Melon Seed Brother Pesters Suit Man Until He is Beaten Up

"Suit Brother" fights "Melon Seed Brother"

From Sina Weibo:

@搜狐视频: Melon Seed Brother Eating Seeds and Littering Shells on Public Bus Violently Beaten By Fierce Man [衰] — On a Suzhou public bus, a man was littering the shells of the seeds he was eating. When a fierce man [“macho” man] admonished him to have some character [manners, consideration for others/environment], melon seed man ignored the admonishment, then kept nagging the fierce man, and also wouldn’t let fierce man get off the bus. When the bus driver and other passengers could not stop the quarrel, fierce man lost his patience and violently beat up melon seed man [黑线]

Comments from Sina Weibo:


Did the guy who beat him up have to pay compensation? Tell me his Alipay address, I’ll chip in. [doge]


A person with civic consciousness being pestered for no reason at all, and when after putting up with it for so long he finally loses his patience, some people come forward as if they are standing for justice [refers to the passengers who come up to stop the man in the suit beating melon seed man]. May I ask, what were you doing earlier?


Fuck, this guy’s cooldown period is too long. A whole seven minutes.


What is there that you can’t handle with words and must resort to such violence to resolve? To this kind of person, I only want to say, well done! [兔子]


There must be a lot of people who skipped while watching the video. This man was clearly extorting money. Before he was beaten up, he was saying where and where he was injured, that he wanted to go to the hospital, how his body/health wasn’t good in the first place, and he wanted Character Brother [suit man] to give him his identification card/number. Character Brother had already said that they can talk about it after getting off the bus, that they shouldn’t affect others [with their quarrel]. This kind of person being beaten to death [ass kicked] would have had it coming.

Comments from Sina Weibo:


If you were present, would you have gone to stop it? Netizens are always so righteous, while passerbys are always numb and indifferent. Is it because netizens don’t go outside or passerbys don’t go online?


I wish that when people are talking in the library or cinema, a hero [like this] could also take action.


Be mindful (well) of character (done).


You can’t hit someone for eating seeds and prattling on, but you can if they’re stopping someone from getting off the bus. [嘻嘻]


I loathe people who eat and litter in public spaces.

Comments from Sina Weibo:


Suit Man is so handsome/dashing. I’m not saying he’s dashing for beating up someone, but that he had good self-restraint, for first knowing that littering is wrong, and then trying to stop the other person [from doing so]. He’s a good citizen of society. [赞] Second, to be able to endure someone else pestering endlessly and unreasonably hurling abuse without arguing back, while they babble on and on, and actually think of “Let’s get off, and not bother everyone else”, [爱你] I simply love this person so much. I hope the police won’t punish him, because after all he had put up with it until he could no longer.


Suit Man’s character is not your ordinary good [meaning it is better than average]. When someone was littering melon seed shells, he even went up to remind them not to. When the other part was babbling, he was able to resist arguing back, and calmly suggest getting off the bus to resolve the matter, so as to not bother other people. He put up with it for seven minutes, wiping spit off his face so many times in throughout it all. This kind of self-cultivation [composure] is already that of a male god. [赞啊]


Hitting, well, is definitely bad, but when you encounter this kind of scoundrel, you really have no choice but to give them a beating. Honestly, this guy who beat him up can already be considered very civilized having been pestered for seven minutes. This stupid cunt can go to the Northeast and give this a try. Within seven minutes, he would’ve already been knocked out by manly Northeastern men. Some scum are born begging to be beat up. Impulsiveness is the devil, one must be cautious before resorting to violence. Haha.


A bus full of passengers who don’t intervene in the beginning and only come babble when they begin fighting. Talk about a bus full of social tumors. Fierce man should’ve at that moment decisively massacred the entire bus of garbage.


Suit Man, I too am in Suzhou. If you are fined, we’ll raise money to pay for you. If you are detained, us guys will treat you to drinks when you get out! If you lose your job because of this, come find me!

From NetEase:

Man Who Littered Melon Seed Shells and Nagged Admonisher Viciously Beaten

On the 26th, a video went viral in which a man on a public bus was violently beaten after littering melon seed shells and incessantly pestering the person who asked him to stop. In the video that lasted over eight minutes, “Melon Seed Man” uttered the phrase “What wrong did I do you, what’s your grudge with me” a full 37 times, leading to him being furiously beaten by the “Suit Man” he was nagging.

That night, local police in Suzhou where the incident occurred said the incident was ultimately resolved with “Suit Man” compensating 100 yuan in medical expenses to “Melon Seed Man”.

On the 26th, this 8 minute and 23 second long video of a beating on the public bus spread on Weibo. The video can roughly be split into two parts. For the first 7+ minutes, on a Suzhou public bus, a man was admonished by a young guy wearing a suit for littering the shells of the melon seeds he was eating. Unhappy with this, “Melon Seed Man” went on and on beside the young lad about “What wrong did I do you, what’s your grudge with me”, refusing to let him off the bus. In the last minute of the video, “Suit Brother” explodes, battering “Melon Seed Man” with a series of punches.

As counted by multiple netizens, “Melon Seed Man” repeatedly nagged “What wrong I do you, what’s your grudge with me” a full 37 times within those seven minutes.

Reviewing the comments online, netizens were overwhelmingly one-sided in their contempt for “Melon Seed Man” and praised “Suit Man”. One netizen joked that he was willing to sponsor the compensation money “Suit Man” would have to pay.

That night, the Suzhou City Public Security Bureau Yuanqu Sub-Bureau Xietang Police Station’s official microblog posted the conclusion of their investigation, stating that before the start of the video, after “Melon Seed Man” ignored “Suit Brother’s” admonishment of him [littering seed shells], “Suit Brother” had went forward and pinched/grabbed “Melon Seed Man’s” neck, whereupon “Melon Seed Man” grabbed “Suit Brother’s” clothes and incessantly pestered him refusing to let him off the bus.

