Bullycide

[MarkCorrigan]

Starting over if I may.

What I am suggesting is that if we take the stigma away from bullying and turn it into a simple reality that it might encourage students to recognize what is happening and come forward.

For example if we teach about group dynamics and the patterns associated with bullying, we can in a way take the power away from the bully by treating a bully as the one with the problem who needs intervention. Right now it is presented as the victim is the one with the problem who needs help.

If a student is a victim of bullying and understands that "this happens all the time and the way to solve it is some possible ways to solve it are XYZ" then the student may be more likely to step forward.

I'd agree with that, with the alteration I made.

The most common response I've seen to bullying is that the kid doesn't tell their parent because they don't want the parent to make a scene at the school. The kid will get in trouble for bullying and then come after the victim even more, perhaps using covert methods. So most kids don't say anything.

If the approach is more BLASE and not so emotional, then it might create a systematic change. In other words it turns less into an emotional issue and more into a behavior managment issue. By taking the taboo out of bullying and turing it into a typical behavior pattern that happens in all schools across the country with a system and protocol of action, I think it will be easier to handle it.

Not entirely sure what you mean, but it sounds ok if it's what I think it means.

I think much of the psychological trauma in these situations comes from feelings of shame and embarrasment and fear on the part of the victim.

I'd say that's often true.

Let's make it a system of dealing with it. If a student turns in a report even about their friend it's filed and dealt with in a swift and precise manner. In my opinion, over time this will reduce bullying by taking it out of the corners and into the light.

For a friend or family member to step forward on behalf of the victim it would require a sense that there is something that will be done in a system. If the school runs education campaigns that point out the common behavior and dynamics of bullying and takes a zero tolerance policy it will help.

Apart from the inherent problem with "who do you believe?" then this is all fine.

Also what will help is the idea that the student who is doing the bullying is probably reacting in a typical way based on group dynamics. Instead of this fear that the bully is going to get in "trouble" we present it as the bully is going to get "intervention."

I'm not so sure about this. The bully should be punished, because group dynamics or no, the kid is doing something horrible. Understanding what causes bullying does not mean that bullying should not be punished harshly.

 

[truethat]

I'm not so sure about this. The bully should be punished, because group dynamics or no, the kid is doing something horrible. Understanding what causes bullying does not mean that bullying should not be punished harshly.

Not sure but I think this is where we disagree. I posted a couple of pages back about how the idea that the bullies are the "bad bad bully" is not really true.

It seems some people on this thread who have been victimized have decided that the bully is EVIL and terrible and horrible and wrong. And that is not realistic in my opinion.

This is why understanding group dynamics is important. I am not saying that ALL bullies are not vicious.

I am not saying that all bullies are not vicious

I agree that some bullies are vicious

I agree that some bullies are vicious

I agree that some bullies are vicious.


However, this oversimplifies the reality. The dynamics of bullies is interesting.

Who is Involved in Bullying and what are Their Relationships with Peers?

There are three distinct types of youth whom are directly involved in bullying: aggressive youth who are not victimized (bullies), aggressive youth who are also victimized (bully-victims), and non-aggressive youth who are victimized (victims). In studies with elementary and middle school students, we have found that bullies, bully-victims, and victims tend to have distinct patterns of peer relationships (4, 12). Although some bullies are not well liked by peers, many are perceived by teachers and peers as being among the most popular or “cool” students in their classrooms. They are also frequently viewed as being leaders by teachers and peers and they tend to associate with popular peers and not with peers who are socially marginalized. Further, these youth tend to not appear to feel sad or to worry about their peer relationships. In comparison, many bully-victims are highly disliked by peers and are not perceived by teachers and peers as being “cool” or popular. These youth tend to affiliate with peers who are bullies and victims and they appear to be marginalized within the classroom social structure. In contrast, non-aggressive victims tend not to be highly disliked, but are often identified as being forgotten by peers. This means these youth are not very salient or influential in the social structure. Also, non-aggressive victims tend not to be in groups that are composed primarily of bullies, but are more likely to be in groups that include other children who are victimized. However, both bully-victims and victims are more likely to cry, feel sad, and worry about peer relationships.

http://www.education.com/reference/article/school-bullying-peer-group-dynamics/?page=2

I guess it seems to me that some people are more about vengence than solution. Many kids are unaware of the impact of their behavior. They do not intend to really take it as far as it goes. Also other students are highly sensitive.

To attempt to demonize bullies as these evil kids is disingenous. I think Wudang pointed that out several pages ago.

It might interest you to read about it a bit more.

 

[Sabrina]

I suppose, I'm a little frustrated that anyone would ever suggest that this is what I'm saying. It seems a GIVEN that it is not what I am saying. Only an idiot would suggest this.

Edited to add

Darat and Wudang got it right away? So why is it others didn't?

Quite simply because each person's perception is unique and individual to them and them alone. Some people understood your meaning, albeit I would bet real money that if one were to ask them what they thought you meant, they'd say something that you would disagree with; others did not. I stayed out of the conversation, although I did in fact see that you were not necessarily advocating that as the only solution, because after seeing how some responded, I understood why they saw what they did. I only interjected myself in order to try and explain why some people perceived a meaning that you never intended to convey.

