Bullycide

[truethat]

No, she doesn't. The words are correct and normally the spelling is spot on, but the grammar is poor and she regularly fails to understand the complexities of English language that deal with inflection or partially hidden meaning. Her writing is often devoid of the usual clues as to intent (even more so than normal for online communication) and she regularly fails to pick up on such clues in the writing of others.

Take Chaos' latest post. When he sets up the dichotomy of "stop the bullies or give in and maybe even kill yourself" it's pretty obvious that he means there is only one actual solution, and that is to stop the bullies. She however fails to read this obvious inference and accuses him of wanting to tell kids to kill themselves.


ETA: In fact, this is why so many of us (including WTBS now as well) are taking her words literally. There are so few clues in her writings to infer her actual meaning that we're forced to read them literally, and in doing so we apparently completely misrepresented her position.

I will also add that WTBS was correct about some of TT's responses towards me specifically.

This is interesting to me. I do often struggle with inference based questions.

I do want the statements to be read literally and I don't think you are reading them literally. If you were, then when I said "I did not mean that" you would take me at my word. Instead you accuse me of having hidden meaning behind my statements or condescending attitudes etc. No matter how many times I've state I only mean what is written you insist on interpreting it in an inferential manner and inferring things that are not there.

This is very interesting to me. When you go back and read what I have written you will see that I pretty much repeat the same statement over and over again and keep insisting I'm not saying what you THINK I'm saying. I'm only saying what is written on the page. Only after you choose to believe that do you actually take my words as literal statements.

This is quite interesting to me since I teach test prep and we always discuss the differences between literal and inferential comprehension. Inferential comprehension requires you to look at "emotions, clues and details" to infer meaning. Literal comprehension means "what was actually said."

Sorry to derail, maybe we can get a thread on this, I find this fascinating. Also one of my best skills and what I do for a living is teach test prep for a living.

But as a challenge, perhaps I'm mistaken, I think I've said the same thing over and over again. It is only when you took my statements literally that you got them. Is that the case?


Also with regard to Chaos, obviously I did infer that he was hinting at that. But I think its a ridiculous assertion to make. You can clearly survive bullying without dying or moving away. I think what is interesting about many of the people on this thread is that they have created a high drama surrounding their experiences with bullying. Yet all of you survived and got on with it. So did I. His statement as he intended it is NOT TRUE. If he believes it to be so he's not being honest. And I certainly wouldn't want that statement repeated to teenagers who may take it seriously.


Also my grammar is pretty good normally but I admit to being very sloppy online here. This has more to do with the craptastic quality of my laptop than my actual skills. Sorry about that.

 

[Sabrina]

The point of bringing up old experiences is to demonstrate that they still affect us to this day, truethat. Which, if I am not mistaken, is the point that Mark and others are trying to make; that the effects of bullying are not confined merely to the childhood and adolescent years, but can in fact have far-reaching effects later on in a person's life, affecting how they view personal relationships of all types and in fact coloring their perceptions of how others around them are acting.

By contrast, you seem to be saying that simply because those of us who were bullied in school are still here and did not succumb to the bullying in a manner brought up by the OP that means it no longer affects us. Now that may not be what you are implying, but it is how I am reading it. An example:

You can clearly survive bullying without dying or moving away. I think what is interesting about many of the people on this thread is that they have created a high drama surrounding their experiences with bullying. Yet all of you survived and got on with it. So did I.

That sentence is where I am inferring that you believe that the fact that we were bullied in school in various ways has had no effect on us in our adult lives. However, that is just not true. Everything we experience in life is going to have a long-lasting effect on how we react in future situations that bear even the slightest resemblance to the experience in question (i.e. interpersonal relationships of all types when it comes to being bullied). One cannot dismiss the effect that past emotional experiences have on us as we grow older, truethat. It would be like you telling me that since I'm clearly still functional and able to live my life on a daily basis and appear to be happy, then my mother's death nearly one and a half years ago doesn't have any further effect on me, which could not be further from the truth.