“Everyone can see Melon Seed Man saying stuff about his neck being hit and it was afterward that he went into ‘What wrong did I do you, what’s your grudge with me’ repeat mode, which is the video everyone saw…” the official microblog stated with a humorous tone. After the incident, police took the two individuals to the police station where they separately reprimanded the two for their behavior/actions.

The Xietang Police Station official microblog says “Suit Brother” had physically assaulted the other, indeed violated the relevant regulations in law, and should bear the relevant responsibility. Through mediation by police, both parties recognized their own mistakes, and jointly agreed to come to an agreement where ultimately “Suit Brother” compensated “Melon Seed Man” 100 yuan in medical expenses and neither party would pursue the matter any further.

(Original title: Suzhou Public Bus “Melon Seed Man” Violently Beaten After Pestering Admonisher for 7 Minutes, Netizens Click Upvote/Praise)

Comments from NetEase:

dejuki [网易黑龙江省网友]:

I bet if he had known it would be this cheap, the young lad would’ve become physical much earlier.

停車做愛楓林晚 [网易北京市网友]: (responding to above)

Heavy, repeated strikes to the back of the head really can results in problems, and this person who was hit would really end up being a stupid cunt [mentally disabled]…

djhy110 [网易广东省佛山市网友]:

I’d pay 200 to beat up this SB.

网易浙江省杭州市网友 ip:60.176.*.*

To have suffered spittle on his face several times and still be able to endure seven minutes before exploding, I trust he really couldn’t put up with it any longer.

网易北京市海淀区网友 ip:101.254.*.*

Well-beaten, hahahahaha

学习蛤丝团 [网易北京市网友]:

Won’t even give me 100 kuai, so mean, so mean.

[Note: This alludes to a video of a homosexual man in a disagreement with a man he met online complaining that the other man won’t even give him 100 RMB despite him traveling so far to see him. The video went viral over the past several weeks and inspired many parodies including this popular one.]

网易河北省廊坊市网友 ip:110.251.*.*

This 100 yuan is actually an insult to the melon seed guy. Talk about asking for it.

随地大便 [网易云南省西双版纳州网友]:

A real man, upvote!

河蟹盛世 [网易广东省深圳市网友]:

Beat him to death [“kick his ass”]!

混乱善良 [网易新疆乌鲁木齐市网友]:

I still think everyone should look at this with a cool-head [objectively] because after all, it was Suit Brother who first pinched/grabbed Melon Brother’s neck. It was Suit Brother who first did wrong. You can admonish someone but you can’t arbitrarily hit someone. At the same time, I want to praise Melon Seed Brother for his courage, for not being afraid in the least in the face of Suit Brother who was obviously much bigger than himself and demanding justice for himself [standing up for himself, against being initially assaulted].
This matter should be compared to littering things or melon seeds. This is an issue of morality/ethics. It’s not like it is written on the public bus that people cannot eat things or litter. But what is written on the public bus that people should yield their seats to the elderly, infirm, ill, and handicapped, which is also an issue of morality/ethics. We’ve never seen someone beaten up for not giving up their seat, right? And what more, there are dedicated seats for the elderly, infirm, ill, and handicapped. So ultimately the cause [of this dispute] is the rules and system [of enforcement]. For example, fining 10 kuai for eating [on the bus]. Or jail time. Or corporal punishment. Without rules and a system of enforcement, it is useless to only rely on [people’s own] morality/ethics.

From Sina Weibo:

@新浪新闻视频: #What Wrong, What Grudge# Man Violently Beats Man Eating Seeds, Melon Seed Brother Gets 100 Yuan Compensation Through Mediation — As it is understood, after arriving at the police station, Melon Seed Brother said: “I want compensation.” Then when everyone had him name his price, he said: “200 kuai.” Through mediation by police, he was ultimately compensated 100 kuai, and Melon Seed Brother agreed not to pester Suit Man any further.


Comments from Sina Weibo:


Suit Brother…talk about not being able to judge a person by their appearance… Who was it that said they wanted to marry Suit Man… hurry and marry him then…


The girls in the top comments yesterday who wanted to marry Suit Brother, come out [喵喵]. The time to marry has arrived.


Suddenly I feel Melon Seed Brother opening his mouth and only asking for 200 is also an honest person, even if he had brought it upon himself.


Those in the comments commenting about his face, Suit Brother is still quite handsome, okay? In reality, he’s still not bad, okay? I don’t what’s up with people one by one saying they are disappointed. Don’t all fantasize people into Daniel Wu and Eddie Peng, it’s ridiculous. And there are even people saying they feel bad for Melon Seed Brother, you’re crazy!


Suit Brother, I beg you not to turn around.

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Surfeit

    07:20 for the action.

    • Teacher in China

      I think people need to sit through the whole thing to truly understand how annoying the melon seed douche is though. Christ, I was begging for the beating at the 2:00 mark.

      • 山炮 ShanPao

        I just needed to know he was spitting seeds on the bus to ascertain whether or not he needed his face to be smashed in.

      • Surfeit

        HAHA! Fair point! I found it too irritating.

  • This was really intense. By 7:19 I was almost nauseous, and then boom! It was like the ending of Real Steel.

  • AbC

    “If you were present, would you have gone to stop it? Netizens are always so righteous, while passerbys are always numb and indifferent. Is it because netizens don’t go outside or passerbys don’t go online?”

    Couldn’t have said it any better.

    • Dolph Grunt

      There were quite a few good comments. I also liked, “I’d pay 200 to beat up this SB.”

    • Jahar

      Well, there is a mistake in there, to whomever did the translating. It’s passersby, not passerbys. Spell-check should have caught that for you guys.

    • Probotector

      No, it’s all just big talk.

      • Guang Xiang

        Netizens make bad comments:
        Make bashing remark on the Chinese

        Netizens make good comments:
        “No, it’s all just big talk.”

    • Free Man

      I wouldn’t have stood up, but enjoying an idiot getting beaten by another idiot. Win-win I’d say.

