RE: Bullying? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 3:05:06 AM)

~FR

Anyone know what is going on with the one who posted her topless photo?



BoundSlave4Life -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 3:45:51 AM)

While I may normally agree with the OP's view on this matter, I'd have to disagree. The girl killed herself BECAUSE she was being TORTURED. Not to make a sleight against you (OP) but things have changed a lot in 48 years. There's a difference between people at your school teasing you and making you feel like crap, and having to change schools for the torture to continue there, then MOVE for it to follow her.
The fact that she had to change schools speaks volumes about the amount of bullying she was being forced to endure. Even after she changed schools, she MOVED to get away from it to only have it follow her.
Now while a person needs to take responsibility for their own actions (and the fact that she's a child aside) mistakes shouldn't follow a person every where they go. One or two mistakes made out of stupidity shouldn't follow a person as much as it followed her.

I don't know how many of you watched this, but watch the video she made. The straw that broke the camels back was the comments she received, telling her to kill herself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej7afkypUsc




angelikaJ -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 4:49:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: descrite

I have to agree with a lot of what the OP said...granting power to externalities detracts from the power of the individual.

But I think what we're witnessing now is an adjustment period...there is some painful transition going on in our society right now: we are stuck between the way it was, and the way it's going to be. And some people are going to hurt themselves during the process.

The way it was: slut-shaming, worrying about image, physical threats, and so forth.

The way it's going to be: we're looking at a generation where every single person is going to have nude photos of themselves somewhere in the Webiverse. There will be nobody untouched by the Stupid Photo.

Which will reset the meter, for our whole civilization.

Hey, remember how doing drugs (even weed) used to be the kiss of death for a politician? We have now had three Presidents, two Supreme Court Justices, and at least one Speaker of the House who have all admitted doing it...and it's a non-issue, today.

Sex (and Stupid Sex Acts) is the next frontier, and it's happening right in front of us.

The worst thing to do right now is to try to monkey with the process.

Which is exactly what we're doing.

We're passing laws, and inviting government oversight, and generally attempting to meddle with the New Now...which always, always fucks up progress.

It's going to be a better world, in a few moments. Until then, the growing pains include some people who have a tough time handling the transition; the best thing we can do is let them know it's not as bad as they think it is, that it's never the end of the world, and that we love them.

Trying to control them won't work. It will hurt more people, in the long run.









I agree with much of what you have said...

But -

I disagree with your assessment of the new oversight measures.

It is a new world and the new laws are about imposing a new level of accountability that wasn't really needed... until recently.

It is a shame that people have to be told what is and is not okay as far as behavior goes, but without that oversight and official word + consequence more people would commit murder simply because there is nothing stopping them from doing it in society.


There are young people who are being bullied to death and commit suicide because they see no other way for the pain to stop.

A website defines the circumstance that lead to suicide as this:
Suicide is not chosen; it happens when pain exceeds the resources for coping with pain.

Bullying via the internet is relatively new.
Stalking via the internet is relatively new...and there are women on this site who have fully experienced it and who have needed law enforcement to make it stop.
Cyber-harassment and (non-consentual) targeted humiliation are relatively new.

We had laws to prohibit the non-cyber versions of all of these and now we need new laws to encompass the special circumstances that the cyber-venues pose.



angelikaJ -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 5:02:39 AM)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/tormenters-target-amanda-todd-s-online-memorials-amid-police-probe-1.994594



BoundSlave4Life -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 5:04:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ


quote:

ORIGINAL: descrite

I have to agree with a lot of what the OP said...granting power to externalities detracts from the power of the individual.

But I think what we're witnessing now is an adjustment period...there is some painful transition going on in our society right now: we are stuck between the way it was, and the way it's going to be. And some people are going to hurt themselves during the process.

The way it was: slut-shaming, worrying about image, physical threats, and so forth.

The way it's going to be: we're looking at a generation where every single person is going to have nude photos of themselves somewhere in the Webiverse. There will be nobody untouched by the Stupid Photo.

Which will reset the meter, for our whole civilization.

Hey, remember how doing drugs (even weed) used to be the kiss of death for a politician? We have now had three Presidents, two Supreme Court Justices, and at least one Speaker of the House who have all admitted doing it...and it's a non-issue, today.

Sex (and Stupid Sex Acts) is the next frontier, and it's happening right in front of us.

