Gwazi Magnum said Most cases of bullying and abuse are not like Hitler in the sense that they will keep beating up everyone until they're in charge. They pick very specific targets that they have an easy time dominating over and then rub their ego with the dominance over said individuals may it be a classmate, their own defenseless child etc. In most cases they pick target's who cannot defend themselves to the point of scaring off the aggressor as detailed, if a third person comes in and defends the victim (and succeeds) it's only a temporary fear factor.

... Duh. That's exactly what I said.

Brovo said Bullies are malevolent predators. They prey on the weak. If you don't fight back, they will continue to prey on you as an easy target. That is the hunter mentality.

Bullies prey on the weak. That's what they do. That's what any person looking for an easy target does. I used Hitler as a comparison but you seem to have failed to notice the part called "all of human history". If Hitler was the only mad dictator in history that needed to be stopped with arms, then I'd call it a blip. However, he wasn't. There have been hundreds, potentially thousands of people who, with even a little power, abused the shit out of it to attack and bully weaker neighbours, weaker people, and so on. Whether it was the Catholics burning witches and pagans at the stake and fear mongering the populace into believing what they told them to, or a completely batshit Stalinist dictatorship that consumed multiple nation states and enslaved them, in the process murdering millions because they were weak and he was strong, the same theme remains prevalent: Those who are strong and malevolent will bully those who are weak and those who don't fight back.

Period. That is the song of human history: Religious, political, economic, ethnic, or otherwise, when one group felt it was stronger, it would bully another into submission. That is how life was for a very, very long time. That is why I used it as an example, because you can see human nature in human history. You want to know the ones that history notes often weren't swallowed? The ones who fought the hardest, smartest, dirtiest, and most cunning of ways. Unless the sides were stupidly uneven any advantage could be circumvented through superior smarts and a simple determination to survive.

Will it dissuade all bullies? No. Some bullies are sociopaths. They fight for the sake of it. However, the vast majority of bullies are cowards. If you stand up to them and spit in their face and fight them, punch them if they punch you and don't hesitate to make them pay for making you suffer you will scare the vast majority of them away in one go and earn a reputation that will persuade other bullies to find different marks.

Gwazi Magnum said It either only lasts as long or during the time the third part is involved, if say the victims new friend is absent the bully uses the opportunity. If it was an abusive parent who was stopped by a stranger in public, said stranger is unlikely to be around again. And assuming said third party was constantly present, it only lasts as long as the fear comes in place. One said bully/abuser get's friends, decides to use a weapon or whatever method you can image that can have them get over the fear inflicted on them.

Never once did I argue for third party interventionism. In fact, I tend to disdain it for being as useless as you point it out to be. For someone to survive they have to fight for themselves. It's been that way for four billion years, no amount of civilization is going to change primal behaviour like that overnight, and it really shouldn't even try when it can't even figure out the identities of men and women, leave alone how they should deal with more violent tendencies.

Gwazi Magnum said Having been bullied growing up in elementary school, fighting back does nothing but give the bully the reaction they wanted.

Having also been bullied because you apparently also missed that part, fighting back worked perfectly fine for me... And for every other person I knew. The fact that you landed the sociopathic kids is unfortunate but it happens. In that case you've really got no out, refer back to the abusive parent bit, where my only response on that is that it's likely a lose-lose situation no matter what way you slice it.

Gwazi Magnum said They know they can get to you and push your buttons, it just makes them laugh and encourages more bullying in the future.

Wut. Wait, uhh... You realize the topic is about physical violence right? If you get hit, that's not them pushing your buttons: That's them trying to beat the stuffings out of you. The only logical response to that is to beat them harder than they beat you, or if you're in a very shitty position, find a way to escape and only fight as long as is necessary to ensure escape.

Common sense Gwazi, c'mon.

