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

[Jack21222]

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.



*blinks*

Not worse! Meaner. It's meaner to torture somebody for fun than it is to attack them for money.

 

[Newai]

Not worse! Meaner. It's meaner to torture somebody for fun than it is to attack them for money.

I don't understand the difference.

 

[Char. Limit]

No. That was an interpretation of Char. Limit's comment at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2994593#post2994593

Did you think I was replying to you?

Odd, since I didn't mention adults at all, unless you consider college kids to be "adult".

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't understand the difference.

Really?

One is a sadistic behavior; the torment of another individual for the pleasure of seeing them in pain. You could do this to a hamster.

The other is an act of violence perpetrated for immediate personal gain. Something you couldn't do to a hamster.

That's a surprisingly stark difference (well, even without the hamster thing). Sociopathic behavior is an end in its own right. Whereas robbery, violence is incidental to the actual theft.

 

[JaredJames]

Really?

One is a sadistic behavior; the torment of another individual for the pleasure of seeing them in pain. You could do this to a hamster.

The other is an act of violence perpetrated for immediate personal gain. Something you couldn't do to a hamster.

That's a surprisingly stark difference (well, even without the hamster thing). Sociopathic behavior is an end in its own right. Whereas robbery, violence is incidental to the actual theft.

I think he mean't between "worse" and "meaner".

 

[Al68]

The other is an act of violence perpetrated for immediate personal gain. Something you couldn't do to a hamster.

I have to disagree with that. Hamsters are tasty.

 

[JaredJames]

I have to disagree with that. Hamsters are tasty.

A statement I never want to hear the explanation for...

 

[Char. Limit]

A statement I never want to hear the explanation for...

Hamsters taste good. Therefore, they are tasty.

 

[Newai]

Odd, since I didn't mention adults at all, unless you consider college kids to be "adult".

You didn't have to given that your comment was a reply to mine:

Each coming down to personal opinion of how their experiences differ by weight of seriousness. Does a poll asking for the number of people who have been hurt by adults versus hurt by kids quantify which group is "meaner" or worse?

I think everyone knows what I meant. Maybe this is better: Personal anecdotes do not quantify which group is worse.

 

[Char. Limit]

You didn't have to given that your comment was a reply to mine:

I responded to the last part, not the first.

 

[Hepth]

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.

 

[Char. Limit]

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?

 

[Hepth]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[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!