RE: Bullying? (Full Version)

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



Message


Moonhead -> RE: Bullying? (10/19/2012 6:54:25 AM)

I really hope we don't get anybody fuming about how firing some retail clerk is an evil authoritarian infringement of his right to free speech...




Lucylastic -> RE: Bullying? (10/19/2012 7:59:09 AM)

well we wont now.
LOL




Moonhead -> RE: Bullying? (10/19/2012 9:10:55 AM)

An ounce of prevention, my dear...
[;)]




kalikshama -> RE: Bullying? (10/19/2012 11:37:14 AM)

quote:

I really hope we don't get anybody fuming about how firing some retail clerk is an evil authoritarian infringement of his right to free speech...


I suspect we would have already if this was in P&R....




Aswad -> RE: Bullying? (10/19/2012 5:28:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoundSlave4Life

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/so-there-are-naked-autopsy-pics-of-amanda-todd-out.452710065/


Those aren't of Amanda Todd.

It's just some sick fuck that thought it would be funny to post an old pic with her name on it.

IWYW,
— Aswad.




descrite -> RE: Bullying? (10/19/2012 5:34:35 PM)

quote:

No one has advocated dumbing down the educational system and no one has advocated customing civilization - bullying is endemic and we need to respond to it given the numbers of children involved in being a bully as well as the victims. 


Oh. I thought we were talking about making laws that restrict which words we use to communicate. I guess I was mistaken.


quote:

Did you read the article I provided and see the numbers of children involved?


No. I barely have time to read posts here and respond accordingly.



I got to thinking about language, and how dumb it is to restrict it, and how constraining ideas is contrary to a free nation...and I thought:

ke-seke


See, now, those are really offensive words. If you are Korean. And happen to know how to read English transliteration of Hangul.

So is the word itself offensive? Or the context? Earlier posters suggested it was intent...but I never got a response when I asked about whether absence of malice should constitute a defense against "bullying" laws. Other posters suggested that the interpretation of harm should be left up to the "victim"....which means we will necessarily be tailoring our society to the weakest, most sensitive person.

There are a lot of people who find the idea of this website offensive. Be assured that they will soon attempt to outlaw its existence, once the notion that words can cause harm is proliferated in the law.

Switch my target-example from the Pope to a politician who is elected (ignore for the moment that the Pope is a politician who is elected). If I target this politician to purposefully belittle them, wanting to cause actual harm (I want them to lose their job)...can that politician claim I've bullied them? What if I start a website that gets 100,000 hits, and a lot of people join in with me? What if I call the politician a treefucking assclown? Should I go to jail? Should I be forced to pull down the website?

Do you know who Peter Zenger was?
















Moonhead -> RE: Bullying? (10/20/2012 6:19:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I really hope we don't get anybody fuming about how firing some retail clerk is an evil authoritarian infringement of his right to free speech...


I suspect we would have already if this was in P&R....

Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it?




Kaliko -> RE: Bullying? (10/20/2012 8:35:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: descrite

quote:

No one has advocated dumbing down the educational system and no one has advocated customing civilization - bullying is endemic and we need to respond to it given the numbers of children involved in being a bully as well as the victims. 


Oh. I thought we were talking about making laws that restrict which words we use to communicate. I guess I was mistaken.


quote:

Did you read the article I provided and see the numbers of children involved?


No. I barely have time to read posts here and respond accordingly.



I got to thinking about language, and how dumb it is to restrict it, and how constraining ideas is contrary to a free nation...and I thought:

ke-seke


See, now, those are really offensive words. If you are Korean. And happen to know how to read English transliteration of Hangul.

So is the word itself offensive? Or the context? Earlier posters suggested it was intent...but I never got a response when I asked about whether absence of malice should constitute a defense against "bullying" laws. Other posters suggested that the interpretation of harm should be left up to the "victim"....which means we will necessarily be tailoring our society to the weakest, most sensitive person.

There are a lot of people who find the idea of this website offensive. Be assured that they will soon attempt to outlaw its existence, once the notion that words can cause harm is proliferated in the law.