  • biggj

    Very nice. If anyone had it coming that skanky looking ass hole did. And his opening bid was only 200RMB for compensation??? What a fucking joke. Seed man or boy what ever the fuck chinese people are calling him……when he gets older he’ll be the old guy laying on the sidewalk with a group of people around him wanting some money for whatever fucking reason.

    Well good on brother suit. I would have done the same thing. It would piss me off him saying “What did I do to you” over and over….but once he stopped me from getting off the bus…he’s getting beat.You’ll get people who will say violence is never right and blah blah blah….Violence solves shit all the time. I actually think he handled the situation quite well.

    • Ryo Saeba

      It seems a few Chinese commenters didn’t realize the seed boy was blocking the suit guy from leaving. If that wasn’t enough, he was spitting on his face!

      It may seem the suit guy made the first strike but the seed boy was holding onto him because suit guy was saying “let go” and obviously, that was what set him off because seed boy was holding onto him and wouldn’t let go. So technically, seen boy was the one who made the first move.

      • biggj

        That’s what i’m saying right. The suit guy actually was pretty good with it up until the fight…The seed guy pushed him pretty hard….no one likes to be told what to do but when you haggle someone that much and than grab them….seed boy was just asking for a fight.

      • Kai

        Yeah, it isn’t immediately obvious until the end dialogue (if you understand Chinese) that the seed guy was blocking him from leaving and also apparently holding onto him/his clothes.

        That said, it seems suit guy did make the first strike. He apparently grabbed the seed guy’s neck before the video, and that’s why seed guy was pestering him and preventing him from leaving.

        What isn’t explained is what happened before the video AND between suit guy telling him to not litter and suit guy grabbing his neck. All the video shows is seed guy refusing to let him leave and complain about suit guy grabbing his neck.

        • Ryo Saeba

          The Suit guy said several time to “let go” before he actually made a move. To me, the first one to lay a hand on the other is considered a “first strike.” You don’t have to throw a punch to hurt someone.

          For example, if I were to hold you on your arm squeezing really hard till it hurts, wouldn’t you hit back to get my hands off and consider it self defense? How can I be sure he isn’t holding me to prevent me from dodging a punch?

          It doesn’t really matter what happened before or after because seed guy got all up in suit guys face, prevents him from leaving the bus, and actually put his hands on suit guy first. This was all in the video.

          • Kai

            Read the translated article/posts and comments.

            The video shows Melon Seed Man complaining about what happened before the video, that Suit Man had laid hands on him first.

    • Probotector

      you’re a twat

      • biggj

        You’re a cunt.

  • Dolph Grunt

    I know. I know. Violence is wrong.

    But that was freaking awesome!

    Look out Batman! Look out Superman! China’s got Suit Man!

  • Dolph Grunt

    “Heavy, repeated strikes to the back of the head really can results
    in problems, and this person who was hit would really end up being mentally disabled”

    That would be a shame.

  • Sum Ting Wong

    This is awesome, What Bruce Lee taught us actually works!

    • Ryo Saeba

      I don’t think Bruce Lee would teach you to hit someone on the back of the head with your bare hands. It hurts you more then it hurts them!

      But banging his face against the chair, now that was awesome! Not exactly a Bruce Lee approved move but still effective.

      • Alex Dương

        Indeed. Bruce Lee explicitly cautioned against “hitting someone on the back of the head with your bare hands”:

        I’d gotten into a fight in San Francisco (a reference, no doubt, to the Bay Area rather than the city) with a Kung-Fu cat, and after a brief encounter the son-of-a-bitch started to run. I chased him and, like a
        fool, kept punching him behind his head and back. Soon my fists began to swell from hitting his hard head. Right then I realized Wing Chun was not too practical and began to alter my way of fighting.

      • terroir

        Big John McCarthy would never allow blows to the back of the head, he’s very good that way.

        But then, he would have also exacerbated the situation by invoking his “Are you ready? Are you ready? Then let’s get it on!” at the onset of the fight.

  • Ryo Saeba

    His mom (the seed eating guy) would be proud that he is standing up for what he believes in. Takes balls to say “this is the way I am,” and “what you gonna do about it? Hit me?” Having nothing to lose has its advantages.

    • Irvin

      Dignity, self respect, manners…….some of the things he lost.

      • Jahar

        He didn’t have them to begin with.

  • 100 yuan to beat this mufucka’s head?
    shit sign me up for 1000

    • Irvin

      I’ll chip in.

  • jin

    Well beaten.

  • Amused

    I viewed this expecting a Worldstar quality beatdown at the very least. I got two 5th grade girls in a school bus fight. Seriously, the only thing missing were the pigtails and backpacks.

    • barom

      :) exactly,

    • Rick in China

      Buddy – the problem is – they don’t want to cause any real damage. The cost afterwards is high, so – I don’t know if it’s the inability to break some face, or the inner-risk-assessment saying “slap not punch or you’ll pay cash”..but all these kinda ‘fights’ here are slapping fits. “Beating”.. more like slapping and shaking.

  • ClausRasmussen

    >> “Suit Man” compensating 100 yuan

    Money well spent

  • that guy

    of course the admonishment to have some character was ignored. you say anything to a person in China to mind the public concern, and the knee-jerk response is “it’s not your business”, followed by loud, annoying cursing

    this guy got exactly what he deserved.

  • Lei Feng’s Hat

    You reap what you sew, seed boy.

  • Sam

    I always find it kind of humorous when the Chinese give little names to people like “melon seed brother” and “suit man”

    Looked like the melon seed brother deserved it to me. And suit man didn’t really beat him too hard… looked like open fist smacks to the back of the head, not really going to cause much damage.

    • Kai

      Nicknames with “brother” or “sister” more or less end up sounding like “guy” or “gal”, a casual indicator of gender and relative age. I’m not talking about how it sounds when translated into English but how the tone intended and received in Chinese itself. It’s like referring to someone as the “popcorn dude”.

