Why are we concentrating on gay specific bullying instead of all bullying?

[DaveC426913]

The fact that the victim knows what happened and has avenues to bring bad consequences on the bully stifles the bullying.

Which can lead to the bullying being much worse when the victim is caught in a dark alley, alone. The bully(ies) kow this is their only chance and, instead of a shove or assault, thy kick the crap out of the victim and leave him to die.

 

[JaredJames]

Which can lead to the bullying being much worse when the victim is caught in a dark alley, alone. The bully(ies) kow this is their only chance and, instead of a shove or assault, thy kick the crap out of the victim and leave him to die.

It's also the same line of thought which goes with thinking "If I tell anyone, they (the bullies) will get me.".

It's a horrible situation to be in when telling someone could mean a severe escalation in the nature of the bullying.

 

[FlexGunship]

Which can lead to the bullying being much worse when the victim is caught in a dark alley, alone. The bully(ies) kow this is their only chance and, instead of a shove or assault, thy kick the crap out of the victim and leave him to die.

I think there's a dividing line here. You're certainly correct about the few bullies who go "above-and-beyond" the bullying aspect. Essentially, if an individual is capable of committing this type of crime, they're not really just a bully, but a criminal.

Allowing for bullying to be reported (and encouraging the reporting) should deter the "casual" bully: the bully who is simply insecure or bored and chooses to harass another person. Obviously this won't deter an individual who is already willing to end up in jail for the rest of his or her life.

 

[FlexGunship]

I agree with this. If you want COMMON counter examples wear a Michigan jersey to an Ohio State football game, or any million other combinations of sports apparel. Its a very similar situation, including a lot of group mentality; though people do individually act out, some more than others.

Perhaps, but you're using a symmetrical relationship. Here it's bullies bullying bullies. I recognize that there are plenty of counter-examples for this, but in general the "sports rivalry" analogy doesn't hold up to actual bullying which is an asymmetrical relationship.

 

[DaveC426913]

Allowing for bullying to be reported (and encouraging the reporting) should deter the "casual" bully: the bully who is simply insecure or bored and chooses to harass another person. Obviously this won't deter an individual who is already willing to end up in jail for the rest of his or her life.

Well, detering them doesn't fix the problem though; it simply makes a punishment known to them if they (the bullies) express their views. It doesn't encourage them to be more tolerant.

 

[FlexGunship]

Well, detering them doesn't fix the problem though; it simply makes a punishment known to them if they (the bullies) express their views. It doesn't encourage them to be more tolerant.

True!

But "fixing" them isn't an option. Now you're talking about a kind of forced re-education and other messy things with questionable ethics even if you mean it for the "greater good of the proletariat".

I believe history has shown that the best you can do is make the actions illegal, and make passive education available where possible. The moment you try to legislate the personal thoughts of an individual you get chaos.

 

[DaveC426913]

True!

But "fixing" them isn't an option. Now you're talking about a kind of forced re-education and other messy things with questionable ethics even if you mean it for the "greater good of the proletariat".

I believe history has shown that the best you can do is make the actions illegal, and make passive education available where possible. The moment you try to legislate the personal thoughts of an individual you get chaos.

I see your point, but those are not my words. I wasn't suggesting fixing people, just fixing the problem. Education is one way of attempting to fix it.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wonder if we need to define what is and what is not bullying, and what flavours there are before we move on.

Flex's use of the word asymmetrical seems to get at the heart of bullying.

I propose some postulates:
Bullying is:
- asymmetrical aggression (one entity chooses aggression, the other does not)
Bullying is not:
- symmetrical aggression (both entities have chosen aggression -i.e. rivalries)

Are there examples of either bullying or aggression that are not captured? How can we refine it? Is there an element of private versus public stance (I am gay (private?); I am a Sox fan (public?); I am a Tea Partier)?

 

[FlexGunship]

I see your point, but those are not my words. I wasn't suggesting fixing people, just fixing the problem. Education is one way of attempting to fix it.

