The Anti-Bully Speaker is a Bully

[mmhmm]

GEL's definition does state a bully picks on "smaller or weaker" people. How would one know if another is smaller, or weaker, if one cannot see the person? You might assume, but you cannot know. The person could claim to be male and 6'6" and actually be female and 4'9". Also, in a direct bullying situation the victim has no way out. They're confronted physically and often cornered, or heckled by a group. On the internet, there's an "X" in the upper right of your browser that will relieve you of the confrontation at the click of a mouse. One cannot be bullied on the internet by anonymous people. All you have to do is close your browser or, in the case of these boards, use the Ignore function. I agree with GEL. This isn't bullying. If you don't use the Ignore function and enter into a disagreement with another poster, you're there because you want to be there.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I agree with you, mmhmm. The difference, I think, lies in the fact that we here are (at least by virtue of our age) adults. It's a totally different thing when it happens to a child. I'm not sure you can just say, "Click on the X." I don't know much of anything about children except that, because they are children, they are less emotionally equipped to deal with this sort of thing than we are. I know that if I get into a heated discussion with someone, most likely tomorrow, if I'm wrong, I'll apologize and we'll go on with things. I'm not sure a child gets that, but rather sees it as a life altering experience.

I intend, this afternoon, to actually do some research on children who commit suicide because of being bullied, as that was a subject of something I watched last night. I think I'll find that they had other issues, but it will still be interesting to find out if violence or true face-to-face bullying was blamed.

[mmhmm]

We're on the same page, GEL. It's different with children because they lack the experience, and the emotional control to deal with this type of harassment. Also, they're likely dealing with someone they actually know at school, or in the neighborhood in which they live. They have to face the bully in the real world, and that's a completely different situation. When you're dealing with someone who knows you, knows where you live, knows where you go to school or where you work, the ramifications are more threatening.

I've done quite a bit of reading on this issue. I think you'll find plenty to research and it is compelling. Something needs to be done to help these kids learn to cope in this technological world.

[mmhmm]

For the record, since some of you don't normally post in this thread, these are the rules for the Religious Discussion forum:

The rules of this board are very simple. Debate and discussion is to remain civil. If you cannot be civil, you will be barred from posting on this board.



1. NO personal attacks. Under no circumstances will you flame another poster for having a different viewpoint from you.

2. NO preaching! You may voice your opinion and feelings, but you will not "pray for someone" (unless they specifically ask you to do so). You will not tell someone they are going to hell, or otherwise chastise them because they are an atheist or agnostic.


Everyone is entitled to whatever belief system feels right to them. DO NOT ram yours down everyone else's throats.

[Don Perignon]

Apr 30, 2012 14:38:15 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

For the record, since some of you don't normally post in this thread, these are the rules for the Religious Discussion forum:

The rules of this board are very simple. Debate and discussion is to remain civil. If you cannot be civil, you will be barred from posting on this board.



1. NO personal attacks. Under no circumstances will you flame another poster for having a different viewpoint from you.

2. NO preaching! You may voice your opinion and feelings, but you will not "pray for someone" (unless they specifically ask you to do so). You will not tell someone they are going to hell, or otherwise chastise them because they are an atheist or agnostic.


Everyone is entitled to whatever belief system feels right to them. DO NOT ram yours down everyone else's throats.

That "privilege" is reserved to the "elite" cadre of "moderators".

[cereb]

Apr 30, 2012 8:24:37 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 30, 2012 5:30:47 GMT -5 cereb said:

"Once again, I have to question why this poster is allowed to attack others with impunity. This is the second time I have seen it and the second time I have spoken up about it."

"Its quite another to basically call someone a "coward" because they do not agree with your beliefs. It's a personal attack and should not be tolerated here - regardess of who you are and who you associate with. "


Once again, I haven't attacked anyone. I didn't call anyone anything as I was addressing the content of the post, the "idea" if you will. I respect Virgil, always have, and we really don't have any issues between us. He knows where I'm at, I know where he's at. As a moderator, had Virgil felt that my remark was a violation of the COC I am pretty sure he could have done something about it.

I respectfully ask that you discontinue these accusations.

In my interactions with you and my observance of your posts, you have never done anything respectfully unless it is with someone who agrees with your every word. You belittle people, you call them names and you get downright nasty. You can't seem to enter a discussion without some what-you-see-as-clever sarcastic and angry remark.

I will continue to point out your personal attacks as that isn't a violation of the CoC here. That is, unless some new rule is suddenly created that says "Cereb can be disrespectful but nobody is to say a thing about it."