      Also, something like 西装男 is less of a proper noun than it might seem when translated into “suit man” (or I guess “Suit Man”) because it’s also just “man in a suit” in Chinese. However, when you make it 哥 “brother”, then it leans towards being a proper noun and an actual nickname instead of just a descriptor.

      I think Fauna somewhat inconsistently reflected this nuance in her translation above. Anyway, just an interesting point for language learners.

  • terroir

    References made to both a Melon Seed Brother, and a Melon Seed Man, and they’re the same guy?

    Someone ought to page Senor Seniority.

    • Kai

      Let it go. Your argument was guilty of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy (see below), and Joe brought up being an older contributor than you because he felt you condescending to him first about cS traditions or whatever. He didn’t like that you were telling him how cS does things, especially when you were frankly wrong about how cS does things and then about how nicknames are created and used by Chinese netizens.

      Your whole theory about nicknames using familial terms like “brother, sister, auntie, uncle, etc.” reflecting some “social construct of the family as the basis of Chinese society” and that the failure to translate them literally fails to reflect the “real meaning” was simply wrong. Like Joe said, they’re more or less used like how “kun” or “chan” or even “oppa” is used in Japan and Korea. They’re casual descriptors to denote gender and general age. There is no profound sociological significance in them being an extension of the importance of family and “respect” in Chinese culture. In colloquial Chinese speech, they more or less function like “guy, gal, dude, babe, lad, lass, kid, geezer, etc.”

      Your hypothesis was interesting but the data doesn’t actually support it because there are plenty of Chinese netizen created nicknames that don’t include familial terms. More importantly, there are times where you should go with a translation that conveys the tone and intent more accurately in the language it is being translated to than being literal to a point where it fails to convey the original tone and intent. Since languages aren’t one-to-one, sometimes artistic license is also involved in translating whimsical things like nicknames, and this includes whether you put something like “Brother” in front of or behind the adjective/noun that is actually more important as an identifier. In such cases, it’s about what sounds better or more natural in the target language, which admittedly involves some subjective judgement.

      For example, the significance of “Brother Sharp” isn’t the “Brother” but the “Sharp”. The nickname is nothing more than “dude who looks sharp”. Sister Feng is even simpler. Her surname was Feng, and people call young women “jie” all the time in China without intending to suggest any familial significance or “respect”. The MM is Milk Tea MM is simply “girl”, not “younger sister”. Joe’s “Ice Cream Girl” translation was perfectly fine. It did not remotely fail to communicate anything of importance in the whimsical nickname arbitrarily given to her by netizens. The “uncle” in PSY’s Chinese netizen nickname 鸟叔 also has no “familial” significance other than denoting him as an older man.

      • terroir


        • Rick in China

          YOU’VE BEEN PWND TERRIOR! Suck it up!

          I was thinking the same thing.. “wat” – how dare you ask why it’s translated differently in different places! The gall. :D

          • Kai

            Rick, “Melon Seed Brother” is because the original Chinese reads 瓜子哥, and “Melon Seed Man” is when it was 瓜子男. Terroir can read Chinese, so why did he ask that question?

            The thrust of his comment was to allude to his previous argument with Joe, as linked to in my reply to him. Specifically:

            He criticized Joe’s translation of “Ice Cream Girl”, arguing that it should be “Sister Ice Cream” and condescended with “even going by cS standards”. When Joe replied that “Ice Cream Girl” plays off the previous “Milk Tea Girl”, terroir doubled down and again condescended with a “Joe, there’s a long tradition of cS to employ the family header to address internet characters.”

            This is where Joe retorted: “since I’ve been at cS since its inception I would be a better judge of whatever “long tradition” you speak of.”

            Terroir tried to tell Joe how things are done at cS, when Joe became a contributor to cS earlier than he did and still remains one. Terroir’s comment here is the third time he has indignantly griped about Joe defending himself against terroir’s argument by referencing he’s been on cS longer than terroir has and has a better idea of whatever “standards” or “traditions” exist at cS. This is nothing more than terroir expressing his continued indignation that Joe ostensibly pulled rank on him, and only because he first tried to lord his cS expertise over Joe.

            Please read the original argument I linked to so you understand the context of terroir’s petty pot shot against Joe here (in a separate post no less) and why I replied that he should let it go while explaining why he was wrong in the first place. My reply was not “things are translated differently in different places”. His question wasn’t a genuine question but a set-up for his dig at Joe. If it was a genuine question (in addition to being a dig at Joe), then I’d ask why he didn’t read the original Chinese when he very easily can.

          • Rick in China

            Alright.. I’m sure all that context makes it all make more sense, just, from an outside observer (without reading the details of the linked arguments) it all seems so, really mountain-out-of-molehill ish to me. :D

          • Kai

            I felt the same way about terroir continuing the argument by taking his petty pot shot at Joe here.

          • Rick in China

            Got it. But…… bleeding it into a whole other story/thread, didn’t help anything. To people who read this without that context, just looks like off-topic nonsense. In fact, if there was a /. style public moderation, I’d definitely mod it -1 (off-topic)!

          • terroir

            “mountain and mole hill”

            It’s all after the fact, but I’d just like to point out that there’s a difference between the volume and tone of what has been written here, and that I have done absolutely nothing to advance the original argument here, even to explain what this all means.

          • terroir

            According to the previous retelling, I must be 100 feet tall and shoot flames out of my mouth.

          • Kai

            You skipped over “sorry, Joe, I didn’t realize I came off as condescending” and went straight to “you’re all unfairly persecuting me”.

          • terroir

            Same way as you skipped over “(Joe) I’m not trying to be hard on you, but…”

            Except I actually wrote that.

          • Kai

            I didn’t skip over it, terroir. Here’s how the conversation unfolded:


            You comment to say the translation is not X but should be Y, “even going by cS standards…”


            Joe ignored the questionable remark about cS standards and explains his translation.


            You tell Joe what cS’s “long traditions” are.


            Joe isn’t able to ignore your condescending remark here and says: “since I’ve been at cS since its inception I would be a better judge of whatever “long tradition” you speak of.”


