I disagree that your initial response added anything meaningful to the conversation, other than to stoke further discussion, which if that is what you were hoping to accomplish you did so with aplomb. And that’s great, and welcome. My position is that responding to silence (whatever the reason) with violence is abuse. That in no way undermines your point that using silence as a tool for manipulation is also abuse.
The tweet though simply states a desire for a partner who reacts with empathy instead of anger as something to build towards in partnership, and is actually pretty un-vague about it. That feels pretty healthy and uncontroversial to me personally. Perhaps it is merely a difference of interpretation, but the language of the tweet is pretty cut-and-dry in my opinion.
I appreciate the discussion, and agree with your stance about abuse in relationships, I just disagree that the silence in the tweet is the abuse, and not the anger at it.



Sure, I have trauma from being abused by past partners because I was silent for 30 minutes. My spouse (not wife) does as well. Silence is not inherently abusive, getting mad at someone’s silence in the context of this tweet is absolutely abuse. You are not providing an “other side” to this tweet- you’re inserting your unrelated personal experience into a statement about desired relationship dynamics, which is just a healthy desire for an empathetic partner instead of an abusive one.
Tweet: “I want a partner who treats me with respect and empathy instead of violence when I’m quiet”
You: “Stonewalling is unhealthy too”
That’s false equivalency, and a known abuse tactic.