Understood and agreed. But, if I'm not mistaken, your description of the problem seems to be a specific subset of the opinions of others. More to the point, I understand the problem you're talking about to be: not all people are equally tolerant of all personal ideals. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Sometimes a difference of opinion isn't based on fact, but on dogmatic ideology. Apart for a forced re-education, how could you fix the "problem" here? Furthermore, who is to define that there is one?

 

[JaredJames]

Bullying is clearly defined by one of my earlier posts. I don't see why aggression comes into it. There need not be any aggressive aspect to it for it to be considered bullying. The quote includes aggression but I don't see why it needs to be there.

Bullying is an act of repeated aggressive behavior in order to intentionally hurt another person, physically or mentally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying (Quote from the definition section)

Can someone clarify?

EDIT: Perhaps I'm only looking at aggression as violent behaviour?

 

[FlexGunship]

Bullying is clearly defined by one of my earlier posts.

I believe that your quote could also be used to describe military action taken against a violent city-state. For how many words the definition uses, it seems to be lacking important meaning.

 

[JaredJames]

I believe that your quote could also be used to describe military action taken against a violent city-state. For how many words the definition uses, it seems to be lacking important meaning.

I don't see why aggression comes into it though, but then I think I don't have the correct definition of aggression.

 

[FlexGunship]

Let me try! I love trying to define things:

Bullying is any act of intimidation used in an asymmetrically aggressive interaction carried out because of actual or perceived differences in:

1. genetic constitution,
2. social preferences, or
3. currently held opinions.

(Edit: incidentally, that's really close to my definition of terrorism.)
(Double edit: intimidation can, of course, be physical or verbal.)
(Triple edit: I left out "with the intent to cause physical or emotional duress" on purpose, because "intent" is the worst way to define a crime.)

 

[JaredJames]

I can go with that definition.

 

[AlexES16]

Respect the fellow man,

Respect the individual freedom!

that includes religions, sex and all.And for the bullying in general, fight back!
FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

 

[FlexGunship]

Respect the fellow man,

Respect the individual freedom!

that includes religions, sex and all.

My religion requires that I denounce homosexuality as a sin against the community. Do you respect my religious right to denounce homosexuality?

 

[JaredJames]

fight back!

Easier said than done when the bully is twice your size.

It's rare that someone of large physical stature is bullied by someone who is smaller (and has no backup).

 

[JaredJames]

My religion requires that I denounce homosexuality as a sin against the community. Do you respect my religious right to denounce homosexuality?

For me it's not about respecting you. It's about not caring what you believe as long as it doesn't affect myself or others.

 

[FlexGunship]

Respect the fellow man,

Respect the individual freedom!

that includes religions, sex and all.


And for the bullying in general, fight back!
FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

My religion requires that I denounce homosexuality as a sin against the community. Do you respect my religious right to denounce homosexuality?

Easier said than done when the bully is twice your size.

It's rare that someone of large physical stature is bullied by someone who is smaller (and has no backup).

This is the problem with overly simple dictates and agendas.

 

[lisab]

My religion requires that I denounce homosexuality as a sin against the community. Do you respect my religious right to denounce homosexuality?

The thread is about bullying gays, especially the young ones. I doubt your religion requires you to bully homosexuals, especially if they're not adults yet.

Denounce away, if you must...just aim it away from the kids.

 

[FlexGunship]

The thread is about bullying gays, especially the young ones. I doubt your religion requires you to bully homosexuals, especially if they're not adults yet.

Denounce away, if you must...just aim it away from the kids.

Gotta' save them from the fire and the brimstone. It's my duty to save all innocent souls! Not just the ones that are 18 and over. Teasing is an effective way of getting their attention!

(I hope everyone knows this is an act. I'm just playing devil's advocate to demonstrate a point.)

 

[JaredJames]

The thread is about bullying gays, especially the young ones. I doubt your religion requires you to bully homosexuals, especially if they're not adults yet.

Denounce away, if you must...just aim it away from the kids.

Actually, I'd say that given the definition of bullying (whether from Wiki or flex), places such as the WBC do bully people.