            You accuse him of “breaking out the seniority…”


            Joe ignores your accusation and reiterates why your correction of his translation doesn’t make sense.


            Here is where you say “Joe, just letting you know that I’m not trying to be harsh with you. But yes, there is a reason why “Sister Green Dam” (that’s a thing) makes sense.”

            Such a context suggests you want Joe to understand you’re not trying to be harsh about arguing why Sister Green Dam “makes sense” in response to him saying it “doesn’t make sense”, NOT that you’re apologetic for whatever you said that made Joe “break out the seniority”. There is no indication that you understood what Joe objected to FOUR comments earlier and are trying to clear the air. It instead sounds like you’re trying to soften the blow of your argument “making sense” for Joe.

            This is compounded by your ending remark of “These laowai can take it, give ’em a try.” The suggestion is that Joe is failing to translate accurately in order to dumb things down for the “laowai” on cS.

            After another four comments of both of you arguing about your theory of Chinese netizen nicknames, this:


            You quote something Joe said arguing his position on the actual topic of translating Chinese netizen nicknames and instead of interpreting his use of the word “seniority” in the actual context, you use it as a basis to complain about him “asserting” his seniority earlier.


            [EDIT: Sorry, I was wrong here. Joe replied to you one more time in that thread. He said you missed his point and reiterated himself. It was then you who stopped responding.]

            Then, TWO DAYS LATER, on a SEPARATE post, you post a comment about “paging Senor Seniority”, taking a pot shot against Joe.

            Does that sound like you realized you came off as condescending and communicated to Joe clearly that you didn’t intend to?

            No, it sounds like you were still butthurt over him pulling rank on you without realizing he legitmately felt you were condescending to him in multiple comments, and thought this new article vindicated you.

            Your butthurt manifested itself in mocking him as “Senor Seniority” whereas perhaps an earnest belief that this article vindicated you would’ve been something like “Hey, Joe, I think this article vindicates my position in the argument we had a few days ago.” But no, you thought the alliterative name you came up for this guy who dared to point out he has more seniority than you when it comes to cS standards and traditions was too clever.

            Feel free to argue with whatever you think is me characterizing things unfairly, but I did not skip over anything that refutes my accusation that you took a pot shot and it was petty. You can argue that you tried to clarify that you weren’t trying to condescend to Joe with the remarks about “standards” and “traditions” but you cannot refute that you demonstrated a continued indignation that he pulled rank on you for things you tried lecturing him about, and that indignation is the fundamental impetus for your pot shot at the start of this thread.

          • terroir

            Nope. “wat” is the correct response.

            I was told to drop the subject, a reasonable request since the discussion has already played out in another thread that I have stopped before the other party, only speaking out to a) unleash a massive ice burn and b) bring up exhibit A here, which is all I have done so far.

            However, in being told to drop the subject, I have been subjected to a personalized response that tells me distinctively why I am wrong, because reasons. And yet, in being told all the reasons my opinion is not the correct one, I am stuck with the original directive to drop the original subject.

            It doesn’t matter to me what happens here, because Brother terroir has no stake in anything except for the privilege provided to me to speak her. And yet, fervent, passionate arguments have been directed at me, trying to convince me of my wrongfulness, all while I am directed to drop the subject.

            It’s not personal for me. I’m not sure about anyone else, though. The confusion all balls up into a single response that says more that I ever could.


          • Kai

            Your reading comprehension is not this bad, terroir.

            I asked you to “let go” of repeatedly expressing your indignation over Joe defending himself by pointing out he’s been at cS longer and has been more involved with cS than you have. This was in direct response to your petty “Senor Seniority” pot shot at him.

            I did NOT ask you to “let go” of defending your theory about Chinese netizen nicknames. I think it is wrong, guilty of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and have articulated why. If you want to argue back in defense of your theory being valid, go for it. Thus far, however, you haven’t had an answer to the arguments pointing out your theory to be wrong. All you’ve done is insinuate that this post is an exhibit substantiating your theory (it doesn’t) and take a swipe at Joe and now me, while painting yourself as some sort of victim of persecution.

            Please learn to handle disagreement without feigning victimhood.

          • terroir

            oh hai kai

            I am really sorry if the phrase “Senor Seniority” has hurt the feelings of you or any your proud colleagues. It is not a phrase to make someone feel sad. On the contrary, it is a hilarious term that not only uses alliteration, it exists within the context of the argument. It should be more widely used in engagements of frivolity and mirth, especially out of context.

            Alas, feelings are hurt, and for that, I am sorry. I would hope that that the abstract nature of the internet would allow for folks not to take something made out of a place of humor and allow it to upset them personally. I am not making racial epithets and implying anyone is a “senor” or has “senor-like” qualities. And so, I promise never to use the hilarious term “Senor Seniority” ever again.

            As for any of your opinions: you have them, they’re yours, and I won’t comment upon them. I won’t give you my opinion on your opinions. Whatever it is you think is not a matter of my opinion, not when there’s no way to have a proper discourse when feelings are so easily hurt and one of us is holding a hammer.

            As I always say during our little exchanges, you’re prolly a nice guy in real life, and there’s no “but” to that sentiment. And now, I even have proof: you watch Game of Thrones.

            But (ah! there it is! stealthy like a puma) that’s the only opinion I’ll give.

          • Kai

            Your false contrition bleeding with sarcasm is obnoxious as all hell. It just reinforces my impression that you cannot hold an honest, straight discussion over a disagreement. You are not “really sorry” for being a dick to Joe, me, or the site that once welcomed your contributions. Moreover, your penchant for replying with non sequiturs just communicates a fundamental disrespect for the people you are talking with.

            You took a pot shot at someone who disagreed with the correction and theory of translation you argued. If anything, taking the pot shot showed that YOUR feelings were hurt. I simply found your behavior petty and immature. Even so, I treated you with enough respect to separately explain why I believe your theory to be wrong.

