RockMyAmadeus Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Ignoring the discussion in this specific thread, adult cyber bullying is real. stuff to read more stuff to read linky reading reading linky read link read for link reading Nonsense. Total tripe. "Bullying" occurs when people are in abusive situations which they cannot, due to circumstance, readily escape. As a result, the vast, vast majority of actual victims of actual bullying are children, young teens, or the impaired, people who aren't capable of taking control of a situation by confronting it, walking away from it, or avoiding it altogether. Calling people who are mean on the internet "bullies" does actual harm to actual victims of actual bullying, due to the Chicken Little syndrome. The word has been completely watered down, to the point where those who are really being bullied are eventually ignored due to wide scale overuse. Now, we're raising vast swaths of people who think that anyone who challenges them in any conceivable way, whether the challenges is legitimate or not, is "bullying." And that way lies madness. If someone doesn't want to be "cyber bullied", the answers are simple: up one's rhetorical game, grow thicker skin, learn how to handle a challenge, don't let one's emotions get the upper hand, and if all else fails, go outside and enjoy real life for a while. Problem very effectively solved. Do you feel better now? I like to remain internally and externally consistent, so, no, because I don't let my feelings override my ability to reason. Seriously, I can't think of a worse way to view a situation then to state that people who are feeling bullied should "toughen-up," "effectively learn how to better argue" or "leave." That point of view seems to be fueled by a sense of superiority and a "cull the weak" mentality. I don't know you well enough to actually guess at your motivations, but your last statement is extraordinarily elitist. You've identified the problem in your first sentence right there: "FEELING bullied" (emphasis mine.) You are misusing the word "bully." That's the sum of it completely. In addition, you want people to think about what they are feeling, rather than what actually is. Relying on feelings, which vary with the wind, and can change on a dime, is a very frustrating way to go through life. If you want to be popular, tell people what they want to hear. If you want to be hated, tell them the truth. As true now as it has ever been. Regardless, besides the occasional chide at the discussion, most have let this go. What do you feel the need to come back and comment? Here's some perspective: I didn't read this thread for the entire time between my last post, and about 40 minutes ago. So, the responses posted today are all new to me, and don't I have the right to respond as well...? By the way...telling people to "let it go" is a passive/aggressive attempt to "win" the conversation, implying that anyone continuing to discuss the issue clearly has some sort of "hangup." In effect: "Everyone else has moved on, what's wrong with you that you need to carry on the conversation (even though that didn't stop me from making my own responses, which I'll never admit to openly)?" Everyone should be free to discuss whatever they wish, as long as they wish, with whomever they wish, within the limitations of the board guidelines, without fear of others trying to manipulate them into silence. Don't you agree...? You were complaining about "bullying", but then employing standard psychological manipulation to shame me into shutting up...? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockMyAmadeus Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I fixed it. Now, can you support your statement to this debate as to rebut Mark1's claim? Yes. Or do you just want to disagree with him? Because we all haven't heard your opinion/facts in this case. Not how debate works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Also if you want to be hated, say nasty things that aren't true-that'll do it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockMyAmadeus Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I've been a member of several forums and even spent yyears building my own. While bullying can be used as a case of people interacting, i am going to agree with RMA. Most people claiming cyber bullying are whining buttholes who need to stop and take a look at their thought process and what they are actually taking a stance on That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I think bullying has to have a component of occurring over time. If someone passed you on the street every day and called you an individual_without_enough_empathy that could be bullying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Or you can ignore everyone and debate with whomever you want to debate with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Wait how can you debate them if you are ignoring them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisco37 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Nonsense. Total tripe. "Bullying" occurs when people are in abusive situations which they cannot, due to circumstance, readily escape. As a result, the vast, vast majority of actual victims of actual bullying are children, young teens, or the impaired, people who aren't capable of taking control of a situation by confronting it, walking away from it, or avoiding it altogether. Calling people who are mean on the internet "bullies" does actual harm to actual victims of actual bullying, due to the Chicken Little syndrome. The word has been completely watered down, to the point where those who are really being bullied are eventually ignored due to wide scale overuse. Now, we're raising vast swaths of people who think that anyone who challenges them in any conceivable way, whether the challenge is legitimate or not, is "bullying." And that way lies madness. If someone doesn't want to be "cyber bullied", the answers are simple: up one's rhetorical game, grow thicker skin, learn