Gwazi Magnum said Even if said bully walks away with more bruises than you do they consider it worth it just cause they got you to react.

lolwut no. They're thinking "holy shit ow that hurt." They're either going to come back with friends in which case you do the same (or if you don't have any friends there's always your best friend, swiss army knife as a threatening tool), or they're going to fuck off and pick weaker prey. More often than not, it's the latter. You're just not the worth the effort, you're not that important. To supposition that the bully would come back exclusively to get to you is to create a world view in which you are somehow the centre of this bully's life, when in most cases, the bully has picked you to spit on because he knows he can get away with it and then not give a flying fuck five minutes later. That's the whole point of being a bully: Making someone weaker than you so you can feel better about yourself temporarily when you do other shit.

Gwazi Magnum said And if they're half smart they'll come back with friends the next time to prevent being on the losing side of the fight next time. While the person who never reacts may be bullied verbally (which can have a ton or zero effect depending on the persons self-confidence and amount of thick skin) they're days of being bullied physically are very numbered because theirs simply not rise or enjoyment gained from fighting them.

Gwazi Magnum said Basically the question is, in cases such as bullying and parents who physically abuse their children is the best response to beat up the bullies and parents right back?

The topic is quite literally about physical abuse as said by you, why do you keep bringing up verbal abuse? Why would you even put this on the same plane of existence as parents beating the shit out of their children. One is temporary frustration that everyone goes through in life and the vast majority come out of A-okay. The other leaves psychological and physical scars that live with you for the rest of your fucking life. This is like comparing killing a cow for food to murdering people and cannibalizing their corpses.

Good god this is a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. The resolution for one is entirely different for the resolution of the other because the levels of horror at which each one exists as a crime are entirely different. If I saw verbal abuse I'd console the one abused and try to teach them how to stand up for themselves in a reasonable manner, and how to have self-confidence, and so on. If I saw parental abusive I'd be half tempted to murder the parent for the sake of the child. The responses are so extremely different it's not even... Remotely comparable.

Wow, I feel really bad not giving this a longer/more detailed response considering how much time and effort seemed to come into this and how well thought out and explained the points are. But I simply can't find anything to pull out and disagree with or debate with. I'm almost 100% agreement with what you've said here. :)
I would ask about self defense though, if say you're being beat up like crazy is it appropriate to fight back enough to remove yourself from the situation? Or is there is still a better way to protect yourself?

I usually go by the idea that violence is the tool of a weak person. Some say the same with swearing, or sarcasm, or fallacies (though directed at arguments there), but yeah, I see this as all coming into the same realm. We act take violence as a primal drive and therefore inescapable -- almost inevitable to return, I suppose. However, it's really not. In a society where you're free to actually share your insights yet are taught approach situations empathetically (or at least sympathetically) there is simply no need for violence between members. We see violence when frustration cannot be expressed. When people are so oppressed that their voices are stifled. The more open venues for expression we have, the less likely people will fall into more basic responses. In terms of the criminally violent, they're obviously opting out and should be given that out. The mentally ill obviously need care and attention. My whole point here I guess is a bit of summary, violence is so often a symptom and we would better invest ourselves by exploring the contributing factors.

For right now since we have to deal with a system a lot less interested in caring about others, we do have to deal with how to respond personally. In my experiences being targeted by potentially violence behaviour I played the cards I had. First, I forced those targeting me to engage with me in a public place, or not at all. Second, I gave those who cared at some level a heads up of what was going on. Third, I grabbed a knife. Finally, I decided against that knife. My aggressively vigilant fans bided their time for a while, but ended up cornering me in our lunch hall, well, more off the side of our lunch hall for something feigning solitude. Public enough though, I responded their heads up by getting loud. No one wouldn't know what was going on. Those who did give a shit and I'd told would collect, perhaps not to stop the situation immediately, but at least to see that my head was not beaten in without some help. I left the knife behind, because I'm human. Principles have a way of tarnishing just as the first blow reminds you what pain feels like and the meekest can become the most sadistic. For me the situation concluded after a good share of people collected, having heard my narrative of what was happening as I shouted it, and this crowd collectively told them 'to leave me alone'. They didn't really step in, but they all spoke up, and that pretty much ended things for me. I think with some energy others can find their own non-violent solutions to respond to a threats too. Sometimes foresight isn't allotted of course, and in those times I would urge anyone to deeply consider their next step. We are who we are in our worst moments, those are no less true to our identity than who we are when others are watching. So if we gladly respond with violence and happily subscribe to this thought beforehand, say on this forum, I'd seriously question anyone who spends more breath supporting self-defence and violence as an unavoidable reality rather than trying to change how people think about bullying.