            Instead of acknowledging your pot shot was bad form on your part and then arguing for your theory, you now claim you were just joking (“engagements of frivolity and mirth”, “a place of humor”) and denigrate us as if our feelings are hurt.

            You know what that is? That’s taking a swipe at someone and blaming them for having a reaction.

            No one said “Senor Seniority” was a racial epithet. Either you’re trying to distract from the issue or you really do have a reading comprehension problem. If it isn’t yet clear, the objection is to your pettiness of taking a jab at Joe because you tried to tell him what cS standards and traditions are and he pointed out that he knows them better than you do.

            You should not “promise” to never use the term “Senior Seniority”, you should promise to avoid such pettiness.

            As for my “opinions”, what is this? The classic “I’m not wrong, I just have a different opinion” argument? You articulated a theory, terroir, and I pointed out how the facts don’t support that theory. Your theory can be an opinion but it is also wrong insofar as it is unsupported. Should I be a dick like you and suggest your feelings are hurt as a result? No, I’m trying desperately to believe you have the emotional maturity to consider that a theory or opinion you have isn’t valid and adjust your thinking moving foward.

            Also incredibly dishonest of you is you excusing yourself from defending your position by insinuating I’m liable to ban you for doing so. This is not the first time you have done this. I have had tons of disagreements and debates with people on cS that have never been banned. So go ahead and give me your “opinions” on my “opinions”. Better yet, give us your rebuttals to my disagreements with your theory of Chinese netizen nicknames.

            If you want, go ahead and call me a dick for thinking your pot shot at Joe was petty. I’m fine with you having that opinion of my opinion, but I’m more interested in you actually defending the theory you tried to use to argue that Joe was wrong with his translation. That was, after all, the original topic of discussion.

            Yes, I like to think I’m a nice guy in real life, but your backhanded compliment here insinutates that I’m not online. You are therefore giving me your opinion of my opinion despite your previous declaration that you won’t. Can we dispense with this dishonesty? Can you stop hiding behind your non sequiturs and attempts at witty allusions to respond directly to the actual issues at hand?

            Your pot shot at Joe was not cool. You have yet to sufficiently substantiate your accusations that Joe’s translation was wrong. You’ve instead made personal attacks at Joe for being indignant when he felt you were condescending to him, and have now personally attacked me for calling you out on it. Knock it off with the passive-aggressiveness. We don’t disagree with you because our feelings are hurt, we disagree with you because we believe you’re wrong and/or think you’re also being a dick to us.

          • terroir

            oh hai kai,

            yup, those are your opinions.

            Moving on, here is what I am going to do if I am going to keep commenting here.

            * not reply to you, something I was doing very well at until you engaged me here
            * adopt a policy of not treating cS-associated personnel the same way I treat everyone else here. Even though mods and the like engage in public discourse and want to be “part of the gang”, they transcend the same kind of discourse that happens with anyone else.
            * adhere to whatever rules and commands a mod gives, such as “let it go”. If such adherence is not met with positive results, such as in this case where nothing further was done to further the original directive, well, a mod is a mod.

            And one last personal comment: it is a sad, sad day for alliteration.

          • Kai

            1. You took a pot shot at Joe, because “your feelings were hurt” in previous discussion with him. You resorted to calling him names and mocking him because of a disagreement.

            I felt this was petty and called you out for it, just as I called out others in the past for doing the same thing against other people who aren’t “cS-associated personnel” (ex. Rick in China, POS, Probotector, linette lee, etc.).

            I am not calling you out because Joe is a cS contributor or because I expect you to treat “cS-associated personnel” differently from how you treat “everyone else here”. You are trying to deflect and shift attention away from the pettiness you indulged in.

            2. Your last bulletpoint is more passive-aggressive snideness, but I’ll play along:

            I hereby “command” you to avoid pettiness similar to the above in the future, and to treat your fellow commenters with enough respect to respond to them in a straight-forward, honest way avoiding passive-aggressive insinuations, deflections, and–worst of all–non sequiturs.

            Alliterations are fine as long as they aren’t abused for any of the ends referred to above. Rejoice.

          • terroir

            This is my edit to the above comment that didn’t go in time:


            Let’s call it for what it is: this has nothing to do with this comment, and has everything to do with me because you have a personal problem with me.

            Anything I do, you have a problem with. This thing wasn’t addressed to you specifically, but you’ve taken it personally. This “potshot” that you say was directed at another person? It’s become a personal humiliation for which you must make amends for.

            The comments that I make, expressing opinions? They’re “condescending”, as though every word I say is poisonous., And my opinions? They’re not just wrong, they’re completely wrong, but even more than than, my mere existence is an affront that you must beat back with overly meticulous answers.

            I don’t deny not having a history with you (yeah, fun times). But this really has gotten out of hand; anything I say goes into the gristle mill for you to get bitter and continue your grievance with me.

            I have stopped making any kind of answer upon your opinions thinking it won’t exacerbate the situation, and yet you go telling another commentator some horror story. I have done nothing to forward this original argument (which I can explain in five easy sentences) but here we are, dogfighting over preconceptions and fear.

            I have no idea how whenever I write, you accept it as being “condescending”. These are words. They represent opinions which you may disagree with. But that’s it.

            No one can make you feel bad about yourself except you.

          • Kai

            First of all, thank you for a straight-forward reply. I hope it means you now realize how disrespectful your past passive-aggressiveness and non-sequiturs actually were to the person you’re talking to, that it communicated nothing more than an intent to annoy the other person.

            Let’s call it for what it is: this has nothing to do with this comment, and has everything to do with me because you have a personal problem with me.

            No. It has everything to do with this comment.

            Anything I do, you have a problem with.

            No, not anything. You have done a lot of things and commented a whole lot on cS. I have only replied to a fraction of those things and only a fraction of those replies express a disagreement I have with your words or actions. This is the same pattern I have with many other people on cS.

            This thing wasn’t addressed to you specifically, but you’ve taken it personally.