 

[truethat]

The point of bringing up old experiences is to demonstrate that they still affect us to this day, truethat. Which, if I am not mistaken, is the point that Mark and others are trying to make; that the effects of bullying are not confined merely to the childhood and adolescent years, but can in fact have far-reaching effects later on in a person's life, affecting how they view personal relationships of all types and in fact coloring their perceptions of how others around them are acting.

By contrast, you seem to be saying that simply because those of us who were bullied in school are still here and did not succumb to the bullying in a manner brought up by the OP that means it no longer affects us. Now that may not be what you are implying, but it is how I am reading it. An example:



That sentence is where I am inferring that you believe that the fact that we were bullied in school in various ways has had no effect on us in our adult lives. However, that is just not true. Everything we experience in life is going to have a long-lasting effect on how we react in future situations that bear even the slightest resemblance to the experience in question (i.e. interpersonal relationships of all types when it comes to being bullied). One cannot dismiss the effect that past emotional experiences have on us as we grow older, truethat. It would be like you telling me that since I'm clearly still functional and able to live my life on a daily basis and appear to be happy, then my mother's death nearly one and a half years ago doesn't have any further effect on me, which could not be further from the truth.

Ok

sooooooo, once again we have a situation with inferring things that are not there.

I'm going to edit this in a second but if you go back and read the ACTUAL WORDS THAT I"VE WRITTEN it doesn't support your claim. Gimme a sec


Ok where did I ever say that "bullying had "NO EFFECT" contrast that to how many times I've discussed psychological trauma and lasting psychological trauma.

Now let's put on the common sense hat, (not trying to be snarky) Is it even reasonable at all to believe that anyone raised in the United States who has children in the school system and was a victim of bullying herself, would ever suggest that bullying doesn't have lasting psychological trauma.

I guess this is where I do get frustrated. Only an idiot would believe that a victim of constant bullying is not in someway traumatized by this. Which I've said, so those are the words that I have written. Yet you choose to infer that


That sentence is where I am inferring that you believe that the fact that we were bullied in school in various ways has had no effect on us in our adult lives.




I'm just a little shocked that you made that a statement. Though, as this thread has shown, maybe you didn't mean it literally?

 

[Sabrina]

I have read them. I even quoted them for you. I'm frankly at a loss as to how you cannot understand that my perception of your words isn't always going to exactly match up with your intent behind the words.

ETA: And since you so rarely qualify your statements with phrases meant to EXPLAIN the intent behind them, I'm also at a loss as to why you don't seem to understand why people misinterpret your words.

 

[truethat]

Ok I posted the correction.

And I think I realize I should be honest about how I perceive someone still traumatized by bullying in highschool 30 or so years ago. I think that it's not healthy to still be stuck in that. Perhaps I'm projecting or disassociating or other such things, and I can understand how it might seem offensive, but seriously I don't understand why a person would want to stay in that way of thinking.

I realize that my perspective of being bullied in school is that once I grew up and moved on I never looked back. Yes there were some things that caused me to have problems in modern life. I still have a hard time being friends with a "group" of girlfriends. I tend to have one on one relationships with female friends rather than groups and I'm sure there are self esteem issues attached to it.

But to be suffering in pain decades later is very sad to me. I would hope that a person would receive some therapy for that. (Not directed at you)

I see now, that if you all are still suffering from the pain of being bullied in school as a child even decades later, then the idea of educating students to understand bullying and creating plans around that would seem pointless to you. I'm seeing what you mean.

I'm not sure I can even understand what it's like to be that messed up from bullying in high school. I'm sorry you are all so hurt this way.


I do believe though that prevention is more important than punishment and trying to create systems that over time will support the victim and also work towards preventing bullying, is the best approach. Obviously we are seeing the results of people NOT being supported in the school systems and the lasting damage that it can cause. So I do hope that supporting victims is included in any approach out there.