how to handle a challenge, don't let one's emotions get the upper hand, and if all else fails, go outside and enjoy real life for a while. Problem very effectively solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryAllen Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I've been a member of several forums and even spent yyears building my own. While bullying can be used as a case of people interacting, i am going to agree with RMA. Most people claiming cyber bullying are whining buttholes who need to stop and take a look at their thought process and what they are actually taking a stance on That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased. Stop, pick a source - they are all consistent. Dictionary.com The Free Dictionary Bullying does not require a captive audience. You are making personal opinion statements and trying to pass them off as if they are facts I am not misusing or misinterpreting a word, you are. Plain and simple you are incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryAllen Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Ignoring the discussion in this specific thread, adult cyber bullying is real. stuff to read more stuff to read linky reading reading linky read link read for link reading Nonsense. Total tripe. "Bullying" occurs when people are in abusive situations which they cannot, due to circumstance, readily escape. As a result, the vast, vast majority of actual victims of actual bullying are children, young teens, or the impaired, people who aren't capable of taking control of a situation by confronting it, walking away from it, or avoiding it altogether. Calling people who are mean on the internet "bullies" does actual harm to actual victims of actual bullying, due to the Chicken Little syndrome. The word has been completely watered down, to the point where those who are really being bullied are eventually ignored due to wide scale overuse. Now, we're raising vast swaths of people who think that anyone who challenges them in any conceivable way, whether the challenges is legitimate or not, is "bullying." And that way lies madness. If someone doesn't want to be "cyber bullied", the answers are simple: up one's rhetorical game, grow thicker skin, learn how to handle a challenge, don't let one's emotions get the upper hand, and if all else fails, go outside and enjoy real life for a while. Problem very effectively solved. Do you feel better now? I like to remain internally and externally consistent, so, no, because I don't let my feelings override my ability to reason. Seriously, I can't think of a worse way to view a situation then to state that people who are feeling bullied should "toughen-up," "effectively learn how to better argue" or "leave." That point of view seems to be fueled by a sense of superiority and a "cull the weak" mentality. I don't know you well enough to actually guess at your motivations, but your last statement is extraordinarily elitist. You've identified the problem in your first sentence right there: "FEELING bullied" (emphasis mine.) You are misusing the word "bully." That's the sum of it completely. In addition, you want people to think about what they are feeling, rather than what actually is. Relying on feelings, which vary with the wind, and can change on a dime, is a very frustrating way to go through life. If you want to be popular, tell people what they want to hear. If you want to be hated, tell them the truth. As true now as it has ever been. Regardless, besides the occasional chide at the discussion, most have let this go. What do you feel the need to come back and comment? Here's some perspective: I didn't read this thread for the entire time between my last post, and about 40 minutes ago. So, the responses posted today are all new to me, and don't I have the right to respond as well...? By the way...telling people to "let it go" is a passive/aggressive attempt to "win" the conversation, implying that anyone continuing to discuss the issue clearly has some sort of "hangup." In effect: "Everyone else has moved on, what's wrong with you that you need to carry on the conversation (even though that didn't stop me from making my own responses, which I'll never admit to openly)?" Everyone should be free to discuss whatever they wish, as long as they wish, with whomever they wish, within the limitations of the board guidelines, without fear of others trying to manipulate them into silence. Don't you agree...? You were complaining about "bullying", but then employing standard psychological manipulation to shame me into shutting up...? Interesting. I wasn't try to shame you and you are just attempting to twist my words in a manner to frustrate me. Look, I simply was stating the fact that the discussion had passed and you commented many hours later. Sure, you are free to do so, but you are clearly smart enough to see that most had moved on. If anything, someone should be reading into your motivations in knowingly stirring the pot hours after it settles. I don't know what your true motivation is, but the things you are claiming about bullying and my interpretation are false. You are saying things that are untrue and using distraction tactics to discredit what I say and generally being difficult just for the sake of it. We don't need to discuss this further unless you want, but at this point I do not see a need as we are clearly at an impasse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysterio Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) I've been a member of several forums and even spent yyears building my own. While bullying can be used as a case of people interacting, i am going to agree with RMA. Most people claiming cyber bullying are whining buttholes who need to stop and take a look at their thought process and what they are actually taking a stance on That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased. Stop, pick a source - they are all consistent. Dictionary.com The Free Dictionary Bullying does not require a captive audience. You