWAYS stuck in my mind and I believe it was the basis for many states to adopt a "battered woman's defense" So this woman is with a guy who beats her terribly and on a regular basis. Everytime she tried to run away he would find her an drag her back to his place and beat her senseless some more. She had no money so she could never get very far. One day, she and her prince charming get into a fight and he beats her again. And he tells her "listen, I'm going to take a nap, but when I wake up, I'm going to kill you" No fucks given because why should he. So this terrified and battered woman shoots and kills him....as he sleeps. Even though she has every reason to fear for her life, even though she couldn't get far enough to escape him the judged found that she couldn't use a self defense argument because she was in IMMINENT danger. Even though she couldn't escape him and when he was beating her she couldn't defend herself. It was a sad case but like you said what may seem just can often get lost.

Should be? No. Because violence shouldn't be a punishment. If the idea is that someone is "getting away" with something unless you are physically aggressive then it's not a defense as much as it is a punishment. There are plenty of shitty things people do that don't warrant a violent response. And some of them absolutely "deserve" it. See, again, saying that not becoming violent is "condoning" the behavior is saying that its up to each person to decide to mete out physical punishment if and when they feel like it. And I think history, even recent history shows us what a bad idea that can be. Choosing not to react violently is not condoning any such behavior and its odd to me that people think that. As a grown adult, you can simply leave and not have anything more to do with the person. I'm not sure how that is "condoning" anything other than your own personal, emotional and mental well being without the stress of potential legal and financial consequences. Going out there in the world to "punish" others is a fools errand, IMO.

To me, if you cannot use words to defend yourself against words there is something wrong with that. If "standing your ground" means responding to mean words with violence, for me that generally makes you a not good person. Because an adult should have the restraint to either use their words or walk away in the vast majority of situations. If you feel that you're in immediate danger okay sure. But outside of candace being attacked by monique and that time Robyn had an umbrella to moniques neck (which she apparently didn't feel very threatened by since she managed to keep her hands to herself) I haven't seen anyone in some immediate danger that they couldn't walk away. As an adult, you should have enough restraint to overcome your natural instincts. The inability to exercise restraint is something I'd expect from a child.

LOL. Diminished capacity or inability to form the requisite intent sound creative. But girl, imma need to see that worldstar video first!

I strongly disagree. People have caught a criminal case for what they felt was "self defense" and the reason monique needed a statement was because it wasn't clear cut from the video alone. So rolling eyes and being tickled doesn't change that fact. Further, beyond a criminal case a person can ALSO catch a civil case, which has a lower burden of proof and opens the door to losing money AND having to hire an attorney to defend you. Whereas a private attorney for a person suing can decide to take it on a contingency. So, am I going to take that risk? No. Where I can walk away I'm going to walk away. Every "corny example" involves the same set of facts. Someone entering the personal space of another in an unwanted manner, be it explicit or understood. And the outrage has never been this high when Robyn, Mia or Michael have done it (with gizelle). I'm not on a high horse as I'm perfectly fine to watch Molly whopping on BGC. But this isn't BGC. LOL, I'm fairly certain I understand how the law works. Not sure where the winery was but here is some information on the Maryland statute. Notably, the person claiming self defense must not have used more force than was necessary and must have been in immediate danger. Alone, a hair flick doesn't support the severity of the response and calls into question of immediate danger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland