Sorry to drag this on (and perhaps it should be relocated to the Politics or separate thread), but am I missing some past context with views flyers has expressed?
While on first read I didn't think what he wrote was particularly well put either, I didn't have any notion he was putting himself as part of the 'they'; I took him to be speaking of the Dodgers (and/or MLB in general). That aside, 'what they see as abuse' does seem poor phrasing when we think of those convicted of domestic abuse, or an (alleged) second-offender in Urias, but it also brings to mind cases like Bauer's, who himself was never formally charged and has continued to assert everything was 'consensual'.
So, was Bauer formally charged with assault/abuse/battery? No. Do I want him on my team? No. Do I see what he did as abuse? Potentially, yes. But moreover, I see him as a person with psychological issues that leads him to be a poor member of my clubhouse, make poor associations/decisions, and thus be a poor representative of my franchise. I don't want that in my organization. But he wasn't formally charged. So is it 'abuser', or 'what we see as abuse' in his case?
I think the answer is more complex that flyers gave it credit for with his two-sentence comment, and thus could be accused of doing it a disservice, but I'm not seeing where more than one seem to think it could have been seen as he personally didn't think such instances women would qualify as abuse were, in fact abusive.