Switch my target-example from the Pope to a politician who is elected (ignore for the moment that the Pope is a politician who is elected). If I target this politician to purposefully belittle them, wanting to cause actual harm (I want them to lose their job)...can that politician claim I've bullied them? What if I start a website that gets 100,000 hits, and a lot of people join in with me? What if I call the politician a treefucking assclown? Should I go to jail? Should I be forced to pull down the website?

Do you know who Peter Zenger was?



As an adult in the big, wide world, if someone wants to say mean things about me to everyone else..well, I wouldn't like it, but I would not want to see the general ability to do so taken away, either. I don't really know what laws, if any, apply now.

But taking it down to a child in a school system, you're not talking about mean vs. not mean. You're talking about the ability to provide the same educational environment for all within a school. If a child has insults hurled at him as he walks into school, then his ability to learn is hampered by reaction to something that's happening within the school's control and is directed solely at him.

That's all. That's really all it is. Providing the same educational opportunities for each student in the school. It's nice that as a result of the laws we do wind up with some nicer-acting kids, and it's not to say that school officials don't care unless forced to by law. But the intensity with which schools are now reacting to potential bullying situations is, indeed, because they are now forced to by law - not only to train, investigate, and discipline, but to prove - in every instance - that they did.

So these are two different things. The world...and the school.






shannie -> RE: Bullying? (10/20/2012 9:08:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

But taking it down to a child in a school system, you're not talking about mean vs. not mean. You're talking about the ability to provide the same educational environment for all within a school. If a child has insults hurled at him as he walks into school, then his ability to learn is hampered by reaction to something that's happening within the school's control and is directed solely at him.

That's all. That's really all it is. Providing the same educational opportunities for each student in the school. It's nice that as a result of the laws we do wind up with some nicer-acting kids, and it's not to say that school officials don't care unless forced to by law. But the intensity with which schools are now reacting to potential bullying situations is, indeed, because they are now forced to by law - not only to train, investigate, and discipline, but to prove - in every instance - that they did.

So these are two different things. The world...and the school.



My friend's seven-year-old kid was put on "bully probation" at school for calling a kid "stupidhead." Lol.

The problem is that schools/teachers always take these things to absurd (and even violent) extremes the minute they're given the opportunity to do so. This "bully" thing is being used, just like everything always is, to justify even more police power in schools. Now we won't have bullies, we'll have kids labeled as bullies at the drop of a hat, and kids pepper-sprayed, strip searched, and tasered in school. It's happening all over the country. But I guess the "anti-bully" stuff doesn't apply to "authority figures."





Moonhead -> RE: Bullying? (10/20/2012 9:40:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie
Now we won't have bullies, we'll have kids labeled as bullies at the drop of a hat, and kids pepper-sprayed, strip searched, and tasered in school. It's happening all over the country.

Is it?
You'd think that would have made the news a few times if it was...




Kaliko -> RE: Bullying? (10/20/2012 9:41:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

But taking it down to a child in a school system, you're not talking about mean vs. not mean. You're talking about the ability to provide the same educational environment for all within a school. If a child has insults hurled at him as he walks into school, then his ability to learn is hampered by reaction to something that's happening within the school's control and is directed solely at him.

That's all. That's really all it is. Providing the same educational opportunities for each student in the school. It's nice that as a result of the laws we do wind up with some nicer-acting kids, and it's not to say that school officials don't care unless forced to by law. But the intensity with which schools are now reacting to potential bullying situations is, indeed, because they are now forced to by law - not only to train, investigate, and discipline, but to prove - in every instance - that they did.

So these are two different things. The world...and the school.



My friend's seven-year-old kid was put on "bully probation" at school for calling a kid "stupidhead." Lol.

The problem is that schools/teachers always take these things to absurd (and even violent) extremes the minute they're given the opportunity to do so. This "bully" thing is being used, just like everything always is, to justify even more police power in schools. Now we won't have bullies, we'll have kids labeled as bullies at the drop of a hat, and kids pepper-sprayed, strip searched, and tasered in school. It's happening all over the country. But I guess the "anti-bully" stuff doesn't apply to "authority figures."