            It doesn’t have to be addressed to me specifically for me to find it objectionable. Finding something objectionable doesn’t mean I’m taking it personally. It wasn’t personal when I admonished others for doing the same thing against other people. It is simply petty behavior that is discouraged on cS to avoid commenters harassing each other over grudges they have.

            This “potshot” that you say was directed at another person? It’s become a personal humiliation for which you must make amends for.

            I don’t understand. How is this pot shot a “humiliation” for me?

            The comments that I make, expressing opinions? They’re “condescending”, as though every word I say is poisonous.

            I specified exactly what you said that was interpreted as condescending. Why are you broadening that into me accusing all of your comments and opinions as condescending? Please do not misrepresent the nature of my disagreement with you. If I have a “personal problem” with you, it is with you strawmanning me.

            Have you actually stopped to consider why someone might think something you said was “condescending”? Or tried to clarify by proactively apologizing for coming off that way when it wasn’t intended at all?

            And my opinions? They’re not just wrong, they’re completely wrong,

            They’re as wrong as I am able to argue them to be. I expect you to not take my arguments “personally” but as a dialogue seeking greater truth and deeper understanding about objective topics. There is no shame in being “wrong”. There is in refusing to consider being wrong.

            but even more than than, my mere existence is an affront that you must beat back with overly meticulous answers.

            What’s wrong with meticulous answers? I aim to communicate my point as accurately as I can, and often my thinking process. I feel it helps reveal where I am coming from and thus the extent and limits of what I say. Maybe you’ll say I’m “overly meticulous” in this response to you? Simply because I want to adequately address every single thing you’re throwing at me unfairly?

            Your “mere existence” is not an “affront” to me and my answers are not a response to your “mere existence”. My answers are in response to the things you say and the things you do. Can’t we say you’re taking this too personally now?

            I don’t deny not having a history with you (yeah, fun times). But this really has gotten out of hand; anything I say goes into the gristle mill for you to get bitter and continue your grievance with me.

            Okay, this “opinion” of yours is indeed “completely wrong”. Your history with me is not special, terroir. We’ve had less disagreements and public debates than I have had with many others.

            You either genuinely think I have it out for you or you’re trying to argue such to–again–distract from the original issue. I am as “overly-meticulous” in my answers to others as I am to you.

            Next, I don’t understand why you think “anything” you say makes me “bitter” and continue some “grievance” I apparently have with you. You’ve said plenty of things that don’t make me bitter and while I disagree with some of the things you say or do, I don’t have a grievance with you as a person in general.

            I have stopped making any kind of answer upon your opinions thinking it won’t exacerbate the situation

            Why do you think they would exacerbate the situation?

            I get the feeling you’re trying to insinuate that I can’t be reasoned with when I think I obviously can. How do we resolve this?

            I replied to you with only two points:

            1. That your dig at Joe was petty and that you should let that grudge go.
            2. My articulation of why I disagree with your argument in the discussion you had with Joe.

            and yet you go telling another commentator some horror story.

            Stop to consider my representation of the situation is how multiple people saw it.

            If you were as innocent and misunderstood as you imply, could you not have defused the situation by acknowledging the misunderstandings and clarifying yourself? Instead of annoying people further with non-sequiturs and snide insinuations?

            I feel you are neglecting to consider how your own actions and reactions contributed to this situation.

            I have done nothing to forward this original argument (which I can explain in five easy sentences) but here we are, dogfighting over preconceptions and fear.

            I disagree. If you never carried your grudge against Joe over into this separate comments section, I would’ve never replied to you. I had already abstained from getting involved in the debate you had with Joe, hoping that Joe would get through to you about what was wrong with your theory about Chinese netizen nicknames. You “forwarded” the argument into a separate post and that was when I asked you to let it go.

            Moreoever, you “forward” arguments in very passive-aggresive ways, such as inserting dismissive remarks like “(which I can explain in five easy sentences)”. Do you really not see how this behavior might rub others the wrong way? Or how non-sequiturs do?

            I’m not sure what “preconceptions and fear” you think I am dogfighting you over. You said things that were interpreted as condescending and then petty. These are not “preconceptions”, or “fear”. Again, if you were misinterpreted, then why not seek to correct it or apologize for it?

            I have no idea how whenever I write, you accept it as being “condescending”. These are words. They represent opinions which you may disagree with. But that’s it.

            What? How do I “accept” your writing as “condescending”?

            Yes, they are words. Words can be condescending. Yes, they may represent opinions, and opinions can be condescending too. Again, have you tried to understand why I along with others interpreted your words as “condescending”?

            No one can make you feel bad about yourself except you.

            And the point of this non sequitur is… what? Have I accused you of making me feel bad about myself? Do you feel bad about yourself? What is it? Please consider that your non sequiturs often come across as disguised insults. So don’t be surprised when people react to them.

            All I could hope for at the start of our discussion was two things:

            1. For you to recognize that yeah, it was bad form for you to take that “senor seniority” pot shot at Joe. This would’ve been easy if you realized Joe referenced his greater seniority and familiarity with cS because you tried telling him what cS traditions and standards are, in an arguably condescending manner.

            2. For you to further defend your theory about Chinese netizen nicknames or acknowledge the arguments against it have merit.

            Two very simple things. A simple “oh, wow, sorry, I really didn’t mean to sound that way, but let me explain why my theory makes sense…” would’ve moved the conversation on.

            Instead, you went all passive-aggro on me copping a victim complex insinuating that you’ll be banned when you know full well we don’t ban people for mere disagreements. I really hope you can see how dishonest and thus infuriating that appears from my perspective when all I initially wanted was for you to not take pot shots at other people across separate posts.

          • terroir

            Let’s call it for what it is (part two): you can’t accept the way that I speak.

            I don’t think your “command” falls with commenting policy so I think you’re outside your bounds here. What I meant is that I will do whatever it takes not to get banned.

          • Kai

            I can “accept” the way you speak. I’ve been “accepting” it all this time.

            There have been like two–maybe THREE–times I’ve expressed disagreement with the way you speak because it is hindering conversations where at least one person is actually trying to understand the other.