 

[Sabrina]

The point of bringing up old experiences is to demonstrate that they still affect us to this day, truethat. Which, if I am not mistaken, is the point that Mark and others are trying to make; that the effects of bullying are not confined merely to the childhood and adolescent years, but can in fact have far-reaching effects later on in a person's life, affecting how they view personal relationships of all types and in fact coloring their perceptions of how others around them are acting.

By contrast, you seem to be saying that simply because those of us who were bullied in school are still here and did not succumb to the bullying in a manner brought up by the OP that means it no longer affects us. Now that may not be what you are implying, but it is how I am reading it. An example:



That sentence is where I am inferring that you believe that the fact that we were bullied in school in various ways has had no effect on us in our adult lives. However, that is just not true. Everything we experience in life is going to have a long-lasting effect on how we react in future situations that bear even the slightest resemblance to the experience in question (i.e. interpersonal relationships of all types when it comes to being bullied). One cannot dismiss the effect that past emotional experiences have on us as we grow older, truethat. It would be like you telling me that since I'm clearly still functional and able to live my life on a daily basis and appear to be happy, then my mother's death nearly one and a half years ago doesn't have any further effect on me, which could not be further from the truth.

Bolded relevant section. I did indeed indicate that I was well aware it might not be what you meant, but it was still my perception of your words. Again, perception is key here.

All I am trying to do, by means of this exchange, truethat, is to get you to acknowledge that when people react emotionally to things, it is a NORMAL response and therefore your knee-jerk reaction shouldn't be defensive but should instead be responded to with an explanation of what the person apparently misinterpreted.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

This is interesting to me. I do often struggle with inference based questions.

Clearly. This isn't an insult, it's just a statement of fact, but it sure does make arguing with you difficult.

I do want the statements to be read literally and I don't think you are reading them literally.

Then don't write statements that don't accurately match what you want to say.

If you were, then when I said "I did not mean that" you would take me at my word.

Imagine I say that I think that we should talk to people about topic X.

You say it won't help to just talk to them.

I tell you that I didn't mean just TALKING to them, I actually meant we should talk to them.

Again, you point out that that isn't helpful.

I tell you again that I didn't mean we should just talk to them, but that if you actually paid attention we should just talk to them.

Repeat ad nauseum. This is what this discussion has been like for the rest of us.

Instead you accuse me of having hidden meaning behind my statements or condescending attitudes etc.

Condescension:

I think it's cute that the people raging about victims of bullying are the ones using insults and name calling to try to get their point across.

If you'd stop being outraged long enough to consider what I'm saying, I think you'd see what I mean.

Condescension and repeating that you're being misunderstood when someone takes what you say at face value:

This is exactly what I am talking about with emotional pleading. You quite obviously are not stupid and can read. So you know that is not what I am saying.

Condescension, passive-aggressive dismissal and poisoning the well:

If you want to continue pleading emotion and drama and victim speak that is pretty typical and I accept it.

Condescension and abuse:

And again, why the appeal to emotion? What anecdotes have I used to justify your self help group sympathy rant? I've shared my experiences as evidence to explain my own personal perspective. You are throwing yours down as some sort of evidence. The evidence for me is that its the same pattern over and over again.

Condescension and abuse directed at me specifically:

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.

So far your comments have simplfied what I have suggested to a ridiculous degree, suggested I consider myself a guru, name called and insulted and also told me to shut up and that I was stupid, evil twisted etc. Now you are using that sarcasm on someone else.


Gee I wonder why people don't like you?

Further, the absue in the above case is not only attacking my character, but implying that this character flaw you see is the reason I was bullied. In addition to that your choice of words and the addition of the smiley you used implies absolutely that the bullying I received was valid and justifiable. I imagine that isn't what you meant, but that is how it reads.


Yet more condescension:

Obviously you are not going to see the value of this since you don't understand what I am saying.

More, with added insult and misrepresentation:

I'm sorry that you think educating the kids would be akin to watching "Revenge of the Nerds" and sending them on their way. That's really over simplifying what I am saying.