Well, there are a few ways the school is looking at that comment.

1. The student who was called the name could have been truly affected by it (for whatever reason) and perhaps he was just walking into a test and wasn't able to concentrate and did poorly. Now, of course, a child can't be protected from every little thing that might affect his thinking. But within the school environment, and something that is directly pointed at that particular student - yes, that in fact can be controlled.

2. Or...the student who was called the name didn't care at all. And so the student who did the name calling sees no consequence. And either the student continues to name-call others (or that same student) thinking he is doing no damage, when clearly it wouldn't be acceptable behavior, or he escalates and says or does worse in order to provoke reaction. Without someone telling him NO, he has no reason to stop.

3. Or....other students heard the name-calling incident and, seeing no consequence arise, believes it to be acceptable behavior.

4. Or...other students heard the name-calling incident and felt intimated themselves for future interaction with that student.

Again...I want to make clear that I in no way support protecting a child from everything in his life that may make him sad or upset. What I do support is taking the steps to minimize the number of incidents happening in (or around) the school and directly pointed at that one student. If it's too cold in a classroom and a kid can't concentrate, that's not done to directly torment that child. But if a child is too cold in a classroom and can't concentrate because a bully took his sweater, that needs to be addressed with consequence.

And...I guess this is just a difference of opinion, but I would be appalled if my child ever called someone a name like that. Being insulting to someone in that way is one heck of an offense in my house. I would like to think that if the school (or another student) heard something like that from her, that she would face consequences for it.

I agree that the whole concept of bullying in schools these days is kind of a catch-all. It has to be - laws are requiring it to be so, not the schools. Overall, I believe the concept is a good one, once I finally understood it myself. (I wasn't always on the side I am now about it.)

I think it will take a few years for parents to get used to that sort of culture (because when we grew up it was different) but the kids in schools these days are already more accepting of it. It will be interesting to see how our grade schooled kids who are now growing up with bully prevention being an inherent part of their day will be as high school students. I think many will be watching to see if disciplinary behaviors go down in number.




descrite -> RE: Bullying? (10/20/2012 5:07:51 PM)

quote:

I think many will be watching to see if disciplinary behaviors go down in number.


Yeah, see-- that's not nearly as important to me, as an American, as the crucial need to have citizens who feel that they can express themselves freely.

I don't care if people feel "nice." I don't care if they feel "good."

I care a lot if they are conditioned to not use certain words and go out of their way not to make waves. Give me Abbie Hoffman and Gloria Steinhem and Stokely Carmichael and Hunter Thompson over all these hipster d-bag sweeties who are afraid of making waves, any day.

People who misbehave give us culture, and new ideas, and freedom, while those who kowtow help shackle us to outdated nonsense.




Kaliko -> RE: Bullying? (10/20/2012 5:25:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: descrite

quote:

I think many will be watching to see if disciplinary behaviors go down in number.


Yeah, see-- that's not nearly as important to me, as an American, as the crucial need to have citizens who feel that they can express themselves freely.

I don't care if people feel "nice." I don't care if they feel "good."

I care a lot if they are conditioned to not use certain words and go out of their way not to make waves. Give me Abbie Hoffman and Gloria Steinhem and Stokely Carmichael and Hunter Thompson over all these hipster d-bag sweeties who are afraid of making waves, any day.

People who misbehave give us culture, and new ideas, and freedom, while those who kowtow help shackle us to outdated nonsense.



Right...but again...don't think I'm putting the need for equality in a school environment in the same pot as out in the world. "The world" does not have an obligation to provide anyone with anything. A school does. Dissent to the detriment of another young student is not the same as dissent to ultimately benefit a group in society.

Additionally, "making waves" doesn't have to come at the expense of others, like bullying does. A great example: a year or so ago, middle school students at a public school staged a protest about a policy about their school lunches. They all planned to just not buy lunch one day. They all brought their lunches in and ignored the cafeteria line. And let me tell you - the school got the message when they lost their revenue, but the school also gained a boatload of respect for those kids. Making a difference doesn't have to be so antagonistic.





subfever -> RE: Bullying? (10/20/2012 7:35:19 PM)

quote:

But I guess the "anti-bully" stuff doesn't apply to "authority figures."