The worst thing to do right now is to try to monkey with the process.

Which is exactly what we're doing.

We're passing laws, and inviting government oversight, and generally attempting to meddle with the New Now...which always, always fucks up progress.

It's going to be a better world, in a few moments. Until then, the growing pains include some people who have a tough time handling the transition; the best thing we can do is let them know it's not as bad as they think it is, that it's never the end of the world, and that we love them.

Trying to control them won't work. It will hurt more people, in the long run.









I agree with much of what you have said...

But -

I disagree with your assessment of the new oversight measures.

It is a new world and the new laws are about imposing a new level of accountability that wasn't really needed... until recently.

It is a shame that people have to be told what is and is not okay as far as behavior goes, but without that oversight and official word + consequence more people would commit murder simply because there is nothing stopping them from doing it in society.


There are young people who are being bullied to death and commit suicide because they see no other way for the pain to stop.

A website defines the circumstance that lead to suicide as this:
Suicide is not chosen; it happens when pain exceeds the resources for coping with pain.

Bullying via the internet is relatively new.
Stalking via the internet is relatively new...and there are women on this site who have fully experienced it and who have needed law enforcement to make it stop.
Cyber-harassment and (non-consentual) targeted humiliation are relatively new.

We had laws to prohibit the non-cyber versions of all of these and now we need new laws to encompass the special circumstances that the cyber-venues pose.



IF what I'm hearing about her sleeping with someone else's boyfriend is true, girls are VISCOUS and whomever it was that got cheated on very well may have hunted her down at every new school or place that she moved to JUST to make her life a living hell.



dcnovice -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 7:11:43 AM)

FR

Musing on this thread today, I found myself remembering a bit of homely wisdom from my college days.

One fine Sunday, I was the cross bearer for a service in the university chapel. As I lifted the processional cross out of the stand, I was stunned by its weight. "This thing is much heavier than it looks," I burst out.

The priest--a kind, wise soul with a beautiful singing voice--smiled gently and said, "Most crosses are."



Killerangel -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 8:19:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Musing on this thread today, I found myself remembering a bit of homely wisdom from my college days.

One fine Sunday, I was the cross bearer for a service in the university chapel. As I lifted the processional cross out of the stand, I was stunned by its weight. "This thing is much heavier than it looks," I burst out.

The priest--a kind, wise soul with a beautiful singing voice--smiled gently and said, "Most crosses are."


Thanks fpr sharing. I can tell I'll be thinking of that today now and then...



Kaliko -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 8:24:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoundSlave4Life

IF what I'm hearing about her sleeping with someone else's boyfriend is true, girls are VISCOUS and whomever it was that got cheated on very well may have hunted her down at every new school or place that she moved to JUST to make her life a living hell.


True. Even in just my own experience, girls are much more viscous than boys. Girls suck. And not in the good way.






Kaliko -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 8:37:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: descrite

The way it was: slut-shaming, worrying about image, physical threats, and so forth.

The way it's going to be: we're looking at a generation where every single person is going to have nude photos of themselves somewhere in the Webiverse. There will be nobody untouched by the Stupid Photo.

Which will reset the meter, for our whole civilization.



Hmm...I hadn't thought about it this way. Interesting. I haven't thought about it enough to know if I agree or disagree, though.

quote:



We're passing laws, and inviting government oversight, and generally attempting to meddle with the New Now...which always, always fucks up progress.



I believe the government oversight (in America, anyway) stems from the duty to provide appropriate education to all students. It took me some time to wrap my brain around it, but once it clicked, it clicked big. If a student is too scared to come to school, or is too intimidated to speak up in class or work in groups, then that student isn't receiving the same education as other students in that class.

Not to say that schools don't care about what's happening on an emotional and mental level to the student outside of school hours. But the responsibility of the school is education. So laws have been passed like crazy this past decade to try and keep up with the instant and far reach of cyber-bullying in an effort to provide a safe learning environment. Yes, "safe" is actually in the law.

"All pupils have the right to attend public schools, including chartered public schools, that are safe, secure, and peaceful environments. One of the legislature's highest priorities is to protect our children from physical, emotional, and psychological violence by addressing the harm caused by bullying and cyberbullying in our public schools." (NH RSA)

It is a right to be able to have access to a safe environment for education. That is why the bullying laws are popping all over the place, not necessarily because there is any greater moral outrage for bullying today versus two decades ago. It's just a matter of keeping up with the ease at which victims are now attacked.