are making personal opinion statements and trying to pass them off as if they are facts I am not misusing or misinterpreting a word, you are. Plain and simple you are incorrect. I've always perceived bullying to be the exploitation of a power imbalance to inflict harm (physical, psychological, etc) on someone. While a "captive audience" may be overstating the case, some sort of leverage is needed in a bullying situation so the victim can't remove themselves. For example, it'd be tough for me to bully the president, as I have no leverage and thus no ability to victimize. Tough to bully my boss for the same reason, power imbalance is not in my favor. Clearly cyber bullying is a real thing, with people harnessing the power of the internet to place a victim in a bad situation that it is very difficult to get away from (isn't social media grand?). I'm just failing to see how it applies here. Where is the imbalance being exploited to inflict harm, other than in the sense of one party feeling that their side of the discussion is unsupported? Edited February 27, 2015 by mysterio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro. Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Nonsense. Total tripe. "Bullying" occurs when people are in abusive situations which they cannot, due to circumstance, readily escape. As a result, the vast, vast majority of actual victims of actual bullying are children, young teens, or the impaired, people who aren't capable of taking control of a situation by confronting it, walking away from it, or avoiding it altogether. Calling people who are mean on the internet "bullies" does actual harm to actual victims of actual bullying, due to the Chicken Little syndrome. The word has been completely watered down, to the point where those who are really being bullied are eventually ignored due to wide scale overuse. Now, we're raising vast swaths of people who think that anyone who challenges them in any conceivable way, whether the challenge is legitimate or not, is "bullying." And that way lies madness. If someone doesn't want to be "cyber bullied", the answers are simple: up one's rhetorical game, grow thicker skin, learn how to handle a challenge, don't let one's emotions get the upper hand, and if all else fails, go outside and enjoy real life for a while. Problem very effectively solved. I applaud your choice of home run gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro. Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I've been a member of several forums and even spent yyears building my own. While bullying can be used as a case of people interacting, i am going to agree with RMA. Most people claiming cyber bullying are whining buttholes who need to stop and take a look at their thought process and what they are actually taking a stance on That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased. Stop, pick a source - they are all consistent. Dictionary.com The Free Dictionary Bullying does not require a captive audience. You are making personal opinion statements and trying to pass them off as if they are facts I am not misusing or misinterpreting a word, you are. Plain and simple you are incorrect. Look at those definitions you linked. Usage and meaning can, and does change over time. You are picking a point in time to try to prove your point. At one time, the word 'bully' meant a 'pimp'. At another time, it meant 'good fellow' Who knew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro. Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So much could be avoided if people just walked away Nevertheless, I don't always agree with what Chuck says (ASM2) but I enjoy his posts. There is a no nonsense approach that is refreshing. It sure beats all the emojis some seem to use instead of engaging in actual discussion. If you speak your mind and are straight shooter, you will be perceived by some as being a bully. Ludicrous, but often true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicConnoisseur Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Nonsense. Total tripe. "Bullying" occurs when people are in abusive situations which they cannot, due to circumstance, readily escape. As a result, the vast, vast majority of actual victims of actual bullying are children, young teens, or the impaired, people who aren't capable of taking control of a situation by confronting it, walking away from it, or avoiding it altogether. Calling people who are mean on the internet "bullies" does actual harm to actual victims of actual bullying, due to the Chicken Little syndrome. The word has been completely watered down, to the point where those who are really being bullied are eventually ignored due to wide scale overuse. Now, we're raising vast swaths of people who think that anyone who challenges them in any conceivable way, whether the challenge is legitimate or not, is "bullying." And that way lies madness. If someone doesn't want to be "cyber bullied", the answers are simple: up one's rhetorical game, grow thicker skin, learn how to handle a challenge, don't let one's emotions get the upper hand, and if all else fails, go outside and enjoy real life for a while. Problem very effectively solved. I applaud your choice of home run gif I as well. David Ortiz rises to the challenge! 