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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pattonias
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Specific
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived focus on anti-gay bullying over general bullying issues, questioning why society emphasizes one form over others. Participants share personal experiences of bullying and express a desire for a more comprehensive approach to combat all types of bullying. Some argue that bullying against minorities, including the LGBTQ+ community, requires specific attention due to the severity and societal implications. Others challenge the notion that anti-gay bullying is prioritized in media coverage, citing a lack of substantial evidence to support this claim. The conversation highlights the complexities of addressing bullying while advocating for equal rights and protections for all individuals.
  • #101
Newai said:
Again... Again... Again...

I know this thread is about bullying, and you seem to be stuck on that. My disagreement goes all the way back to my first post in this thread about children being worse than adults. Without any way of justifying that beyond personal anecdotes, it's simply unsubstantiated, and potentially thus against forum rules.

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.

Doesn't always get violent, but there is an abundant amount of heckling and bullying in the sports world. I'm sure there are other large examples than sports too, have to think of some.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
Hepth said:
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.

Doesn't always get violent, but there is an abundant amount of heckling and bullying in the sports world. I'm sure there are other large examples than sports too, have to think of some.

Pretty much every big rivalry ever?
 
  • #103
Char. Limit said:
Pretty much every big rivalry ever?

Perhaps its a different type of bullying now that I think about it. Maybe a little worse as you're taunting a complete stranger for their choice in supporting a sports team, rather than someone you see every day in class, most oft for many years.

Takes more guts to bully a stranger about whom you have no idea of their reactions to taunting than a classmate who has been picked on for years, and has never retaliated.
 
  • #104
A cynical person would say the better the bully can perceive possible negative consequences coming towards himself, the less likely he is to bully - and that's the only difference between children and adults.

Hence the mob mentality. There's strength in numbers, which makes it important to belong to the group no matter what. The bullying emphasizes the difference between being "on the bus" and "off the bus".

Adults are a little more sophisticated in their thought process and realize the negative consequences don't have to happen at that instant to be negative. The fact that the victim knows what happened and has avenues to bring bad consequences on the bully stifles the bullying.

Absent those constraints, say a town where it's acceptable to bully a minority group, not only do you have the same pre-adolescent levels of bullying such as saying this is your water fountain and this is mine, etc, but adults can step it up to another level, to the point of lynchings, killings, etc.

Or, if an adult is in a situation where he feels total control, such as with a child, the bullying can jump to sexual molestation, etc.

An adult's ability to see and avoid bad consequences in the future is main reason for adults not bullying as much as kids do. The change in behavior (avoiding bad consequences) comes first, and then the kids or adults slowly bring their morals into line with their behavior.

A more optimistic person would say changing the morals via education comes first, and then is followed by a change in behavior.

I think there's probably a mix between both, since there's many kids that are a little more capable of empathy and see the reactions of the other person as a negative consequence and never really develop a habit of bullying (but it would be a very rare child that didn't at least give it a go to see what happens). And maybe even a few of the childhood bullies develop empathy, it just took them longer to develop it. But there are a lot of people who are only kept in line by the fear of negative consequences and it's only the improved ability to perceive possible negative consequences that change their behavior.
 
  • #105
I was actually going to reply the same as BobG. When it comes to adults, sporting events are definitely one of the main places bullying can occur. However, I think the main part of this is the mob mentality combined with anonymity.

Whereas bullying in a school is a lot more personal and can have much deeper effects on the victim.

A random person calling you "gay" is one thing, but a person you know, someone you should be able to trust calling you "gay" is going to have a far more profound effect.

Although I do agree that bullying is apparent in all walks of life, the severity of the act does differ.
 
  • #106
BobG said:
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.
 
  • #107
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #108
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #109
Hepth said:
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.
 
  • #110
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #111
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #112
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #113
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)?
 
  • #114
DaveC426913 said:
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?
 
  • #115
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?
 
  • #116
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #117
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #118
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.)
 
Last edited:
  • #119
I can go with that definition.
 
  • #120
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!
 
  • #121
AlexES16 said:
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?
 
  • #122
AlexES16 said:
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).
 
  • #123
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #124
AlexES16 said:
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 said:
My religion requires that I denounce homosexuality as a sin against the community. Do you respect my religious right to denounce homosexuality?

jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #125
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #126
lisab said:
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.)
 
  • #127
lisab said:
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.
 
  • #128
jarednjames said:
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".

FlexGunship said:
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.

FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #129
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #130
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #131
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.​
 
  • #132
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #133
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #134
Pattonias said:
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 :biggrin:
 
  • #135
ShawnD said:
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 :biggrin:

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.
 
