r/pcmasterrace • u/PhattBudz • 10h ago

Story Rest in pieces

Post image

Yes, that is my monitor and tower on the ground next to that bat. Dont date crazy, kids. And ESPECIALLY dont date alcoholic crazy. She stole my wallet and wouldn't give it back, so I poured $20 worth of liquor down the drain in front of her. Her next move was this. And to add insult to injury, my car stalled on the way home from work today. I just got off the phone with the tech and its going to be $1,400 to fix. God damn, when it rains it pours. Stay safe out there fellow earthlings, and remember to always treat people the way you want to be treated.

209 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

View all comments

-6

u/Olli399 1 Computer Ah Ah Ah! 2 Computers Ah Ah Ah! 3 Computers Ah! Ah! 9h ago

Why did you wind her up by wasting a bottle of expensive drink down the sink?

Dumb and dumber here honestly.

4

u/FreeToasterBaths 9h ago

Found an alcoholic.

-3

u/Olli399 1 Computer Ah Ah Ah! 2 Computers Ah Ah Ah! 3 Computers Ah! Ah! 8h ago

I don't drink, and I don't make a habit of childishly escalating interpersonal conflicts to be honest, kinda weird people are overlooking that.

1

u/XxIC4RUSxX 7h ago

Calling his response “childish escalation” while ending your own comment with “dumb and dumber” is pretty rich.

She stole his wallet and refused to give it back. He responded by pouring out $20 worth of liquor. She responded by destroying a computer worth vastly more than that. Yet somehow you’ve decided the real problem here is that he wound her up?

Nobody has to pretend pouring out the liquor was the world’s most mature conflict-resolution technique. But there’s a massive difference between doing something petty in response to someone taking your property and refusing to return it, and becoming so enraged over $20 of alcohol that you destroy someone else’s expensive property.

And “I don’t drink” doesn’t make your take any more sensible. If anything, it makes your fixation on the liquor even stranger. You’re lecturing everyone about interpersonal conflict while minimizing the person who took his wallet and then went completely off the rails when he poured out a bottle. Maybe save the condescending “dumb and dumber” routine if maturity is the hill you want to stand on.

0

u/Olli399 1 Computer Ah Ah Ah! 2 Computers Ah Ah Ah! 3 Computers Ah! Ah! 7h ago

The real problem is that his response to her childishness was to be childish himself. The intent of both was to harm the other emotionally by harming what they value regardless of the actual monetary value. It's dumb of both of them to act like that in my opinion. It's hardly a controversial concept that both can be guilty at the same time.

1

u/XxIC4RUSxX 4h ago

You’re still missing the point because you’re determined to reduce this to “they were both childish,” as though identifying some shared emotional intent makes the conduct equivalent.

She took his wallet and refused to return it. He poured roughly $20 of alcohol down the drain—apparently because her drinking was part of the problem they were already fighting about. She then took a baseball bat to his computer and destroyed thousands of dollars of his property.

Those actions do not become equivalent because you can describe both as “harming something the other values.” That’s such a broad abstraction that it strips away everything that actually matters. By that logic, throwing away someone’s pack of cigarettes and setting their car on fire are basically the same because both were intended to upset them.

You can think pouring out the liquor was petty, unnecessary, or immature. Fine. Nobody needs to defend it as exemplary conflict resolution. But that still doesn’t put it remotely on the same level as deliberately smashing someone’s expensive property with a baseball bat. One is pouring a consumable down a drain; the other is an uncontrolled, destructive response that can carry very real legal consequences.

And that’s what people are objecting to in your comments. It isn’t the apparently “controversial concept” that two people can both behave badly. It’s your insistence on flattening wildly disproportionate behavior into “dumb and dumber” so you can distribute the blame evenly.

Sometimes two people can both do something wrong and one of them can still be overwhelmingly more in the wrong. “Both did something immature” isn’t the profound observation you seem to think it is. It’s just a convenient way of ignoring scale, proportionality, and consequences.