1950's war comics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryAllen Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I've been a member of several forums and even spent yyears building my own. While bullying can be used as a case of people interacting, i am going to agree with RMA. Most people claiming cyber bullying are whining buttholes who need to stop and take a look at their thought process and what they are actually taking a stance on That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased. Stop, pick a source - they are all consistent. Dictionary.com The Free Dictionary Bullying does not require a captive audience. You are making personal opinion statements and trying to pass them off as if they are facts I am not misusing or misinterpreting a word, you are. Plain and simple you are incorrect. Look at those definitions you linked. Usage and meaning can, and does change over time. You are picking a point in time to try to prove your point. At one time, the word 'bully' meant a 'pimp'. At another time, it meant 'good fellow' Who knew? Read all the other definitions I used in the thread, including the numerous ones about "Internet Bullying." I agree that if we are discussing my original accusation, there is interpretation to whether or not I am justified. I personal feel I was, but at this point that is irrelevant to the current discussion. My discussion back and forth with RMA is that bullying does not require a captive audience and the fact that people can walk away from a conversation or their computer does not mean they were not or cannot be bullied in those situations. I am not picking a loose definition to meet my needs, I am stating that all cited materials (from the entire thread, not just the last few posts) confirm that bullying does not require a captive audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunsicker Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I've been a member of several forums and even spent yyears building my own. While bullying can be used as a case of people interacting, i am going to agree with RMA. Most people claiming cyber bullying are whining buttholes who need to stop and take a look at their thought process and what they are actually taking a stance on That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased. Stop, pick a source - they are all consistent. Dictionary.com The Free Dictionary Bullying does not require a captive audience. You are making personal opinion statements and trying to pass them off as if they are facts I am not misusing or misinterpreting a word, you are. Plain and simple you are incorrect. I've always perceived bullying to be the exploitation of a power imbalance to inflict harm (physical, psychological, etc) on someone. While a "captive audience" may be overstating the case, some sort of leverage is needed in a bullying situation so the victim can't remove themselves. For example, it'd be tough for me to bully the president, as I have no leverage and thus no ability to victimize. Tough to bully my boss for the same reason, power imbalance is not in my favor. Clearly cyber bullying is a real thing, with people harnessing the power of the internet to place a victim in a bad situation that it is very difficult to get away from (isn't social media grand?). I'm just failing to see how it applies here. Where is the imbalance being exploited to inflict harm, other than in the sense of one party feeling that their side of the discussion is unsupported? I would guess this is where the differing views on if this is bullying would come from. rfoiii feels a power imbalance with RMA for some reason (join date?, number of posts?, raw intellect?). Whereas RMA just views it as two people posting on a chat board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VintageComics Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I would guess this is where the differing views on if this is bullying would come from. rfoiii feels a power imbalance with RMA for some reason (join date?, number of posts?, raw intellect?). Whereas RMA just views it as two people posting on a chat board. rfoii also sees bullying where nobody else does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryAllen Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I've been a member of several forums and even spent yyears building my own. While bullying can be used as a case of people interacting, i am going to agree with RMA. Most people claiming cyber bullying are whining buttholes who need to stop and take a look at their thought process and what they are actually taking a stance on That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased. Stop, pick a source - they are all consistent. Dictionary.com The Free Dictionary Bullying does not require a captive audience. You are making personal opinion statements and trying to pass them off as if they are facts I am not misusing or misinterpreting a word, you are. Plain and simple you are incorrect. I've always perceived bullying to be the exploitation of a power imbalance to inflict harm (physical, psychological, etc) on someone. While a "captive audience" may be overstating the case, some sort of leverage is needed in a bullying situation so the victim can't remove themselves. For example, it'd be tough for me to bully the president, as I have no leverage and thus no ability to victimize. Tough to bully my boss for the same reason, power imbalance is not in my favor. Clearly cyber bullying is a real thing, with people harnessing the power of the internet to place a victim in a bad situation that it is very difficult to get away from (isn't social media grand?). I'm just failing to see how it applies here. Where is the imbalance being exploited to inflict harm, other than in the sense of one party feeling that their side of the discussion is unsupported? I appreciate the well balanced opposing opinion. Without getting into detail and re-trudging the discussion with CG (which I do NOT want to do) I guess all I can say is that I felt based on more than one interaction, that I was singled out purposefully with the intent to belittle me through tactics I felt were aggressive (both in repetition and use). Either way, to your point, there is subjectivity when viewing it from the outside and therefore unfortunately hard "prove." I can't "prove" to anyone how I felt, they either believe me or don't. Which is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I think rfoiii just has a limited vocabulary. He thinks bully means jerk. People are jerks rfoiii. You thought chuck gower was a jerk for disagreeing with you. Just don't turn into a cynical butthole like me and assume EVERYONE is a jerk. Not everyone is a jerk, but most are buttholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
