Seriously, you can't google it? You can even google image search it and read it from your choice of about 100,000 sources.

"If a woman hits a man, don't be surprised if he hits back." Do you honestly want to argue that this statement isn't at least implicitly defending reciprocal violence from men?

Yeah, it's freely available all over the internet and not a felony (it's spelled felony btw).

No, I just read the actual police report, saw the photos, and read the testimonies of those involved, instead of ignoring any information that doesn't suit my narrative. You're suggesting he was charged with felony assault mistakenly?

Actually, I've been studying American gender politics since late 2002.

To recap: you repeatedly posted comments suggesting that reciprocal violence is justified against women if they provoke the men, or at least "unsurprising", and then tried to use participating in Women's Marches or supporting pro-women causes as an insult against men. Yeah, you're definitely oblivious to how sexist…

I know, right? He only created large contusions on both sides of her face, punched her in the eyes, punched her in the mouth, bit her fingers, put her in a headlock, suffocated her while he repeatedly hammered her in the face with his fist, and told her point-blank “Now I’m really going to kill you!” What's the big…

The fact that you think the two are even remotely comparable is a 100% fucked view of gender violence.

1. People who know how to treat women don't post numerous messages on the internet defending a violent monster who almost bashed in his girlfriend's skull, or make false equivalencies that justify reciprocal violence from male partners.
2. Yeah, I'm a saint because I don't believe pummeling your girlfriend half to…

Yeah, she definitely should be surprised, though, because hitting women is unequivocally wrong, and any man who isn't a terrible person knows this.

I don't have to try to negate it, it negates itself just by existing. Implying that retaliatory violence against women is IN ANY WAY justified is equally as idiotic and regressive as suggesting equivalent violence against children is justified. You just don't realize that, because you clearly do not respect or…

I'm all about second chances, actually. I definitely won't defend people who nearly pummel their girlfriend to death, though, much less try and justify their behavior by blaming their victims.

I know, right? One time my toddler nephew accidentally hit me with his Lego tower, so I beat him senselessly in the face until I nearly bashed in his skull.

It's not a great society, but it's a pretty good one. It'll be a lot better when people who defend vicious women-beating degenerates like Chris Brown die off.

"Is it always wrong for a man to hit a woman…" Yes. End of story.

"Totally cool mustached misanthrope is too cool and edgy to be on a popular beloved TV show. Up next, his SNL performance"

The opening line of the movie is something like, "Mark my words: there will never be a more screwed-up time in Washington." REAL SUBTLE GUYS

They live for centuries. Kong is supposed to be a baby in Skull Island. I wanted to ask Samuel L. Jackson about a couple of other minor inconsistencies in the internal logic of the contemporary Kongverse, but I was too busy getting shoved into a locker.

[Sam Jackson during Alamo audience Q&A, summarized]

To be fair, we currently have 5% of the world's population, but 1/4 of the world's prisoners. If we're really going to make America great again, we need at least 1/2 of the world's prisoners.