 

[3point14]

It's interesting. I'm not responding to the other post but it is so long. But one of the other things I'd mentioned is that some people are anti social and this can also lead to them being bullied.

(snipped)

Do you believe that because someone is antisocial it makes them a legitimate target for mental and physical violence?

Do you believe that bullying is wrong and that when it happens, figures in authority should take action to stop it?

 

[truethat]

(snipped)

Do you believe that because someone is antisocial it makes them a legitimate target for mental and physical violence?

Do you believe that bullying is wrong and that when it happens, figures in authority should take action to stop it?

1. Not legitimate, but "typical"

And B

No of course not. I think that bullying is good and when it happens figures in authority should just look the other way. Because it's just the way it goes.


I mean seriously why are you even asking me that. Have you read any of my posts?

 

[truethat]

Quite simply because each person's perception is unique and individual to them and them alone. Some people understood your meaning, albeit I would bet real money that if one were to ask them what they thought you meant, they'd say something that you would disagree with; others did not. I stayed out of the conversation, although I did in fact see that you were not necessarily advocating that as the only solution, because after seeing how some responded, I understood why they saw what they did. I only interjected myself in order to try and explain why some people perceived a meaning that you never intended to convey.

see above if you want to know why I get frustrated sometimes. I can understand not quite getting what the other person means. But sometimes what is posted is just ridiculous.

 

[3point14]

Now THAT is how you make a reasonable reply. I don't agree that all of it will work but I respect it as an answer and am impressed that it was a flat answer with no inclination.


I'm going to be mean again, if you will indulge me, because there's something that I think you really need to grasp, and until you do, it's going to be really hard to get any kind of continuing communication going. Some people in this thread, myself included, do indeed get emotional about this issue, and while that isn't the best way to deal with things, it isn't exactly something we choose to do.

While you may believe yourself to be advocating a logical and well reasoned argument, others are disagreeing with you because your communication was not clear enough and led us to believe a few things you apparently weren't saying. This led to us getting emotional and brought on the insults.

Now, while this is both your fault for communicating badly and ours for being impolite, what has always followed next is purely you. You insult us.
You may not think you do, but trust me, you've insulted pretty much everyone who has disagreed with you in this thread. You may not mean to talk down to us, but rebuking us for being emotional while commenting on how logical you are being is nothing but an obvious implied insult. All it says to us is that we aren't as good sceptics or as clever as you because we fall back on emotions whereas you and your wonderful idea are logical and not emotional at all.

Do you see why this is a problem? While some of us here could do with reining in our barbs and insults, you need to recognise that the way you communicate is leading to misunderstandings and a sense of absolute smugness from you. That you ten further compound this by declaring that we're not understanding you BECAUSE we're getting emotional is REALLY insulting and I hope I don't have to explain why.

So, will you look at your own posts and try to see it from our point of view?

I'm sure it's unintentional, but truethat's posting/debating style does remind me very heavily of the scientology guy in John Sweeny's BBC Panorama doc. Very logical, but seemingly designed to provoke an extreme emotional reaction from the subject purely so the 'Why are you being so emotional?' trump-card can be played.

 

[sgtbaker]

No what I mean is the way when emotions take over it's as if reality goes out the window. This happens very often with people and I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. If you don't I will try to explain but I think you know what I mean.

Again, you failed to answer my question. Who are "the people" that seem to intellectually freeze?

 

[truethat]

I'm sure it's unintentional, but truethat's posting/debating style does remind me very heavily of the scientology guy in John Sweeny's BBC Panorama doc. Very logical, but seemingly designed to provoke an extreme emotional reaction from the subject purely so the 'Why are you being so emotional?' trump-card can be played.

Yeah that's it. It's a conspiracy to make people flip out. Because I like repeating myself over and over again.

Odd though that most of the posters who have conceded that they misunderstood. But ah clever you, you realize I've gotten them right where I want them. Mwhahahaha.

 

[truethat]

Again, you failed to answer my question. Who are "the people" that seem to intellectually freeze?

I think all people can (though some might not) but people in general can intellectually freeze if they react to a situation in an overly emotional manner. Pretty much anyone.

What is it that you are trying to distinguish? Let me guess that I'm saying victims are intellectualy frozen because they might react emotionally to being hit in the face with a cast iron skillet. If they could just calm down long enough to realize it didn't shatter their nose bone up into their brain after all, it wouldn't even hurt a bit. Is that it? lol

 

[3point14]

1. Not legitimate, but "typical"

And B

No of course not. I think that bullying is good and when it happens figures in authority should just look the other way. Because it's just the way it goes.


I mean seriously why are you even asking me that. Have you read any of my posts?

All of them, but we've already established that I (and others) sometimes misinterpret what you say, so I wanted to check.

Oh, and the unqualified answer to the first question was 'no', right?

 

[3point14]

Yeah that's it. It's a conspiracy to make people flip out. Because I like repeating myself over and over again.

Odd though that most of the posters who have conceded that they misunderstood. But ah clever you, you realize I've gotten them right where I want them. Mwhahahaha.