I've noticed several of you have done that on here and it's because the only way you can put down the idea is to make it into an ineffective gesture.

Condescension and an outright lie (in bold, for evidence look at the other things I've quoted):

I have already stated this several times in the thread itself. You wrote to me in a rational way and I responded in kind. If you compare the comments in that section you will notice that I didn't have to change the way I've spoken to you as you did to me. I didn't have to do that because I've always spoken to you the same way.

No matter how many times I've state I only mean what is written you insist on interpreting it in an inferential manner and inferring things that are not there.

No, we're responding to what you write and you assume there's inferrence because you're communication is pathetically bad. If lots of people aren't understanding what you're saying, it's far more realistic to assume your communication is poor than that they are stupid, or as you seem to be implying, out to get you.

This is very interesting to me. When you go back and read what I have written you will see that I pretty much repeat the same statement over and over again

Yes you do. You later said somethign different and we understood you. Funny that.

and keep insisting I'm not saying what you THINK I'm saying. I'm only saying what is written on the page.

You have this bass ackward, as they say. The problem with our misunderstanding was that your communication was poor.

Only after you choose to believe that do you actually take my words as literal statements.

So you're accusing us of ignoring your point to intentionally misrepresent you, yes? Why the hell would we do that? It's more likely, again, that your communication skills are abysmal.

This is quite interesting to me

You keep saying that but your communication skills aren't getting any better.

since I teach test prep and we always discuss the differences between literal and inferential comprehension. Inferential comprehension requires you to look at "emotions, clues and details" to infer meaning. Literal comprehension means "what was actually said."

Oh look, more condescension!

Sorry to derail, maybe we can get a thread on this, I find this fascinating.

Also one of my best skills and what I do for a living is teach test prep for a living.

Then why is your grasp of English communication so poor? I'm not trying to be horrible or insult you here, it really is poor. Your grasp of grammar and syntax is limited and your complete inability to recognise inference and use it yourself, despite your professed grasp of the theory, is very strange.

But as a challenge, perhaps I'm mistaken, I think I've said the same thing over and over again. It is only when you took my statements literally that you got them. Is that the case?

No. You kept repeating the same thing over and over again, we all took your words literally, then you made a new post which was different to what you had been saying previously, but close enough to make it clear that this second post was what you were originally actually driving at and then we understood.

Also with regard to Chaos, obviously I did infer that he was hinting at that.

Really? Then why did you say:

Wow please stay away from high school teens if you plan to tell them that their only two options in life are to get the bully to stop or to kill themselves or move away.

That's seriously messed up.

That reads, taking it at face value, like you believe him to be serious, and you are appalled at the inference that some kids should kill themselves.

Come on, you've been awful at understanding inference in this very thread, let alone in past threads on the JREF, so why should we accept that you understood his meaning when your own response suggests that you didn't?

In fact...

But I think its a ridiculous assertion to make. You can clearly survive bullying without dying or moving away.

That wasn't what he was saying at all. He was saying that the bullies should be stopped. He wasn't discussing the victim later in life or suggesting they should absolutely move away. Again, your reading comprehension is sub standard for a native English speaker. Are you a native English speaker?

I think what is interesting about many of the people on this thread is that they have created a high drama surrounding their experiences with bullying. Yet all of you survived and got on with it.

Define "got on with it" because "severe mental and social anguish that persists to this day and impacts my day to day living on a regular basis" doesn't count and that's what I've got.

You either cannot have read the post where I discussed my experience or you did not understand it, because the only alternative is that you are lying about what I said for some reason, and I don't think you're that kind of person.

Seriously, I don't mean to sound like an ass or big myself up, but it took some serious balls to write what I did, and your glib dismissal of my deep psychological trauma as "getting on with it" is starkly offensive and, yet again, remarkably condescending.

 

[truethat]

I think it's cute that the people raging about victims of bullying are the ones using insults and name calling to try to get their point across.


