You're still making big assumptions based on your opinion of a person or specific action. We still don't know if the guy was abusive or not. And until we do, it's just as reasonable to think that he used other means to solve his problem because he was desperate/determined or maybe he was in fear of his children's lives, etc.

Even the wording you chose to use now, "abusing privilege", is loaded with negative connotations.

Worse. I bet this wording was on purpose, but the important word is not "abusing", it's "privilege". The SJW flamebait word.

@LaGrange, I don't know why you assume the man here was the evil actor. There wasn't enough information in this story that would justify this inference, and re-iterating this stupid meme that it's always men that are at fault is not helping anyone.

Describing the girlfriend as "the bitch" and proudly remembering the look on her face when he tracked her down, as opposed to e.g. talking about how happy he was to see his kids and describing the happy look on their faces is an indicator that it's more about a power struggle with the woman and not about finding his children.

And just an FYI: privilege is still a word, and it still gets used in conversations? Do you jump on sysadmins when they talk about "privileged processes" and complain that they're using "SJW flamebait" language?

> And just an FYI: privilege is still a word, and it still gets used in conversations? Do you jump on sysadmins when they talk about "privileged processes" and complain that they're using "SJW flamebait" language?

Like every other word, this one has to be understood in context in which it is placed. Within the context of this thread, world "privileged" stood out as something placed there to invoke associations with the wider SJW narrative. If I "jump on" someone for something, I do it for ideas presented, not for words used.

The idea presented is exactly the sort of idea where "privilege" is appropriate, though.

Yes, I'm the SJW. And I think that flame bait was a dude going off with "hey, maybe the abuse was totally justified". Pretending that there isn't enough information where the dude straight out admitted he abused his privileged situation (literally, in this case) is completely ridiculous, but hey, not surprising from someone who thinks "social justice warrior" is an insult.

Let me go out and just say this, because it needs to be said. If my son (and yes I do have one) was in some sort of trouble, or danger, or perhaps taken from me for whatever reason, and by someone I don't trust to take care of him... Then you can bet your bones I'll "abuse" my "privileged position" in order to rectify the situation and bring him home safely.

Not because I'm some sort of abusive father, or asshole that wants to stalk people. But because I want to protect my son. There you go, a perfectly valid and simple reason for a normal, non-abusive person to break rules in order to do good.

Evidence of what? A father wanting to know where his kids were taken to? Or an abuser stalking his girlfriend. From the 'evidence' presented, it could be either one.

For all you know he did this in cooperation with police and HR. You leap to conclusions with zero supporting information.

Well, I have never dealt with this situation in my life, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that when you go to the police, they don't say "well, since you work at AT&T, you snooping is probably the best solution we have".

I think we're pretty fucking sure he didn't do this with the police and HR.