But authority figures serve and protect*... so it's okay... [;)]


* the interests of the elite




metamorfosis -> RE: Bullying? (10/21/2012 2:14:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
As an adult in the big, wide world, if someone wants to say mean things about me to everyone else..well, I wouldn't like it, but I would not want to see the general ability to do so taken away, either. I don't really know what laws, if any, apply now.


I can think of several. Sexual harassment laws, as well as anti-discrimination laws, legislate against the bullying of adults in the workplace.

Pam




metamorfosis -> RE: Bullying? (10/21/2012 2:19:02 AM)

Sorry, double post.

Pam




Kaliko -> RE: Bullying? (10/21/2012 2:35:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
As an adult in the big, wide world, if someone wants to say mean things about me to everyone else..well, I wouldn't like it, but I would not want to see the general ability to do so taken away, either. I don't really know what laws, if any, apply now.


I can think of several. Sexual harassment laws, as well as anti-discrimination laws, legislate against the bullying of adults in the workplace.

Pam



Oh, yes...I know that there are laws for organizations and workplaces and the like. But if I wanted to just start talking shit about, say, my neighbor. I don't know what, if any, laws would apply.




DomMeinCT -> RE: Bullying? (10/21/2012 6:10:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

My friend's seven-year-old kid was put on "bully probation" at school for calling a kid "stupidhead." Lol.

The problem is that schools/teachers always take these things to absurd (and even violent) extremes the minute they're given the opportunity to do so. This "bully" thing is being used, just like everything always is, to justify even more police power in schools. Now we won't have bullies, we'll have kids labeled as bullies at the drop of a hat, and kids pepper-sprayed, strip searched, and tasered in school. It's happening all over the country. But I guess the "anti-bully" stuff doesn't apply to "authority figures."



Schools do not always take these things to the absurd - in fact that's exactly why more states have taken steps to clearly define bullying/what isn't bullying, and the school systems' requirements to document and respond to true bullying incidents. The rest of the statements (pepper spray, strip search, tasering) are ridiculous conflations of what isn't happening.




littlewonder -> RE: Bullying? (10/21/2012 10:00:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko


quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
As an adult in the big, wide world, if someone wants to say mean things about me to everyone else..well, I wouldn't like it, but I would not want to see the general ability to do so taken away, either. I don't really know what laws, if any, apply now.


I can think of several. Sexual harassment laws, as well as anti-discrimination laws, legislate against the bullying of adults in the workplace.

Pam



Oh, yes...I know that there are laws for organizations and workplaces and the like. But if I wanted to just start talking shit about, say, my neighbor. I don't know what, if any, laws would apply.


If it's untrue, there's the offense of slander.

Personally as an adult, bullying, slander, libel, harassment just rolls off my back. I'm a big girl and just laugh. Why would I care what others say? Now as a child, I learned to toughen up because I was bullied every single day until I got to about 11th grade and my eczema wasn't quite as bad and I was working a well paying job and so I was no longer associated with my poor family. But I know some children are extremely sensitive. My daughter was. I tried to teach her to get a thick skin but she couldn't do it. She's still kinda sensitive as an adult. I still try to help her with it but sometimes it doesn't work. I feel that the older she gets the more she'll learn to just say "fuck it" and just walk away. The more experiences in life, the tougher you become.





metamorfosis -> RE: Bullying? (10/21/2012 11:07:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
...But if I wanted to just start talking shit about, say, my neighbor. I don't know what, if any, laws would apply.


It might make a difference if the neighbor was elderly or disabled.

The Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act (in Oregon) includes the following definition of abuse:

(e) Use of derogatory or inappropriate names, phrases or profanity, ridicule, haeassment, coercion, threats, cursing, intimidation or inappropriate sexual comments or conduct of such a nature as to threaten significant physical or emotional harm to the elderly person or person with a disability.

www.leg.state.or.us/ors/124.html

Pam




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125