Why do people bully? I can say the fact that many still see such as 'kids just messing around' is in no way helping the matter. Yeah, some kid could just be trying to assert dominance. Probably not that different from those stroking their e--peen here in the OT, but you don't solve that by beating them down when they misstep. You don't use a bullies poor action as an acceptable invitation for your own violence. Whether you're being abused physically, mentally, or verbally, that shit stays with you and all are equally serious. Unfortunately, I like many of you have suffered from the many forms of abuse, all violent at the core, and if I had the chance to respond to my abusers I wouldn't do so using the same tactics they did. I'd straight up show them what they're doing to me, others, and themselves. Nothing is too good to be true -- just requires some work, that's all.

Brovo said
The topic is quite literally about physical abuse as said by you, why do you keep bringing up verbal abuse? Why would you even put this on the same plane of existence as parents beating the shit out of their children. One is temporary frustration that everyone goes through in life and the vast majority come out of A-okay. The other leaves psychological and physical scars that live with you for the rest of your fucking life.

I'm sorry, which is which? I don't mean to come out sarcastic, but honestly, bullying and using violence as a tool against children are very related. There's a reason why child psychologists steer parents away from using violence in their parenting tool kit, that behaviour doesn't just fall away. When we use violence against our children, those children learn that undesirable behaviour should be fixed with violence. Some become insecure, or get the foundation for this 'might is right' attitude, but hey, at least they get they learn violence is the answer, right? All sarcasm aside, this establishes pretty fertile soil to grow a bully. While there are most definitely other contributing factors that lead to youth feeling they must physically dominate others for power, we should begin with how we parent. While we see how we parent, we should also validate all forms of abuse and open those victims up to counselling. At this bottom of this post I've included a personal experience about the link between parental abuse and bullying. Not necessary to read, but there, at your pleasure.

[quote]This is like comparing killing a cow for food to murdering people and cannibalizing their corpses.

Verbal Abuse is like killing a cow for food, while a parent beating the shit out of their child is like murdering people and cannibalizing their corpses. Your words, is that right? I know you know that's an extreme example, but, isn't is also a pretty skewed one too? Verbal abuse is a great way to destroy a person's confidence, self-esteem, and perception of what's what in the world. Verbal abuse can transform a strong kid into a kid who needs to find strength where they can, whether it's beating another up or community service, we don't know. They're both abuse, they're both shitty practices as a human being. They aren't as different from slaughtering livestock to slaughtering humans.

However, once that line is crossed is it not also important to try to make it so crossing the line can have the most minimal amount of damage possible?
Or if we can't do that, at least learn how to react once over the line so if you're out their again it's not even worse for you the second time?

No. If balance and control and good-natured teaching and discipline are insufficient to maintain order, then the sum of human accomplishment throughout history has failed to reach this individual. There can be no mercy in this situation. You can't 'just shoot him a little.' When force is required it cannot be tempered, or it will fail. Cavemen and clubs. And if the offender comes out the other side more-or-less intact, then you can try to teach him again.

To withhold a righteous fury is not mercy. By depriving the criminal of the consequences of his actions, you have doomed him to repeat his miscreant ways.

....and slowly, I'm gathering that this is actually a thread about high school again, in which case you should pretty much ignore all this as 'real world shit,' and return to classroom discussion. The learning process is part of the equation here, one I'm taking as a given; if the subject is 'while you're still in school,' then that process isn't complete yet. I obviously don't think we should be smashing 9th graders' faces with rocks when they sneak out of detention.

Brovo said ... Duh. That's exactly what I said.