            This is like how many people “accept” the way I “speak” while occasionally complaining to me that I write too much or sound pedantic. You ever see me accuse them of not accepting the way I speak?

            I don’t think your “command” falls with commenting policy so I think you’re outside your bounds here. What I meant is that I will do whatever it takes not to get banned.

            See, terroir, this is yet another example of why you come across as annoyingly dishonest. You know what our comment policy is, that your behavior hasn’t violated it regardless of how disagreeable it might be to others, and yet you still insinuated that you’d be banned and thus need special guidance from the mods. This is nothing more than a way to dishonestly accuse me of persecuting you.

            Why don’t you tell me what behavior of yours you think has brought you into risk of being banned?

            Have I ever threatened to ban you? No. Has any other mod? No.

            I expressed a disagreement with you, which is something I have done with so many others here and am liable to do with anyone here. Have they all been banned? Giving you cause to fear that mere disagreement may lead to being banned?

            How many times have I had disagreements with Rick in China with language far more confrontational than what you and I have exchanged? Is he banned? Do you see him feigning fear of being banned?

            You can continue being the way you are and always have been. Just don’t expect people to not express disagreement or annoyance with it, and DO recognize that disagreement is not a threat of ban. So stop insinuating that it is.

    • Joe

      Wow, that’s a long response Kai but it’s not really going to help terrior understand what we are attempt to resolve here. Terrior’s argument is entirely based on vast generalizations of the social construct of family ties in how Chinese people refer to one another. I’m arguing for the use of translations based on the context of the language. Two entirely different issues.

      As for the interchangeable use of brother and man, yes, it is precisely because it can be interpreted both ways. There is never one concrete meaning in Chinese. 妹妹 or sister is a amalgamation of MM, 美眉, 妹子 each have distinct meanings that have nothing to do with family ties.

      Take another example the word 娘 which in different context can mean “mother, wife, woman, and girl” (pretty amazing if you think about it). Online manifestations of 娘 nearly always refer to a girl without any maternal connotations. Chinese language as a whole is contingent on the circumstances it is used it, there is never a hardened rule to its translations, let alone some overarching subjective interpretations of Chinese filial ties.

      Terrior honestly should brush up on both your Chinese and knowledge of Chinese online culture, because honestly you are in no position to comment on either.

      • terroir

        “Wow, that’s a long response Kai but it’s not really going to help terrior understand what we are attempt to resolve here.”

        the least you can do when using my name in the third-person to make generalizations while addressing another person is to use it properly.

        It’s exactly the way it’s written. It’s great being mistaken for a lovable dog, but the internet has its cats.

  • terroir

    If this was an 80s action movie, and Suit Man was standing over Brother Melon Seed’s prone body, here are his catchphrases to end the scene:

    (picks up leftover seeds) “I have a need… the NEED for SEED!”
    “I guess after this, I’ll seed you in my dreams.”
    “You scraped by out of this…. by the seed of your pants.”
    “No need to say anything, we can all tell you’ve already con-seeded.”
    “You reap what you sow”

    • RickyBeijing

      “What’s up? You seem a little ….. MELON- choly…. mwahuahuahua!”

  • FYIADragoon

    If it only cost me 100 RMB every time I wanted to get rid of a social nuisance (stupid people standing in front of subway entrances, people pissing on the street, people smoking in buildings, litterers), I’d probably walk around hitting people all day.

    • Rick in China

      Oh, god, wouldn’t that be wonderful? I’d stack my hundies like dollars for a strip club, and MAKE IT RAIN!

      • slob

        I’m just imagining somebody doing that.

        Crowded subway station, people smoking, spitting, throwing rubbish, talking loudly, pushing into queues, old man shitting in the corner, suddenly…time slows down as the people notice a deadly silence…a single hundred yuan bill drifts down onto the old guy’s head…he plucks it off his bald spot in confusion…suddenly slow falling hundred RMBs dropping on everybody…quiet melancholic music starts in the background…smiles everywhere…but then…

        The music changes to an old Chinese tune like in the Jet Li film Hero… a lone man in a black hat and long jacket stands there separated from the crowd…wind brushing his tails up…the people stare in discomfort…his head turns up to face to crowd…his face unseen…

        He jets into a charge position…winds himself up…the people’s faces change from delight to horror…lone dark man starts running towards them in epic slow motion…it’s too late…nobody can run…he’s already catching people by their scarfs….fly kicks..chin punches…elbows…double fist back smashes…frontal flips into groups of students…people falling left and right…money still falling…the music getting more intense…bodies flying through the air…people running and falling over each other…bodies being used as weapons against masses of running crowds…they fall like bowling pins…

        As the last man falls…the 100 RMBs land gently on each and every person with a small child left standing there staring up at epic stranger man. He looks down at the little girl picking her nose. He leans down and pulls her finger from her nostril, and snatches the 100RMB off her head.

        Then disappears down the subway tunnel.

        • Rick in China

          WOW! That was fucking awesome, seriously, I loved reading that so much! It took my meagre concept to amazing-viral-video level. If only we could get a small group together to produce such a thing with some quality, that would absolutely be a great watch. Forget it, just reading it was vivid enough…..truly great. Thanks!

          • TheInconvenientRuth

            Here’s your camera operator, BBC-trained :)

  • narsfweasels

    You want to have your pissy little argument? No problem. Argue at the back of the bus, get nasty, call someone’s mother a pig if you like. But don’t stop other people from going about their business, you don’t have that right.

  • Guang Xiang

    God, who is the tool at the end admonishing the suit man?

  • jin
    • Guang Xiang

      Hah, decent, but still not Mr. Dodson – Bed Intruder quality

  • mike921


  • Poodle Tooth

    Seed guy couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag.

  • SuperLaowai

    Thanks for the video, I haven’t been to the zoo in a while.

  • Jazz88

    Its quite obvious that the guy who was beaten has mental health issues. He “deserves” what he got, but he’s sick, and needs medicine.

  • hehehehh


Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»