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

[lisab]

Just remember what someone told me on Sodahead once.

"You're a white male. You're not allowed to talk."

Poor, pitiful white males...sigh!

It seems all the rage to wear the 'victim' cloak these days .

No one is stiffling white males from speaking. Just don't get so sensitive and defensive if your point of view is challenged.

 

[Char. Limit]

Poor, pitiful white males...sigh!

It seems all the rage to wear the 'victim' cloak these days .

No one is stiffling white males from speaking. Just don't get so sensitive and defensive if your point of view is challenged.

I didn't say I was wearing a victim cloak, or that I was being stifled from speaking. It's just something someone on Sodahead told me.

...I blocked him.

In the topic at hand, I would say that it's because gay bullying is more serious. However, you're mistaken if you believe that we don't concentrate on other forms of bullying as well. The only reason you don't hear about it as much is because it's not as controversial, and the media likes controversy.

 

[lisab]

I didn't say I was wearing a victim cloak, or that I was being stifled from speaking. It's just something someone on Sodahead told me.

...I blocked him.

In the topic at hand, I would say that it's because gay bullying is more serious. However, you're mistaken if you believe that we don't concentrate on other forms of bullying as well. The only reason you don't hear about it as much is because it's not as controversial, and the media likes controversy.

I agree, all types of bullying are bad, but some are worse than others. Picking on someone because of their shirt is mean. But picking on someone because of their sexuality, race, or ethnicity is much worse, because those kind of things are often internalized as part of self-identity.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, the more we discuss it, I think the Tea Party has been bullied just as much.

 

[Char. Limit]

Actually, the more we discuss it, I think the Tea Party has been bullied just as much.

Difference: You can choose to be a Tea Partier. You can't choose to be gay.

 

[WhoWee]

Difference: You can choose to be a Tea Partier. You can't choose to be gay.

But ironically, in both cases, until you make it public - nobody picks on you for that reason?

 

[fluxions]

But ironically, in both cases, until you make it public - nobody picks on you for that reason?

Some kids are bullied just for being perceived as gay.

 

[WhoWee]

Some kids are bullied just for being perceived as gay.

Perhaps some voters were bullied for showing up at town hall meetings - they didn't know they were Tea Party members until they were labeled as such?

 

[fluxions]

Perhaps some voters were bullied for showing up at town hall meetings - they didn't know they were Tea Party members until they were labeled as such?

Perhaps. I haven't looked into the matter.

In any case, it is evident that it is possible to be bullied for being a member of a group without publicly self-identifying as a member of that group. This is in contrast to your claim in post #36 wherein you essentially (at least this is how I interpreted it) said that publicly self-identifying as a member of a group is a precondition to being bullied for being a member of that group.

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps. I haven't looked into the matter.

In any case, it is evident that it is possible to be bullied for being a member of a group without publicly self-identifying as a member of that group. This is in contrast to your claim in post #36 wherein you essentially (at least this is how I interpreted it) said that publicly self-identifying as a member of a group is a precondition to being bullied for being a member of that group.

I don't have an axe to grind - I'm making an observation there are similarities to the way people in these groups are bullied. Obviously, the torment increases when someone is labeled as a member of the group.

It's also my observation (I have 4 kids) that people (especially kids) can be quite mean. Once someone is labeled as fat, short, ugly, dumb, smelly, slow, skinny, tall, clean, smart, neat, sloppy, (basically anything) then they are fair game for the bully process. Sometimes, it is with nervous laughter that some of the "bullies" participate - they're just glad it's not them being chastied.

Unfortunately, I think it's basic human behavior to single out someone and attack them as a group? Sometimes people who have been subject to such attacks are eager to join the group against other people (possibly for another reason).

 

[fluxions]

I don't have an axe to grind - I'm making an observation there are similarities to the way people in these groups are bullied. Obviously, the torment increases when someone is labeled as a member of the group.

It's also my observation (I have 4 kids) that people (especially kids) can be quite mean. Once someone is labeled as fat, short, ugly, dumb, smelly, slow, skinny, tall, clean, smart, neat, sloppy, (basically anything) then they are fair game for the bully process. Sometimes, it is with nervous laughter that some of the "bullies" participate - they're just glad it's not them being chastied.

Unfortunately, I think it's basic human behavior to single out someone and attack them as a group? Sometimes people who have been subject to such attacks are eager to join the group against other people (possibly for another reason).

Has a member of the Tea Party ever been bullied so relentlessly that their only (perceived) recourse was to commit suicide?

And yes, kids can be quite cruel; that is clearly not unique to kids though.

"Sometimes people who have been subject to such attacks are eager to join the group against other people (possibly for another reason).

