I
don't drink anymore, but when I did, short drunk guys were 90% of the
reason I stopped going to bars. Not saying all, obviously. I've met some
supremely chill people of less than average height. But when you're
tall there's this thing that happens where you become a target for every
ounce of resentment within a certain breed of manlet once they get
liquored up.
It's
very frustrating because you get caught in this situation where you're
just trying to chill and someone is provoking you. And you know and they
know that if you wanted to, you could just crush them. I'm talking 1 ft
height/100lb weight advantage, and they're always way more drunk than
you.
But
you can't, and they know it. Because there's no 'winning' that fight.
You give the guy what he thinks he wants, and you end up in handcuffs
and come away from it looking like you would if you hit a woman or a
child. So you try to stay calm and listen to this drunk chihuahua man
yip and yap at you all night and can't even enjoy yourself because the
persistent little shit isn't going to give it up until he's in an
ambulance and you're in handcuffs.
Small drunk people fucking suck.
If this is actually true, then why did most of the people in this thread (where ironically the above was posted) not side with the short guy, and how did it get 800 upvotes?
Look at this for another example:
http://archive.is/CpsvF
Reality: If you're a tall guy and you ever get into an altercation with a short man, just tell everyone the shorter guy had a napoleon complex and was trying to prove something. The only way people would wag their finger at you for teaching him a lesson, is if you beat the short guy bloody or dead. If you don't fight him, there's a reason why the saying is called "be the bigger man." If you're taller/bigger than the other guy, people will just think you're letting him live by not fighting. Socially, you cannot lose either way. It's the short guys who are in a conundrum. If the short man walks away, people will think he's afraid of the other guy's size, but if the short guy fights then he'll be labeled with short man syndrome.
The proof of this is how short men are statistically less aggressive on average, yet receive the "angry midget" stereotype while taller men get "gentle giant." Why? The halo effect. Implicit bias tests also show that people are negatively biased against short men. Trying to pretend like society would take the shorter man's side if you beat his ass, is like saying people would favor an ugly person over an attractive one. It might be a cute message in a highschool drama, where you're told by the writers who to root for, but it's divorced from reality when we look at how people actually act on their own. If you have a trait that is considered more attractive, people will impulsively believe you are a better human being. Height is also linked with power, so a short man displaying aggressiveness is automatically perceived as stepping out of line, in a way that tall men do not have to deal with.
I've seen videos where a tall man beats up a short loudmouth, and people say the latter has a complex. But in footage where a short man knocks out a tall loudmouth, viewers claim the former has a complex anyway. I also want to know where this place is that that likens harm against short men with assault towards women and children. Apparently, I missed the memo where the saying has always been, "Women and children and short men first." I doubt videos like this (albeit staged) would be considered humorous if the smaller guy was replaced by a woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7fBujLLUEQ