SpaceSpank -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 9:52:39 AM)

This case was tragic on many levels.

My big issue with this was... she moved schools, obviously her parents knew about what happened, it's kind of hard to cover that up. When the abuse followed her and she moved yet again... where were the parents in this? I would have been on the phone with the police trying to find whoever was doing this like yesterday. The fact that it's photos of an underage person means it's a serious offense, that it was coupled with blackmail/attempted blackmail as well only makes it worse.

She should have been taken out of school for awhile, home schooled perhaps, or simply sent to a private institution for awhile, and simply not given any access to a computer with online capabilities. She went on facebook numerous times, she was e-mailing and texting people, who knows what else she was doing online? It's obvious the parents didn't know. So in essence she was allowed to exacerbate her own issues... and was clearly not in control of herself enough to do so.

Had she hidden this all and it only came to light much later, with no physical abuse, no photos being sent out, no school changes, no therapy... it would be a slightly different story. But as it stands now, while she was stupid and culpable for the initial photo and actions that got her into it, and the bully/bullies that seemed dedicated to making her miserable gave her the push to send her over the edge... I do wonder where the parents were to try and catch her and bring her back.

It's impossible to make laws to protect against this stuff. They won't do any good, it's up to the kids to be more responsible and that means the parents need to step up and be more aware of their kids. There's only so much you can hide from parents who are attentive and involved in your life.

I had some hard times as a kid, I remember what it was like. I know how cruel kids can be... and as mentioned earlier in this thread, the girls can often be much, much more vicious than the guys can. I'm not immune to blame, I had my fair share of times where I made fun of someone too. I was no saint in that regard. BUt on the flip side I also know what it's like to be a target as well.

And while I was picked on for the opposite reason of many, it was still being picked on. I was big, tall, tough looking. Everyone always wanted to try and get a jab in on me to prove how tough they were, and no one cared since big guy = no emotions to a bunch of middle/high school kids. That shit does take a toll on you after awhile, I didn't take shit from ANYONE, but that doesn't mean it didn't get me down. There is only so many times you can have some idiot come up to you and start insulting you, trying to pick fights with you (usually with their posse of 5-6+ friends behind them) before it eventually gets to you. If you don't fight, you're a coward, if you fight and lose, you are weak, if you fight and win, most of the time it was someone smaller and you don't exactly get much positive outcome from it. The other guy gets more of a boost from trying to fight the big guy than the big guy gets from winning over the little guy. Every choice was bad, and after awhile you just try and remove yourself from needing to make that choice.

Sure, I hid the issues I was having from my parents, everything was always "fine", but I never needed to change schools. I never let my grades slip, and I never had to go crawl in a ditch from being beaten up. Even at my lowest point I never got pushed as far as this girl did, but had I been driven into more drastic drastic changes and situations like her... I would have hoped my parents would have been involved enough to get to the bottom of it and get it fixed.




descrite -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 11:40:07 AM)

quote:

We had laws to prohibit the non-cyber versions of all of these and now we need new laws to encompass the special circumstances that the cyber-venues pose.


Wait-- we did? We have laws against talking to/about people?

No, we don't. We have laws against making laws like that.

Even libel/slander requirements go far, far beyond, "What you said made me feel bad."


We should be very, very happy that the newest type of bullying is utterly constrained to words on a computer screen. That is the best kind of bullying. Roger Ebert does it all the time. Everyone on Yelp does it. It helps us have a better society. Does it suck to be the target? Sure. But...remember the verse that starts with "sticks and stones"?

In a world where kids beat each other up with words, all kids are equal: everyone has words, nobody has more words than the other, and the words don't cause physical damage. This is a Nerds' Valhalla. We should welcome any world where bullying is confined to words-- that is what we've been working on, for thousands of years.

If some people feel sad reading words about themselves, so sad that they want to die instead of reading more words...that is a defect in those people. This defect should not require that everyone else's access and free use of words be limited. It would seem that a better course of action would be to locate the defective people and offer them more coping resources, rather than trying to restrict everyone else's freedom.

quote:

without that oversight and official word + consequence more people would commit murder simply because there is nothing stopping them from doing it in society.


I don't believe that for a minute. The amazing part of our society is not how much crime occurs, but how often it doesn't. There is plenty of opportunity for people to commit all sorts of crimes with little to no consequence, yet we choose not to.