I do not wish animosity with anyone. You are a fairly intelligent woman with whom I think I could have good debate with should you ever be able to stifle your anger and insults. However, I will not sit by and let your personal attacks go unnoticed. And in my opinion, that is what they are. Personal attacks. If you are somehow "protected", then so be it. That won't stop me from respectfully questioning why your behavior is allowed.

I don't recall EVER having ANY interactions with you, and I have a pretty good memory. I am sarcastic quite often. Name calling against other posters? No, not really. I do however make it a regular practice to call certain politicians and talking heads "douche bags" Pretty much the only person I have ever personally attacked on this forum is PBP, and that's a long standing thing. I do give Henry a hard time, but that's about it. He actually really likes it. Somehow you have interpreted my posts to be "angry". I cannot tell you how far you are from the truth. Perception is everything isn't it?

I would like to add that I have never had an issue with you previously since I don't believe we ever actually had any interaction to begin with, and I don't expect to in the future. If you fancy yourself the board police and you are so offended by my posting style, please, by all means go right ahead. Everybody needs a job in life right? I'm all for doing what makes you happy. I'm sure the moderators could really use your help since it appears to be your contention that they are unable to do their job to your standards. Perhaps you would also like to write to pro boards and ask them to update the COC to reflect your personal preferences and wishes to dis include harassment so that you may continue to throw out your baseless accusations for a continuous feel good kinda moment.

In the mean time, it's generally good manners and adult like behavior that when someone very respectfully requests that you stop a particular behavior aimed at that person, that you act in an adult manner, and stop the behavior. Just an FYI. I really have no issue with you. My personal preference would be to keep it that way. It's entirely up to you. Enjoy your evening.

[cereb]

Apr 30, 2012 11:18:21 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I suppose if you ask 10 different people their definition of a "bully", you will probably get 10 different answers. I'll use the definition I found in the dictionary:

bul·ly1    /ˈbʊli/ Show Spelled [bool-ee] Show IPA noun, plural bul·lies, verb, bul·lied, bul·ly·ing, adjective, interjection
noun
1. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

This definition does not state there has to be any type of violence at all for it to be considered bullying. It also doesn't state that there is a particular venue that makes it bullying, nor does it exclude any type of venue. I would assume then that it includes the telephone, the mail, the internet and any other venue a bully wishes to employ.

To me, the kicker here, in relation to the subject of this thread is "smaller or weaker" people. I have no doubt the speaker is larger than I am. My dog is bigger than I am. I also have no doubt that he is weaker than I since he feels the need to rant and rave and pump his fists to get his point across. Therefore? By definition, he can't bully me!

It's not bullying, IMO.

The key is power differential or perceived power differential.

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2012 10:09:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 30, 2012 9:26:47 GMT -5 swamp said:

Just because you're being a dickhead doesn't mean you're being a bully.

precisely. bullying implies a use or threat of force. i see none here.

It does? Where? What is the definition? People have been labeled as "bullies" without threatening physical force to others. I don't think i have heard that as the defining definition.

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2012 18:02:45 GMT -5 cereb said:

Apr 30, 2012 11:18:21 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I suppose if you ask 10 different people their definition of a "bully", you will probably get 10 different answers. I'll use the definition I found in the dictionary:

bul·ly1    /ˈbʊli/ Show Spelled [bool-ee] Show IPA noun, plural bul·lies, verb, bul·lied, bul·ly·ing, adjective, interjection
noun
1. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

This definition does not state there has to be any type of violence at all for it to be considered bullying. It also doesn't state that there is a particular venue that makes it bullying, nor does it exclude any type of venue. I would assume then that it includes the telephone, the mail, the internet and any other venue a bully wishes to employ.

To me, the kicker here, in relation to the subject of this thread is "smaller or weaker" people. I have no doubt the speaker is larger than I am. My dog is bigger than I am. I also have no doubt that he is weaker than I since he feels the need to rant and rave and pump his fists to get his point across. Therefore? By definition, he can't bully me!

It's not bullying, IMO.

The key is power differential or perceived power differential.

Well, then in this case a Speaker is perceived on a different hierarchy as Student Listener. So are you saying the person who cries "Bully" is the only one with a valid perception? If so, then this would be bullying. And, anything is bullying just because someone says it is.
That is the problem. Just because someone "perceives" bullying doesn't necessarily make it so. This becomes a very difficult thing to sort out.