Read it again.

 

[truethat]

All of them, but we've already established that I (and others) sometimes misinterpret what you say, so I wanted to check.

Oh, and the unqualified answer to the first question was 'no', right?

You wanted to check that this is what I meant? Okie dokie.


I'm not sure what the question was. If you are asking me if an antisocial person is realistically a target for being bullied the answer is yes.

If you are asking me if the bully will think he has a legitimate right to pickk on the anti social person. The answer is yes.

If you are asking me if the bully has a right to pick on the anti social person because he is anti social the answer is no.

 

[3point14]

I'm not sure what the question was.

(snipped)

Do you believe that because someone is antisocial it makes them a legitimate target for mental and physical violence?

I did try to make the question pretty clear.

Edit in a hurry - now I read it again, I see what you mean - 'legitimate' in this sense could have all sorts of meanings.

 

[sgtbaker]

That sounds a very sensible approach. I'm assuming that they do investigate the allegations before taking the first step?

How long have they been taking this approach and has there been any documented change in outcomes e.g. stopping bullying or preventing it escalating?

It's a fairly new policy and from what I understand, it's state wide. I know they ask around and their questioning of other students is pretty interesting. They ask if there are any witness' to the event. Any students that raise their had are separated and told to write down their version of events. They decide who to believe based on how the stories line up.

They had a big assembly to show the students what led to this change, what they can do to help themselves or another student, and how they have the right to attend school without living in fear of other students.

 

[sgtbaker]

I think all people can (though some might not) but people in general can intellectually freeze if they react to a situation in an overly emotional manner. Pretty much anyone.

What is it that you are trying to distinguish? Let me guess that I'm saying victims are intellectualy frozen because they might react emotionally to being hit in the face with a cast iron skillet. If they could just calm down long enough to realize it didn't shatter their nose bone up into their brain after all, it wouldn't even hurt a bit. Is that it? lol

Cute but no. The statement immediately prior to the "intellectually frozen" statement was addressing me and the statement immediately following was addressed to me.

 

[fuelair]

Regardless of any of this, I still prefer the results when a bully assaults someone who is "weaker", goes white instead of red when attacked and recognizes their surroundings again with the bully clutching something badly broken or unconcious. It is nice that it is recognized as psychosocial in nature and it is understood in that aspect, but.....I like peaceful (normally) berserkers. Of whom we have some here!!

 

[truethat]

Cute but no. The statement immediately prior to the "intellectually frozen" statement was addressing me and the statement immediately following was addressed to me.

This is a very good example of what I mean by internalizing. My comment said "Why is that PEOPLE intellectionally freeze when emotion gets involved." Last I checked YOU are not PEOPLE. It's obvious I was generalizing. I think I'm tired of trying to convince of you things you are reluctant to see.

Everyone on the planet can freeze intellectually when they get overly emotional about something. I mean please.


However, to use this as a point. If you say I am talking about YOU being intellectually frozen. And I've twice explained that I wasn't. In fact I was shocked that you perceived it that way. I told you again I'm not talking about you. If you continue to believe that this was an "attack aimed at you." you could very well turn around and say I was bullying you. Condenscending attitudes tend to ride on a passive aggressive current. So if say you are very emotionally prickled because of your mother's experience, then getting me to BACK OFF and stop "bullying you" is the wrong approach here.

Why? Because you are internalizing something in a way that was not intended. Again studies bear out that victims of bullying tend to be overly sensitive compared to their peers.

In getting me to "back off" of something that was never intended and comforting you for your pain, I would compare that to what I was talking about earlier. In fact it is enabling your delusion. It's "victim speak" because what you perceived isn't what happened but since your feelings are hurt lets go to emotion.

I would think that the better approach for a victim's health is to point out reality and when they are NOT being attacked or victimized as well.

Bullying is not a black and white issue with the bad guys on one side and the victims on the other. In some cases it is. But this comment is really good example of why I also think victims need to be sure to see the reality of what is going on.

I have heard examples of people who are paranoid if they hear girls laughing in groups. The victim thinks they are laughing at him. It's got nothing to do with him but that's what he thinks is the reality. People like this need help in a different way. (And I'm not comparing him to you in a subtle way.)

 

[Darat]

It's a sensible approach so long as you can convince the victims to actually make the complaints in the first place. A lot of the time this can be difficult to do - although if you can genuinely convince them that action will actually result then it might help.

Oh absolutely agree - it's a complex problem so requires a lot of different approaches and strategies to try and curtail it. That's why I was saying earlier that it is good that at long last it seems to be being taken seriously in the UK - that's late but still better than never.

 

[Darat]

Regardless of any of this, I still prefer the results when a bully assaults someone who is "weaker", goes white instead of red when attacked and recognizes their surroundings again with the bully clutching something badly broken or unconcious. It is nice that it is recognized as psychosocial in nature and it is understood in that aspect, but.....I like peaceful (normally) berserkers. Of whom we have some here!!

I think you are reacting to a stereotype that I strongly suspect* is very rare - i.e. that there is a bully and that the very damaging bullying will be physical.



*From what I've read and seen about children who have been driven to extremes by bullying.