Bullies prey on the weak. That's what they do. That's what any person looking for an easy target does. I used Hitler as a comparison but you seem to have failed to notice the part called "all of human history". If Hitler was the only mad dictator in history that needed to be stopped with arms, then I'd call it a blip. However, he wasn't. There have been hundreds, potentially of people who, with even a little power, abused the shit out of it to attack and bully weaker neighbours, weaker people, and so on. Whether it was the Catholics burning witches and pagans at the stake and fear mongering the populace into believing what they told them to, or a completely batshit Stalinist dictatorship that consumed multiple nation states and enslaved them, in the process murdering millions , the same theme remains prevalent: Those who are strong and malevolent will bully those who are weak and those who don't fight back.

Period. That is the song of human history: Religious, political, economic, ethnic, or otherwise, when one group felt it was stronger, it would bully another into submission. That is how life was for a very, long time. That is why I used it as an example, because you can see human nature in human history. You want to know the ones that history notes often weren't swallowed? The ones who fought the hardest, smartest, dirtiest, and most cunning of ways. Unless the sides were stupidly uneven any advantage could be circumvented through superior smarts and a simple determination to survive.

Will it dissuade all bullies? No. Some bullies are sociopaths. They fight for the sake of it. However, the vast majority of bullies are cowards. If you stand up to them and spit in their face and fight them, punch them if they punch you and don't hesitate to make them pay for making you suffer you will scare the vast majority of them away in one go and earn a reputation that will persuade other bullies to find different marks.

I was trying to highlight the difference between typical bullies and Hitler, but I probably shouldn't of mainly repeated your first paragraph to explain how.
Hitler was not someone who only picked on target's who could not defend themselves/were willing to fight back. Nor did he flee once friends like America got involved.

He stuck around until the end. Now, you could argue that his army was powerful enough and he was winning enough of the war that it was natural for him (like a bully) to keep going, and that by the time he was losing fleeing was useless cause he'd just get chased. But even if there was dominance, this was still an example of someone who picked on target's who fought back, rather than early on switching to weaker targets. That's what I (poorly) was trying to argue/point out with that bit there, Hitler didn't exactly fit that bill.

Further below we do detail a disagreement on how bullies operate... which does come into some relevance here. In my definition/experience bullies continue to fight if you fight back (I'll detail specifics and why in that part specifically), so what Hitler does here would still make sense/count as operating as a Bully. But if we treat the definition as only picking on the weakest of targets, then there's area's that don't match. With most other examples in human history, there is a lot of this as well. Those who fought more than they could handle.

There are a few arguments to be made here, there were some who simply fought those that they had about no chance in losing against (ex: Raiders), but those rarely flourished into things like empires (Exception: Rome. They lost later when rebellion and invasion reached their door) because even if they did win there was too little gain/benefit from it. Also you can look at examples such as wars and treated a war as say a single bully encounter in comparison depending.

Because it's not like a country can constantly toggle in and out of war status with a country whenever they like, them reaching the point that they lose could very well be treated as the bully learning that the victim gives up a fight and is not worth the trouble. That it counts as that initial encounter that draws the bully off. But at the same time, isn't the fact there are some who takes such risks against bigger targets over bigger rewards suggest the action is more logical/thought out and is not simply about dominance? Also, they could still try surrendering in the war if they truly learned this wasn't an easy victory and would rather stop wasting time here so they can pick on someone weaker.

Brovo said Never once did I argue for third party interventionism. In fact, I tend to disdain it for being as useless as you point it out to be. For someone to survive they have to fight for themselves. It's been that way for four billion years, no amount of civilization is going to change primal behaviour like that overnight, , leave alone how they should deal with more violent tendencies.

The Third party argument honestly wasn't even meant to imply you disagreed but rather reference america in the WW2 comparison above.

I don't think anyone (here, I recognize schools act like this all the time) is suggesting that we change bullying overnight though. But more looking at the model/system we use to respond to it/prevent it with and questioning how much violence (if any) needs to be used in response. Also we as a species used to be far more violent than we are today, we evolved to a point where we are capable of not fighting for long enough to actually evaluate and look at issues such as men and women identities. The less humanity has had to focus on violence the more resources we've had to focus on other areas, it can argued that the rate of success of our species can be directly compared to how violent we are.