Whether or not we consider it bullying ourselves is another issue, but it certainly fits the definition.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see why aggression comes into it though, but then I think I don't have the correct definition of aggression.

This confuses me. The definition you quoted actually includes the word "aggression".

Bullying is any act of intimidation used in an asymmetrically aggressive interaction carried out because of actual or perceived differences in:

1. genetic constitution,
2. social preferences, or
3. currently held opinions.

I think it may be too specific. You've listed only three examples. I don't think the defitnion should list examples.

My religion requires that I denounce homosexuality as a sin against the community. Do you respect my religious right to denounce homosexuality?

Bullying is an act against a person. There is certainly prejudice against ideals, but that's a separate issue. Bullying is specific to a person (or persons).

You can denounce an act by expressing it publicly, but you cannot bully a person unless they are within eye/earshot for you to get their attention.

 

[FlexGunship]

Bullying is an act against a person. There is certainly prejudice against ideals, but that's a separate issue. Bullying is specific to a person (or persons).

Sorry, yes, I was simply trying to disarm AlexES' overly simple post. It was a hair off-topic.

 

[FlexGunship]

I think it may be too specific. You've listed only three examples. I don't think the defitnion should list examples.

Well, it should be possible to get rid of the examples (I agree, definitions work poorly with them), however, it leaves the definition open to include economic issues (like creditors trying to collect a debt) and possibly safety issues.

However, I cannot think of a type of bullying that is not based on one of those three things EXCEPT for bullying a poor kid because he's poor. I was hoping to group that under social preferences even though it often isn't a preference.

 

[FlexGunship]

Second try:

Bullying is any act of intimidation used in an asymmetrically aggressive interaction carried out because of actual or perceived discrepancies of existence for the purpose of causing physical or emotional duress.​

 

[lisab]

Gotta' save them from the fire and the brimstone. It's my duty to save all innocent souls! Not just the ones that are 18 and over. Teasing is an effective way of getting their attention!

(I hope everyone knows this is an act. I'm just playing devil's advocate to demonstrate a point.)

Yeah, I figured. I was trying to sound just a little bit "Won't someone think of the children?" while still being serious, lol.

 

[JaredJames]

This confuses me. The definition you quoted actually includes the word "aggression".

What I meant was, even though the definition has aggression in it, I don't see why it needs it.

It turns out I had the wrong idea for the definition for aggression (I took it to mean a purely violent act). However after reading on it, I agree that aggression should be included.

 

[ShawnD]

I am wondering why the nation is gathering under the flag of bullying in relation specifically to gays instead of attacking the issue of bullying in general?

We tried rallying this before and it didn't work; people simply don't care about children. Working it from the gay angle or the black angle is the best chance we have of finding bullies, charging them with very serious federal crimes, and having them permanently locked away in federal prisons until they are killed by the other inmates. If you just want to protect children in general, then you only get support from people who can relate to that situation - parents with children who are bullied or parents who were bullied themselves. If we go at it from the black angle, we can get anti-bully support from black people who were never bullied and black people who don't even have kids. Instead of labeling bullies as predators against children, we label them as predators against black people. Not just black children, but all black people. We reduce bullies to the same level as nazis or KKK members, then we can inflict punishments suitable for those labels.

The way this works is very simple. It's a process called "dehumanization" where the goal is to label a group as being less than human. When people are labeled as sub-human monsters, it's easier to do unbelievably cruel things to them. Things we have always wanted to do but could never get wide support for. We've already tried to get bullying labeled as a violent crime, and it doesn't seem to work. If we find a way to label it has a race or sexuality motivated hate crime, we can label bullies as racist nazi klan members who deserve to be locked in jail and forcibly sodomized by the other prisoners.