If the only reason you act in a civil manner is because of the possible penalties for not doing so, there is something wrong with you.








angelikaJ -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 12:38:46 PM)

Bullying is beyond saying things that just make someone feel bad.
It has nothing to do with restaurant critiques or movie reviews.
36 states currently have anti-bullying laws.


Special anti-stalking laws were written for the protection of the victims... they tie into the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.
The Telecommunications Act carried these protections against cyber-stalking and harassment in 1996 by changing the wording that before was intended for telephone communications (which was part of a 1934 law).







descrite -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 12:42:20 PM)

Okay, angelika, I'll bite: what is "bullying," distinct from "saying things that make someone feel bad"?



Kaliko -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 1:17:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: descrite

Okay, angelika, I'll bite: what is "bullying," distinct from "saying things that make someone feel bad"?



I'm not Angelika, (obviously) but I'll jump in, if that's okay. This is from NH law. It's not a promise that no student will ever feel bad, ever. It's a method of defining behavior that should be curtailed, as it may interfere enough with a student's life to affect his/her education.

Not every instance that is reported to school authorities is defined as bullying. There is a series of steps that administration goes through and the reporting requirement is strict and unwavering. Schools must very clearly show that an investigation into behavior was completed, and what the results of that investigation were. And very often, the results will show that the instance was not one of bullying.

193-F:3 Definitions. – In this chapter:
I. (a) "Bullying'' means a single significant incident or a pattern of incidents involving a written, verbal, or electronic communication, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at another pupil which:
(1) Physically harms a pupil or damages the pupil's property;
(2) Causes emotional distress to a pupil;
(3) Interferes with a pupil's educational opportunities;
(4) Creates a hostile educational environment; or
(5) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the school.
(b) "Bullying'' shall include actions motivated by an imbalance of power based on a pupil's actual or perceived personal characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs, or motivated by the pupil's association with another person and based on the other person's characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs.
II. "Cyberbullying'' means conduct defined in paragraph I of this section undertaken through the use of electronic devices.
III. "Electronic devices'' include, but are not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, pagers, electronic mail, instant messaging, text messaging, and websites.
IV. "Perpetrator'' means a pupil who engages in bullying or cyberbullying.
V. "School property'' means all real property and all physical plant and equipment used for school purposes, including public or private school buses or vans.
VI. "Victim'' means a pupil against whom bullying or cyberbullying has been perpetrated.
Source. 2000, 190:1. 2004, 205:1, eff. June 11, 2004. 2010, 155:2, eff. July 1, 2010.





angelikaJ -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 1:28:03 PM)

You really do not know the difference?

There is a difference between saying something that might hurt someone's feelings and an intentional attack of verbal abuse.

Bullying can be verbal, emotional or physical...but it is abusive behavior.

It is aggressively targeting someone with the intent of causing them harm, and repeating the behavior.





angelikaJ -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 2:13:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

~FR

Anyone know what is going on with the one who posted her topless photo?


I think the authorities are investigating it.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/10/12/20279421.html



dcnovice -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 3:29:00 PM)

quote:

Thanks fpr sharing. I can tell I'll be thinking of that today now and then...

You're welcome! Three decades later, that gentle lesson still moves me.



descrite -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 3:31:25 PM)


And this is exactly why this type of legislation is so wrong and ugly (and, ultimately, will be proved unconstitutional, but only after long battles that ruin peoples' lives):


quote:

a written, verbal, or electronic communication

quote:

Causes emotional distress to a pupil


So-- yeah, that is EXACTLY "saying things that make someone feel bad."

Now, do you need me to point out why such a law is bad for everyone?

1) The "chilling effect." If we teach kids that they have to be careful to say only things that don't hurt someone else's feelings, we're stifling free discourse. Kids will learn to change what they say, self-censoring, which quells creativity and new ideas. More ideas, even bad ideas, are better than fewer ideas. Groupthink is bad.

2) We have freedom of speech specifically so that the nastiest, most vile things can be said, in open dialogue. The people who use this website, more than most, should understand why this freedom is crucial to personal fulfillment and maximal freedom. If you say, "I like it when someone else whips my nipples," and someone reads that and gets offended, you don't have to go to jail: there is no freedom from being offended, in this country. Thank goodness.