I think this may be a perversion of the 'tit-for-tat' morality that a lot of people preach and sometimes practice. Specifically, "I've been titted, and now it's my turn to tat."

 

[WhoWee]

Has a member of the Tea Party ever been bullied so relentlessly that their only (perceived) recourse was to commit suicide?

And yes, kids can be quite cruel; that is clearly not unique to kids though.




I think this may be a perversion of the 'tit-for-tat' morality that a lot of people preach and sometimes practice. Specifically, "I've been titted, and now it's my turn to tat."

Have any gays been taunted in a public forum by members of the press and elected politicians?

 

[JaredJames]

Have any gays been taunted in a public forum by members of the press and elected politicians?

Wouldn't be able to comment on press and politicians, but virtually all religious groups do it all the time.

 

[WhoWee]

The attack on the Tea Party members actually included the gay male slang term "tea bagging" and was attributed to Anderson Cooper.

 

[JaredJames]

The attack on the Tea Party members actually included the gay male slang term "tea bagging" and was attributed to Anderson Cooper.

I can't comment on the Tea Party - my only experience of them has been a few clips shown on a comedy programme where you had one guy slating Obama (calling him Muslim and other rubbish like that) and another guy who was shouting "all commies should die" and how he would kill any commie he came across. He then proceeded to threaten the camera man, asking if he was a commie. (When the camera man said "no", his response was "well, that's ok then").

But if I was to form an opinion based on that, it wouldn't be a good one. As I'm sure you can understand.

"Tea bagging" isn't a "gay male slang term". It applies equally to a male:female relationship as it does male:male. You can't claim it is a "gay attack" on the tea party members as this simply isn't true. It applies equally to all members (excluding female:female couples).

To tea bag is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bag_(sexual_act)

 

[Jack21222]

Perhaps some voters were bullied for showing up at town hall meetings - they didn't know they were Tea Party members until they were labeled as such?

By bullied, do you mean spit on and had gum placed in their hair? Do you mean pushed down into a mud puddle? Or do you mean laughed at?

Furthermore, are you talking about 12 year old kids, or are you talking about full-grown adults?

I'm not allowed to suggest that you're just trolling because I've got enough infractions as it is, but you're derailing the thread with completely unrelated banter. You're equating a political movement by adults being laughed at for their beliefs to children being physically attacked for who they are.

On what planet are those two even remotely similar?

 

[WhoWee]

By bullied, do you mean spit on and had gum placed in their hair? Do you mean pushed down into a mud puddle? Or do you mean laughed at?

Furthermore, are you talking about 12 year old kids, or are you talking about full-grown adults?

I'm not allowed to suggest that you're just trolling because I've got enough infractions as it is, but you're derailing the thread with completely unrelated banter. You're equating a political movement by adults being laughed at for their beliefs to children being physically attacked for who they are.

On what planet are those two even remotely similar?

A bully is a bully - whether it's a white 12 year old boy picking on a defenseless classmate or a powerful political figure (or newsperson) picking on a taxpayer.

If you read my post, I said "Actually, the more we discuss it, I think the Tea Party has been bullied just as much. "

For some reason people think it's ok to call concerned voters "tea baggers"?

 

[JaredJames]

For some reason people think it's ok to call concerned voters "tea baggers"?

Read my last post please. It is not a gay insult. It is a reference to a sex act, and not in any way offensive. I see no reason why a person would consider it offensive, unless they hold the same mis-understanding as yourself (and those shouting it). In which case, it still isn't offensive, they just don't understand it. They are offended by their own interpretation of the phrase, not it's actual meaning. People just make far more of it than is deserved and amplify this mis-understanding.

 

[DaveC426913]

A bully is a bully - whether it's a white 12 year old boy picking on a defenseless classmate or a powerful political figure (or newsperson) picking on a taxpayer.

No, that is not the same.

Tea partiers self-identify around a public stance; they step into the forum of disagreement. They should expect to be challenged, even if that challenge may be overdone.


A child or a gay person does not want anything except to be left alone - and are bullied anyway.

 

[WhoWee]

Read my last post please. It is not a gay insult. It is a reference to a sex act, and not in any way offensive. I see no reason why a person would consider it offensive, unless they hold the same mis-understanding as yourself (and those shouting it). In which case, it still isn't offensive, they just don't understand it. They are offended by their own interpretation of the phrase, not it's actual meaning. People just make far more of it than is deserved and amplify this mis-understanding.

Are you serious - using a reference to a sex act (to label a member of a group) is not offensive?

 

[WhoWee]

A child or a gay person does not want anything except to be left alone - and are bullied anyway.