Anyway perhaps I'm looking at this at too narrow of a lens. I am addressing ONLY the OP topic of suicide because of the result of bullying. In other words the kid couldn't take it and killed themselves.

I'm not talking about physical attacks because there are repercussions for physical assault. That's a no brainer and easier to solve. You touch another student in school and instant pronto suspension. That is easy to solve. Maybe the schools don't do it but as a solution we've seen zero tolerance policies creeping up around the country.


However you can bully a person without laying a hand on them. This is where it gets harder to correct. And frankly it does seem to me to be much more damaging psychologically to the victim than physical assault.

To me, (perhaps I'm wrong) this is what drives students to commit suicide. I am wondering if it is possible to create awareness campaigns that DO teach the student not to internalize it and take it personally. In doing so it would help avoid suicide. That is my goal with this approach.


It's why I liked the "It get's better" campaign. It helped students to realize that there is a bigger picture, future and hope. It identifies them as one of the larger group of victims of being bullied rather than the sole "odd ball" in their class. It gives them hope.

If you'd stop being outraged long enough to consider what I'm saying, I think you'd see what I mean.

We cannot stop bullying. It will always happen. We can stream it down as much as possible but if a teen is feeling ostracized and oppressed, giving them hope might save their life.


I never took it personally. Ever. I realized it was their problem not mine. I was bullied relentlessly every single day in junior high school. Beaten up on the way home, mocked and made fun of in the hallways. When I got to high school we merged with a different area of students so I had the chance to make new friends. But it never occurred to me to commit suicide because all of the girls in my gym class made fun of me day after day after day. I just thought they were beyotches. I didn't think it was my problem. I just knew I was different. It can be done, big giant message board letters aside.

Bolded relevant section. I did indeed indicate that I was well aware it might not be what you meant, but it was still my perception of your words. Again, perception is key here.

All I am trying to do, by means of this exchange, truethat, is to get you to acknowledge that when people react emotionally to things, it is a NORMAL response and therefore your knee-jerk reaction shouldn't be defensive but should instead be responded to with an explanation of what the person apparently misinterpreted.

Of course it's a normal response. I never said it wasn't. However when trying to solve a problem emotional responses are usually less objective. For example we've seen in this thread someone applaud a person for throwing a kid into a radiator and giving him a concussion based on the idea that he was tormenting her friend. The enemy is the bully here, he's the bad guy, she's the evil person.

That is unrealistic. I can understand how emotional this is going to be for some people. But approaching the problem of bullying by suggesting violence is to be commended and that we should get the little bastards or that killing another student is ok because he was a bully is waaaaaaaaaaay creepy to me.

 

[Sabrina]

I do believe though that prevention is more important than punishment and trying to create systems that over time will support the victim and also work towards preventing bullying, is the best approach. Obviously we are seeing the results of people NOT being supported in the school systems and the lasting damage that it can cause. So I do hope that supporting victims is included in any approach out there.

This I can fully agree with; supporting victims is, IMO paramount to any solution that might be proposed for dealing with bullying. I just don't feel it should be the only solution; there needs to be repercussions put into place to deal with the bullies themselves, and as you yourself have stated, parents need to be held accountable in some fashion for the behavior of their children.

I don't know if you read my initial post (you never said one way or the other) but I proposed a multi-faceted solution that, IIRC, included exactly what you're talking about in it; and if it didn't, it should have. I made it multi-faceted because, having dealt with bullying myself (although not to the extent that others here have indicated; I was merely teased for being smarter than most of my class), I was well aware that any solution would require not only dealing with the victim's issues but also the bully's issues, and indeed even the families and authority figures of both victim/bully.

I won't touch on the remainder of your post except to say this; I feel as though you've misinterpreted what Mark and others are trying to say, but they would be better off explaining their words, so I will hold my peace in that regard.

 

[truethat]

Seriously, I don't mean to sound like an ass or big myself up, but it took some serious balls to write what I did, and your glib dismissal of my deep psychological trauma as "getting on with it" is starkly offensive and, yet again, remarkably condescending.