3) Words don't hurt someone. Unless they're yelled above 85 dB directly into your ear. It is much, much better to have a society where we fling words at each other than one that uses rocks. Or bullets. The flinging of words should be sacrosanct.

4) Abuse of these laws is terrifying. Go to any other country on the planet. See what they do with their laws infringing on free speech. It's spooky. When the government (or anyone else) can decide what a "dangerous idea" is, the people lose. I was in Korea the year Bob Dylan's "Blowin' In The Wind" was finally legalized. That was the mid-1990s.




quote:

There is a difference between saying something that might hurt someone's feelings and an intentional attack of verbal abuse.


So? I intentionally want to verbally attack the Pope. I think pretending to hear voices in your head that control other people is fucking disgusting, and using that to amass wealth and power is utterly reprehensible. I think ignoring the rape of children, or, worse, covering it up, is beyond any kind of forgiveness. I think his entire position is based on anti-human, anti-individualist crap that requires willful ignorance. I hope he gets hit by a truck carrying tons of human waste, and is literally drowned in shit. I think his hat is funny. I think he's ugly.

I have intentionally verbally attacked him. I mean to cause him emotional distress.

Should I go to jail for this?

Let me make this clear: I would never, ever raise a hand to hurt the man. I would never stab him, or take a shot at him. I think anyone who does should be captured and prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law.

I do not want to cause physical harm. But emotional? Sure-- if my words are powerful enough to hurt the man's feelings, fuck him. That should be illegal??

quote:

It is aggressively targeting someone with the intent of causing them harm, and repeating the behavior.


Sorry-- in case I wasn't clear: fuck the pope. And his silly hat.


So-- should I go to jail?


quote:

Going after an individual with malice in mind.


Okay. I'm a 16 year-old boy. I say that my classmate is fat because it's fun, and it's funny, and I get attention.

Absence of malice. What now?


quote:

"Just words" may not hurt as much as getting your ass kicked once, but it can do a whole lot more long term damage than you seem to give it credit for.


Only damage that is not physical. If we start attributing value to intangible "harm," there is no limit...because it's all perceived by the "victim," with no objective measure.

I can measure a cut. I can measure blood loss. I cannot measure your hurt feelings.

If we go that route, I can say, "The name 'SpaceSpank' hurts me, because they used to call me that in middle school, so you can't use that name, and if you keep using it, you're intentionally and repeatedly harming me, and you should go to jail." And then, if you get everyone on the site to agree with you against me, I can claim you're exacerbating the bullying.

I am not saying these victims are not experiencing real trauma-- I'm saying we can't make laws to protect your feelings, because then all words would be outlawed; every word can be offensive to someone.





















dcnovice -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 3:57:06 PM)

quote:

Words don't hurt someone.

My experience has been otherwise, as both speaker and hearer.



SpaceSpank -> RE: Bullying? (10/14/2012 7:38:44 PM)

You can measure cuts and bruises, but you can't measure how much "harm" it has done a person. What if they are a serious masochist? What if they have dead nerve endings and just don't feel it? If we follow your logic the only thing that will lead to any action is physical injury, which may or may not actually be a problem for a person.

What if they got drugged and raped? No injury given, they used a condom so no STD's or pregnancy. By all accounts they didn't undergo any physical "harm" but they know it happened.

They physical aspects of bullying are only a minute portion of the problem. And while I agree they can't get too crazy with legislating things... to limit it only to physical injuries is folly. And to think that physical bullying is the only kind that is bad is also folly. I would imagine Amanda Todd would take issue with that statement had she not killed herself over the bullying that was almost entirely "just words".


Low blow perhaps, but it's an issue, and parents and those who have a job to protect and care for young people need to be very aware of this kind of thing. The injuries caused that are not visible are far more dangerous precisely because no one can look at a kid and say, "yes, they have been called names and tormented every day of their life for the last 4 years". Many suffer in absolute silence, hoping it will just get better or the people will get bored, find a new target, anything, and just leave them alone.

So yes, be concerned that they might pass bad laws, that they may make things too broad or able to be used in situations where it was never intended... but things DO need to be done, many old laws were just not meant to cover modern issues... and they, at best, can be fit in half assed in an attempt to make them fit. But it's better to either ammend the old ones to account for new problems, or supplement the old with new laws and regulations. Whichever is best simply depends on each individual law (if it exists).



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875