"They're not operating at 100% cruelty. Therefore, they're not abusive."
This is a common defense of abuse. The assumption is that anyone who wants to be abusive would always operate at 100% cruelty.
But if someone operates at 100% cruelty, they'd lose supporters and therefore lose the power to be cruel. So they have to operate at a lower cruelty level.
Also, the purpose of the cruelty is to terrify the victim into obedience under threat of more cruelty. So if they're always operating at the most cruelty that they can get away with, then there wouldn't be any room to threaten additional cruelty.
They also want to be certain that they'll maintain their power. If they operate at as much cruelty as they can get away with, they could miscalculate and end up not getting away with it. So they have to give themselves enough leeway.
As you can see, there are multiple reasons why it's in an abuser's best interest to be less cruel. It's often in an abuser's best interest to be nice at times when their power isn't being challenged. It doesn't mean they have a conscience. It doesn't mean they've changed. It doesn't mean the victim is overreacting.
There's a reason why a common police tactic is good cop / bad cop and not just bad cop / worse cop.






