Brovo said Having also been bullied because you apparently also missed part, fighting back worked perfectly fine for me... And for every other person I knew. The fact that you landed the sociopathic kids is unfortunate but it happens. In that case you've really got no out, refer back to the abusive parent bit, where my only response on that is that it's likely a lose-lose situation no matter what way you slice it.

And I can easily say "For me and every other person I knew fighting back did nothing. The fact you landed the cowardly kids is fortunate, but it happens".
I think we both already address/are aware of that both kinds of bullies exist, but with that being the case simply saying "Fighting back" is not always the best idea because we are aware there are a kind of bully that doesn't work for.

With abusive parents I do admit with how terrible our services against such abuse are at the moment it is pretty difficult to suggest anything to work with it. But I think everyone here can agree it's not violence (which we already seem to agree with) may it be by the victim or by a third party.

Though, maybe I'm just reading too much into this but there seems to be a lot of anger/hostility in these replies.
Are you ok Brovo? Did I hit a nerve or something? :/

Brovo said Wut. Wait, uhh... You realize the topic is about physical violence right? If you get hit, that's not them pushing your buttons: That's them trying to . The only logical response to that is to beat them harder than they beat you, or if you're in a very shitty position, find a way to escape and only fight as long as is necessary to ensure escape.

Common sense Gwazi, c'mon.

Push your buttons as in they know how to get a reaction. They know what to do to make you respond (which however, is very easy when they start a fight). It is a logical response, but it's still a response. A response that shows that they can act as an inconvenience to you, annoy you, get in your way, act bigger than you even if they only win due to numbers etc. It's a bit tricky for me to keep arguing with logic here cause in my experience bullies are largely absent of logic, it simply boils down to they get to act like an annoyance and mess things up to you and this makes them feel bigger than you and they get a kick out of it.

Brovo said lolwut no. They're thinking "holy shit ow that hurt." They're either going to come back with friends in which case you do the same (or if you don't have any friends there's always your best friend, swiss army knife as a threatening tool), or they're going to fuck off and pick weaker prey. More often than not, it's the latter. You're just not the worth the effort, you're not that important. To supposition that the bully would come back exclusively to get to you is to create a world view in which you are somehow the centre of this bully's life, when in most cases, the bully has picked you to spit on because he knows he can get away with it and then not give a flying fuck five minutes later. That's the whole point of being a bully: Making someone weaker than you so you can feel better about yourself temporarily when you do other shit.

Most bullies I have deal with don't act like this, I've had one or two that did (and as a result they were short lived) but this is not the case with most in my area. It doesn't even suggest you're the center of their life though, but rather it's a source of fun/enjoyment from them. They get a sick kind of thrill by fighting you, picking on you and because they find it fun they'll come back and do it later. Now note in my case there was an outside circumstance underway, two actually.

1) This really started at a new school, that opened that year so every child was new. They were scared, desperate and looking to find people to be friends with, to be better than, and all generally overwhelmed by all the unfamiliar faces.

2) I started that school with a teacher who very publicly/openly hated me. Basically turning a blind eye to children picking on me and the teacher himself treated me like shit. He gave the go ahead to the class (which through gossip spread to the school) that I was an ok target to pick on. Now considering point 1 where everyone was new and looking to establish dominance, label people etc. I'm not too surprised I may of suffered an out of the norm bullying behaviour as a result.

However, even after leaving said school for another where no one followed me from bullies that I faced there didn't act much different. Granted the mob mentality of "Everyone in the school including the teacher says this is fine" was gone, but simply fighting back did not work as a deterrent regardless. These were people who regardless of no teacher go ahead, or the fact this was an old school where most people knew each other for many years were willing to return to old victims that were willing to fight back, and in both cases this was something they seemed to enjoy and have fun with.

Brovo said The topic is quite literally about physical abuse as said by you, why do you keep bringing up verbal abuse?

It was brought up once, and briefly at that as a side note that it's really the worst of what those who simply choose to ignore the bully will get. While those who fight back, often end up with the physical bullying.

Brovo said Why would you even put this on the same plane of existence as . One is temporary frustration that everyone goes through in life and the vast majority come out of A-okay. The other leaves psychological and physical scars that live with you for the . This is like comparing killing a cow for food to murdering people and cannibalizing their corpses.