Do you have a link to support this assertion?

 

[JaredJames]

Are you serious - using a reference to a sex act (to label a member of a group) is not offensive?

You are pusing it as a reference to a gay male sex act and as such, calling someone it implies they are homosexual.

It isn't a reference to a gay male sex act. So calling someone it implies they are either a homosexual male or a heterosexual male or female. Aside from being a lesbian, how could you find that offensive?

"Oi you, you're a straight male!" - how offensive.

 

[JaredJames]

Do you have a link to support this assertion?

What assertion? Are you trying to say that gay people and children want to be picked on and bullied? That they want attention for what they are?

Labelling yourself as something voluntarily is different to being labelled by something you have no control over.

A white/black person is that colour through no control of their own.

A person who is a republican, is so by choice. They chose that label.

Can you not see how picking on someone for the colour of their skin is worse than picking on someone for their choice of political party?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you have a link to support this assertion?

What assertion? That, by default, people want to be left alone and not attacked unless they step into an arena of discourse? Yah, I'll get right on finding a reference for that...

The assertion you should be questioning is the other one - that Tea Partiers have something to say and that they step into the arena of discourse, which opens them up to attack.

 

[DaveC426913]

What assertation? Are you trying to say that gay people and children want to be picked on and bullied? That they want attention for what they are?

What he said.

 

[Evo]

Do you have a link to support this assertion?

Some facts do not require a citation, like we have one sun in or solar system, planets orbit around this sun, the Earth has large amounts of water, people don't like to be bullied.

Recognizing Victims

Those who are bullied usually hide this from their parents and they usually prefer to deal with the problem alone.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Emotional-Bullying-in-Children

Stop the trolling.

 

[mugaliens]

Bullying in all forms is a basic lack of respect for the differences of others.

On the other hand, when those differences pose a threat to either certain segments of society or society at large, limits must be established, and enforced.

It's a conundrum, no doubt about it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Have any gays been taunted in a public forum by members of the press and elected politicians?

I was going to try and list some of the numerous taunts, like Dick Armey referring to Barney Frank as "Barney Fag", but for want of time, and to keep this closer to the topic, I'll defer to Cindy McCain:

"Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future ... They can't serve our country openly ... Our government treats the LGBT community like second-class citizens, why shouldn't they [the bullies]?"

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2dKHrsZEKM&feature=related

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm just going to dive in here, guys... okay? I've read everything leading up to this point, but I don't want to join the current back-and-forth... so I'm going to re-energize this thread with a thought-provoking and powerful post!

I'd like to propose that there are differing degrees of bullying based on the victim even when the act itself might be the same.

An example:

• Verbally assaulting someone for their inability to keep up with you in a race
• Verbally assaulting someone in a wheel-chair for their inability to keep up with you in a race

Perhaps we would agree that one act of bullying is somehow more immoral than the other. And we might decide to attribute this to the victim's inability to change the facet of their existence that they are being taunted for (i.e. most people could choose to practice becoming a faster runner, but this is probably untrue for someone who is unable to walk).

So, if we can agree that all equivalent acts of bullying are not equally immoral, then we could probably start the discussion about which types of bullying are worst.

I would say that acts of bullying perpetrated against a permanently disabled person are the worst kinds of bullying. People with terminal illnesses and mental disabilities like autism. Perhaps these are first-class bullying acts. In fact, these have been shown to contribute to cases of suicide. My younger brother has Asperger's and when he was in high school bullying was a serious concern for me and my family.

Maybe the next type would be acts of bullying perpetrated against individuals who are perhaps different, but not in a disabling way. Homosexuals, trans-gender individuals, members of a different race or religious organization. Maybe we could call these second-class bullying acts. I'm certainly not claiming that it's second-class and less important, just that this class is probably better equipped, emotionally and socially, to deal with bullying. However, we should also note that bullying has DEFINITELY led to suicides in the gay community.

And the last type, could be third-class. These are the generic acts of bullying that are just generally prevalent in immature populations.

So! To conclude! I would actually rephrase the question thusly: "why are we concentrating on gay specific bullying instead of bullying against children with disabilities?"

[EDIT! I didn't mean it that way! Seriously. Sorry. Just poor choice of words.]

 

[Gokul43201]

So! To conclude! I would actually rephrase the question thusly: "why are we concentrating on gay specific bullying instead of bullying against children with disabilities?"

Assuming this is true, could one of the reasons be that society, in general, has much more sympathy for (and therefore much lower tolerance for violence against) people with disabilities than it does for gays? Are there any significantly influential groups, for instance, that promote the denigration of disabled people?