I'm sorry but I don't have time for this. THIS, the bolded above is the truth at the heart of this whole issue.

The truth is, you got offended at what you perceived as a vicious dismissal of your deep psychological trauma, which i was expected to understand even though you wrote it out on a message board.

I wrote out on a message board in another thread my experiences being raped. If someone said to me, "well you got on with it didn't you" I would not at all in the slightest be offended.

I DO understand that you are offended and I sincerely apologize. I do understand that this is extraordinarily painful for you and now I see you were sharing something that you are still dealing with. I very sincerely apologize for that.

As for all the comments about condescension, I'm literally stunned at what you took as condescending. I mean even the comment about test prep? Seriously dude I asked them to split the thread because I wanted to talk to you about it because I really am interested in what you've been saying I love new ways of teaching my students this and one of the areas that the students are tested on is reading comprehension and distinguishing between Literal and Inferential comprehension.

I was sincerely interested in talking with you about it.

In addition it rang a bell with me and you seemed to be on to something.


I'm beginning to realize that you can't talk about things in an objective way if others are suffering about it. It comes across as callous and heartless so I will not post again here.

Wish you all much health and healing.

 

[bookitty]

I wrote out on a message board in another thread my experiences being raped. If someone said to me, "well you got on with it didn't you" I would not at all in the slightest be offended.

It boils down to above. Your response is the "correct" response. For some reason you can not imagine that a different response is sincere or needs to be taken seriously.

All of which would be very interesting if it weren't coming from a person who is so very offended by being misunderstood, that they've dragged out over 8 pages and two different threads. Discounting your rape (or any other offensive remark that you haven't faced but can imagine), no big deal. Calling you out on being condescending, trauma!

Children who are being bullied in school often face this same attitude from teachers and other authority figures. They try to explain what is going on, and they get the same thing. "Kids were hard on me in school also. I sucked it up and moved on. Why can't you?" If the child continues to complain, they get the same out-of-proportion reaction for not dealing with it. "I am so tired of your complaints. I told you how to take care of it. Why are you bothering me with this?" Eventually they learn to keep quiet and the bullying continues.

 

[JJM 777]

There is a new term out there, "bullycide," the act of bullying another person until they commit suicide.

First I thought the word to mean "the act of killing a bully (probably as punishment or retaliation)". Based on the logic:
homi-cide = the act of killing a homo sapiens
pesti-cide = a substance for killing pests
hence:
bully-cide = the act of killing a bully?

Whether or not suicide is the outcome the bully is seeking, it applies.

I guess bullies are mostly so self-centered that they don´t expect any "outcome" concerning the victim, they are only concerned about their own feeling of superiority and social status.

 

[Chaos]

I guess bullies are mostly so self-centered that they don´t expect any "outcome" concerning the victim, they are only concerned about their own feeling of superiority and social status.

Certainly. What a bully wants is to continue bullying the victim. Since suicide on part of the victim ends the bullying rather thoroughly, it probably isn´t the point of the bullying.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I guess bullies are mostly so self-centered that they don´t expect any "outcome" concerning the victim, they are only concerned about their own feeling of superiority and social status.

From personal experience and what I've read about sometimes the bullies do have a goal in mind - for example to get the victim out of their class or school. And unfortunately in the past (but I hope not now) moving the victim was considered an appropriate way of dealing with the problem.

 

[gnome]

What a bully wants I think depends on various possible motivations.

I'm just speculating here, but there can be significant difference in the "reward" the bully gets from bullying. Some possibilities may be: keeping the victim in a "controlled" state, wanting things the victim has and being strong enough to take/extort them, adopting a "revenge" stance against any perceived slight (anger cleanses other confusing emotions nicely), wanting to curry social status by attacking popular targets, over-simplistically seeing the world as bullies and bullied and preferring to be the former, working out aggression accumulated elsewhere on acceptable targets, and quite possibly simply enjoying the suffering of the victims.