[cereb]

Apr 30, 2012 18:32:17 GMT -5 @shooby said:

Apr 30, 2012 10:09:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

precisely. bullying implies a use or threat of force. i see none here.

It does? Where? What is the definition? People have been labeled as "bullies" without threatening physical force to others. I don't think i have heard that as the defining definition.

The "force" used does not necessarily mean "physical" it can be psychological or social.

[cereb]

"Well, then in this case a Speaker is perceived on a different hierarchy as Student Listener."


Obviously not, since the 100 or so students didn't believe the speaker had the power differential to keep them in their seats. There was no fear of repercussion because they left the lecture.

[Deleted]

But, my point. So, the person who claims to be bullied is always assumed to be telling the scenario exactly the way it happened? Does the accused bully have any rights ? That is my question. I know kids who have been bullied. I also know kids who think everyone is a bully and that there are some who are hypersentive and quick to label everything as bullying.

[cereb]

"Just because someone "perceives" bullying doesn't necessarily make it so. This becomes a very difficult thing to sort out. "

It is real or perceived power, not perceived bullying. If you are being belittled, humiliated, embarrassed, physically assaulted by an individual that you perceive has physical, emotional or social power over you and this is a repeated pattern of behavior, you have just met a bully. That's the definition

[mmhmm]

The thing we're failing to consider here is ... the kids who found the speech objectionable got up and walked out. Nobody blocked their exit. They simply left. Once outside that hall, they didn't have to listen to the haranging anymore. A true bully would have blocked their exit, or followed them out, bellowing all the way. In a case like this, you have a choice. You can stay and be offended, or you can leave. Kudos to the kids for walking out on the nonsense. You can't bully someone who won't allow you to do so. That would be someone who does not give away his/her power.

[mmhmm]

Message deleted by mmhmm. Double post.

[cereb]

Apr 30, 2012 18:50:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The thing we're failing to consider here is ... the kids who found the speech objectionable got up and walked out. Nobody blocked their exit. They simply left. Once outside that hall, they didn't have to listen to the haranging anymore. A true bully would have blocked their exit, or followed them out, bellowing all the way. In a case like this, you have a choice. You can stay and be offended, or you can leave. Kudos to the kids for walking out on the nonsense. You can't bully someone who won't allow you to do so. That would be someone who does not give away his/her power.

Exactly.

[cereb]

Apr 30, 2012 11:38:44 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I agree with you, mmhmm. The difference, I think, lies in the fact that we here are (at least by virtue of our age) adults. It's a totally different thing when it happens to a child. I'm not sure you can just say, "Click on the X." I don't know much of anything about children except that, because they are children, they are less emotionally equipped to deal with this sort of thing than we are. I know that if I get into a heated discussion with someone, most likely tomorrow, if I'm wrong, I'll apologize and we'll go on with things. I'm not sure a child gets that, but rather sees it as a life altering experience.

I intend, this afternoon, to actually do some research on children who commit suicide because of being bullied, as that was a subject of something I watched last night. I think I'll find that they had other issues, but it will still be interesting to find out if violence or true face-to-face bullying was blamed.

Most of the attempts or "completed" suicides involve a term called "social aggression" which is a fancy term for social bullying. In some, particularly young teen girls this type of abuse over a period of time can cause perceived social isolation, depresses the natural processes of neurotransmitters in the brain causing feelings of loneliness, isolation and suicidal ideation.

[cereb]

"It's a totally different thing when it happens to a child. I'm not sure you can just say, "Click on the X." I don't know much of anything about children except that, because they are children, they are less emotionally equipped to deal with this sort of thing than we are. I know that if I get into a heated discussion with someone, most likely tomorrow, if I'm wrong, I'll apologize and we'll go on with things. I'm not sure a child gets that, but rather sees it as a life altering experience."


You would be correct. A young teen girl who has had a vicious rumor spread over social networking knows that when she walks into school the next morning, everyone will know.

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2012 18:50:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The thing we're failing to consider here is ... the kids who found the speech objectionable got up and walked out. Nobody blocked their exit. They simply left. Once outside that hall, they didn't have to listen to the haranging anymore. A true bully would have blocked their exit, or followed them out, bellowing all the way. In a case like this, you have a choice. You can stay and be offended, or you can leave. Kudos to the kids for walking out on the nonsense. You can't bully someone who won't allow you to do so. That would be someone who does not give away his/her power.

Very good point mmmhhmm.

[moxie]

Hey!