This really isn't a troll post. Personally, I like to frame things in terms of violence against women. I argued that bullies act the way they do because they believe they can get what they want through intimidation and violence. Guess what abusive husbands do. They get what they want through intimidation and violence. If we rounded up all bullies and sent them to federal prisons, it would reduce cases of spousal abuse and domestic violence

 

[Char. Limit]

We tried rallying this before and it didn't work; people simply don't care about children. Working it from the gay angle or the black angle is the best chance we have of finding bullies, charging them with very serious federal crimes, and having them permanently locked away in federal prisons until they are killed by the other inmates. If you just want to protect children in general, then you only get support from people who can relate to that situation - parents with children who are bullied or parents who were bullied themselves. If we go at it from the black angle, we can get anti-bully support from black people who were never bullied and black people who don't even have kids. Instead of labeling bullies as predators against children, we label them as predators against black people. Not just black children, but all black people. We reduce bullies to the same level as nazis or KKK members, then we can inflict punishments suitable for those labels.

The way this works is very simple. It's a process called "dehumanization" where the goal is to label a group as being less than human. When people are labeled as sub-human monsters, it's easier to do unbelievably cruel things to them. Things we have always wanted to do but could never get wide support for. We've already tried to get bullying labeled as a violent crime, and it doesn't seem to work. If we find a way to label it has a race or sexuality motivated hate crime, we can label bullies as racist nazi klan members who deserve to be locked in jail and forcibly sodomized by the other prisoners.

This really isn't a troll post. Personally, I like to frame things in terms of violence against women. I argued that bullies act the way they do because they believe they can get what they want through intimidation and violence. Guess what abusive husbands do. They get what they want through intimidation and violence. If we rounded up all bullies and sent them to federal prisons, it would reduce cases of spousal abuse and domestic violence

No offense, but I hate it when people frame everything in terms of violence against women. Have you ever seen a news headline "27 dead, 4 of them women" or something similar to that? It just tells me that I'm expendable, that if I die and a woman dies, I'll be ignored while she'll be turned into a martyr.

Oh, and before you people say anything, I don't have a source for a personal belief. I'm also not stating anything that can be sourced.

 

[ShawnD]

No offense, but I hate it when people frame everything in terms of violence against women. Have you ever seen a news headline "27 dead, 4 of them women" or something similar to that? It just tells me that I'm expendable, that if I die and a woman dies, I'll be ignored while she'll be turned into a martyr.

Oh, and before you people say anything, I don't have a source for a personal belief. I'm also not stating anything that can be sourced.

It's an important argument to make because women are often a lot less eager to round people up and essentially put them into death camps (prisoner on prisoner violence in prisons is extremely high). We get support from gay men by saying the anti-bullying law is to stop gay bashing, we get support from black men by saying it's to stop race motivated violence, and we get support from women of all races and configurations by saying it's to prevent future spousal abuse.

Eventually we'll stop bullying violence. If we divide people into enough ethnic groups that it's 99% likely the person you punch is a different ethnicity, then we can label all of it as racially motivated hate crimes. As long as the headlines always say something to the effect that the bully is a nazi, we can punish them any way we want

 

[Char. Limit]

It's an important argument to make because women are often a lot less eager to round people up and essentially put them into death camps (prisoner on prisoner violence in prisons is extremely high). We get support from gay men by saying the anti-bullying law is to stop gay bashing, we get support from black men by saying it's to stop race motivated violence, and we get support from women of all races and configurations by saying it's to prevent future spousal abuse.

Eventually we'll stop bullying violence. If we divide people into enough ethnic groups that it's 99% likely the person you punch is a different ethnicity, then we can label all of it as racially motivated hate crimes. As long as the headlines always say something to the effect that the bully is a nazi, we can punish them any way we want

So, in other words, as a white Christian male, I'm screwed?

 

[JaredJames]

So, in other words, as a white Christian male, I'm screwed?

No, as a white atheist male you're screwed.

 

[Char. Limit]

No, as a white atheist male you're screwed.

I wonder if I can get Spinozists as an oppressed minority then. Because I belong to that group...

Yeah, I'm not really Christian... or atheist, I guess...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not sure how we might get rid of bullying. It seems a naturally ingrained play of power for determining social hierarchy. In social animals it would seem to be simple instinct.