Each issue there may have different ideal approaches for defense--how to take away the "reward". Some may have issues of their own and need to be guided to better outlets (and to feel the consequences of harmful behavior). Some may need deterrence by enforcement of rules/the victim finding ways not to be the easy target. Some may only be stopped by separating them from victims.

 

[dasmiller]

To stir something different into the mix, I'm going to speculate that technology may have a real impact on school bullying.

I suspect that in the not-too-distant future, most people will be usually be in-view of a live camera when they're out in public. With children, it may be any time they're outside of the home. The cameras may be permanently mounted like security cameras or actually worn by the children (much better audio, I think).

This isn't much of a leap. Every kid with a cell phone is already carrying a video camera all the time. They're just not using them all the time. In the future, I suspect that they won't be given the choice.

If there's sufficient adult access to video recorded by those cameras, it should be pretty easy for an interested adult to find out exactly what happens to their children on the way home from school every day, and to provide proof to the school, if necessary. The victim wouldn't even have to tattle, depending on the implementation.

I don't want to paint a utopian picture of this future. I can certainly see some downsides unrelated to bullying, and I strongly suspect that bullying would continue, albeit in a somewhat changed form (and some of it would definitely not be better).

I'm not good at predicting how new, ubiquitous technologies will affect our lives, and I'm not even going to attempt to predict how this particular technology will affect this particular issue. But I have to believe that it will affect it.

Probably make for a good near-future SF story, though.

 

[truethat]

It boils down to above. Your response is the "correct" response. For some reason you can not imagine that a different response is sincere or needs to be taken seriously.

All of which would be very interesting if it weren't coming from a person who is so very offended by being misunderstood, that they've dragged out over 8 pages and two different threads. Discounting your rape (or any other offensive remark that you haven't faced but can imagine), no big deal. Calling you out on being condescending, trauma!

Children who are being bullied in school often face this same attitude from teachers and other authority figures. They try to explain what is going on, and they get the same thing. "Kids were hard on me in school also. I sucked it up and moved on. Why can't you?" If the child continues to complain, they get the same out-of-proportion reaction for not dealing with it. "I am so tired of your complaints. I told you how to take care of it. Why are you bothering me with this?" Eventually they learn to keep quiet and the bullying continues.

I am only posting a reply to this because I think it is again, an incident of using inferential comprehension instead of reading the words I wrote on the page.

I did not say it was the correct response. There can be no "correct response" to a personal emotional issue related to trauma. Some people do well with things others do not. It does not make the one that does well "better" or more superior than the other.

People respond to trauma in many different ways. Many many different ways. That is the reality. Some women have babies no problem, others suffer Post Partum Depression. Etc etc etc.

Just skip over the understanding and the sincere apology. Go on and do that. But when you to please understand it is a reflection of you and not a reflection of me.



That said, your commentary about the experiences of bullying and the seeming pointlessness of complaining is why I believe it is essential to have a comprehensive plan mixed into school structure, not just handled case by case.

I am sincere in what I posted. Also to Mark, props for the research, I know it totally sucks that I didn't address all your points. I get it man. Hang in there.

Once again I sincerely apologize.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I'm not good at predicting how new, ubiquitous technologies will affect our lives, and I'm not even going to attempt to predict how this particular technology will affect this particular issue. But I have to believe that it will affect it.

Probably make for a good near-future SF story, though.

Unfortunately the evidence so far is that it will be those bullying that will make the most use of new technology.

 

[Belz...]

Going to have to agree with Sadhatter and Mr. Purple. I was also picked on by a rather extreme amount.

So was I. The solution to that problem was soldiering on and going to college, where no one takes notice of difference.

 

[Belz...]

So it's my fault I was bullied because I was weird? I didn't do anything on purpose, but hey, I exuded oddness and that makes the animalistic natures in them rise up so it isn't their fault either?

You're a sick, twisted and evil person.

But is she also a sexist, bigoted idiot ?

Oh, wait. Wrong thread.