the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Nah this is unhinged, and deeply controlling behaviour. If someone is checking your location constantly and giving you grief for every difference in reported vs actual location, then you’re forced to give full account of your whereabouts at all times and justify your destinations.
But nobody was doing that, in this case? There was no mention of 'giving grief'.
The husband voluntarily shared his location for practical reasons, a few times she happened to see he was stopped at a bar or a fast-food place instead of work where he claimed, and that was a weird phenomenon that impacted her trust in him. She realised she was getting too obsessed looking at his location. They later divorced for entirely unrelated reasons.
This isn't really that wacky.
True but this is only one side of the story
Yes? But that doesn't mean we can just assume random assertions.
eh idk that the author even claims that
There was definitely the implication. She said he wouldn't admit to going to get fast food. That means she gave him grief over it, after catching him in the "lie"
Maybe we have different ideas of "giving grief", but inquiring about where someone was does not amount to it in my mind.
I think you can read between the lines. This lady was literally tracking her husband constantly and confronting him about his whereabouts.
saying this was "unhinged" and "a screed" to me implies that the whole scenario, and the writer, are both in some way unreasonable and that how she reacted was completely beyond the pale.
sharing location access, though I don't love it, has become pretty normalized.
catching your husband in an already struggling marriage in a lie would tend to make a person suspicious. you might even start keeping a closer eye out for other lies. This woman got way too invested in that, obsessed with checking it, and openly acknowledges that it was unhealthy and bad, and probably contributed to their divorce.
Bad (but relatively normal for the scenario) behavior does not an unhinged screed make
If I wanted to constantly be tracked by GPS and give reports on my position, I'd become a pilot. At least I get to fly a cool plane that way.