  • #136
Char. Limit said:
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 :wink:
 
  • #137
ShawnD said:
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 :wink:

So, in other words, as a white Christian male, I'm screwed?
 
  • #138
Char. Limit said:
So, in other words, as a white Christian male, I'm screwed?

No, as a white atheist male you're screwed.
 
  • #139
jarednjames said:
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...
 
  • #140
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.
 
  • #141
FlexGunship said:
My religion requires that I denounce homosexuality as a sin against the community. Do you respect my religious right to denounce homosexuality?

I respect your idea, but in a country with good constitution you can't attack the individual becouse its a crime. But you are free to think what ever you want.

Goverment is to protect the smallest minority of all time, the individual.
 
  • #142
Char. Limit said:
So, in other words, as a white Christian male, I'm screwed?

Correct. There's no way to get straight white christian men to support anti-bullying causes. If this was actually possible, it would already be done and bullies would already be in death camps. Luckily white straight men are not the majority. If we get support from all gays, all blacks, all jews, all muslims, and all women, we can pass a law to put bullies on death row.


I just saw that movie kickass and I'm thinking the two bullies in that movie totally deserve to be on death row. This is why we keep fighting the good fight!
 
  • #143
ShawnD said:
Correct. There's no way to get straight white christian men to support anti-bullying causes. If this was actually possible, it would already be done and bullies would already be in death camps. Luckily white straight men are not the majority. If we get support from all gays, all blacks, all jews, all muslims, and all women, we can pass a law to put bullies on death row.


I just saw that movie kickass and I'm thinking the two bullies in that movie totally deserve to be on death row. This is why we keep fighting the good fight!

You're rather wrong with that second sentence. I'll just offer a counterexample. I'm a straight white male (does Spinozist count as Christian?) and I support anti-bullying causes. I just support them for what they are: anti-bullying causes.
 
  • #144
jarednjames said:
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).

Big people also attack becouse there is no retaliation. Even if you get beat up, just one hit will make his brain remeber that, if he wana mess with you at least he is gona get 1 hard and painful blow.

Also if the problem is serius, go boxing, MMA or what ever at least for a time.

Live free or die
 
  • #145
AlexES16 said:
Big people also attack becouse there is no retaliation. Even if you get beat up, just one hit will make his brain remeber that, if he wana mess with you at least he is gona get 1 hard and painful blow.

Also if the problem is serius, go boxing, MMA or what ever at least for a time.

Live free or die

Spoken as someone who has never been on the receiving end of things by the sound of it.

When the person is bigger than you and you aren't capable of fighting back, you don't.

I can't punch for sh*t. If it came to close quarters and I didn't have a weapon, I would be useless against someone like that.
 
  • #146
AlexES16 said:
Goverment is to protect the smallest minority of all time, the individual.

Not necessarily.

The police are there to protect you, however they don't have to respond to your call. You aren't entitled to protection from the government when it comes to crime.
Don’t look to Constitution for help. “In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” Stevens writes, “the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/03/the-police-arent-legally-obligated-to-protect-you/
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Google: "Do the police have to protect you?" for more links.
 
  • #147
DaveC426913 said:
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.

You have a way of teaching empathy?

Perhaps - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1989122-1,00.html.

Empathy is best learned in infancy and early childhood. Very young children learn to read their parents emotions, and then others, when what the child does has an effect on the people around them. All of that cajoling with the "Pleeeeeeze" and the cutest face, all the while watching your face to see if they're making progress or have to try something else is teaching empathy.

If random good and bad happen to the child regardless of what he does, or stuff happens at 8:00 AM or 3:00 PM regardless of what he does, then there's little advantage to learning to read all of emotions of the humans around them. (In some situations, there's probably some advantage to learning to stay out of the way when the adults are drinking, stay away in the mornings, stay away when the adult's yelling into the phone, etc, but staying away also tends to lessen the chance of reading the full range of emotions.)

I guess some of these programs work, but it has to be pretty challenging to teach empathy to teenagers. It's not something normally learned in a classroom.
 
  • #148
I guess most of you people are from a nation that i respect a lot, USA.
USA the powerfull country but a country that loves liberty, freedom and the pursue of happiness.

USA for me is maybe the gratest nation of all time.

Founded by revolutionaries like George Washington, a great brave men. A men who fighted back the britts. Imitate those people or even strive to be better.
 
  • #149
Words I never thought I'd hear in my lifetime... :smile:
 
  • #150
Alex, I'm British. I would strongly disagree with you. I prefer the UK to the US.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top