And it wasn't a comparison, it was a side note.

Brovo said Good god this is a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.

Good thing I wasn't making a false dichotomy then.

ShonHarris said Violence is so often a symptom and we would better invest ourselves by exploring the contributing factors.

Speaking as someone with experience in therapy that's centered around trying to find the trigger/cause of things, I strongly agree with this statement.

ShonHarris said First, I forced those targeting me to engage with me in a public place, or not at all.

Second, I gave those who cared at some level a heads up of what was going on.

1st: How could you always set that up though?

2nd: By this I assume you mean you told friends and others about how you were bullied?

ShonHarris said My aggressively vigilant fans bided their time for a while, but ended up cornering me in our lunch hall, well, more off the side of our lunch hall for something feigning solitude. Public enough though, I responded their heads up by getting loud. No one wouldn't know what was going on. Those who did give a shit and I'd told would collect, perhaps not to stop the situation immediately, but at least to see that my head was not beaten in without some help. I left the knife behind, because I'm human. Principles have a way of tarnishing just as the first blow reminds you what pain feels like and the meekest can become the most sadistic. For me the situation concluded after a good share of people collected, having heard my narrative of what was happening as I shouted it, and this crowd collectively told them 'to leave me alone'. They didn't really step in, but they all spoke up, and that pretty much ended things for me.

That also seems to be a lucky roll of the dice though too. Many don't have the crowd of friends to do such a thing, or simply have good meaning acquaintances/strangers around willing to help. Where I went to school just about everyone stuck to themselves and their current group, not ever leaving it to help another person. And if they went to a fight it was because it was fun to watch, not because of any want to help people.

I mean I'm glad this worked for you, but I just don't see this working for most people. Especially when the person using it is labeled at the geek/nerd at the bottom of the social ladder.

mdk said No. If balance and control and good-natured teaching and discipline are insufficient to maintain order, then the sum of human accomplishment throughout history has failed to reach this individual. There can be no mercy in this situation. You can't 'just shoot him a little.' Cavemen and clubs. And if the offender comes out the other side more-or-less intact, then you can try to teach him again.To withhold a righteous fury is not mercy. By depriving the criminal of the consequences of his actions, you have doomed him to repeat his miscreant ways. ....and slowly, I'm gathering that this is actually a thread about high school again, in which case you should pretty much ignore all this as 'real world shit,' and return to classroom discussion. The learning process is part of the equation here, one I'm taking as a given; if the subject is 'while you're still in school,' then that process isn't complete yet. I obviously don't think we should be smashing 9th graders' faces with rocks when they sneak out of detention.

I think since most physical bullying is experience by people in High School that just happens to be where we draw most of our experience and conclusions from.

So, considering that your argument here is specifically aimed at people who are adults I can better understand the logic and reasoning behind it. However, I'd still argue that even adults learn, and we already have a system largely how you suggest called prison. People get beaten and raped there all the time regardless of the crime. But many people come out just as bad or worse than they were before.

Magic Magnum said
I think since most physical bullying is experience by people in High School that just happens to be where we draw most of our experience and conclusions from.So, considering that your argument here is specifically aimed at people who are adults I can better understand the logic and reasoning behind it. However, I'd still argue that even adults learn, and we already have a system largely how you suggest called prison. People get beaten and raped there all the time regardless of the crime. But many people come out just as bad or worse than they were before.

Not at all. Prison is the humane, non-violent alternative to physical punishment. Its failure is evidence in my favor.

Voilence isn't necessary and in the long run you may know the actions of a person by the fruits of their shortcomings. But here's why it poses as a good short term solution.

It can empower said person, or state, or faction. It's a tool/method that's capable and readily used within the spectrum of human behaviour. It's not always a necessary "evil" because quite frankly if the US invaded a Polynesian island with voilence, the natives rising up in arms would leave them worse off than if they simple sat with their thumbs up their backsides. Why? Because the threshold of how much power over your environment voilence can supply is much lower for the natives than it would be for the US.

But say the US was going against Qutar, and instead of using militant means to fight against the US, Qutar simply said "cheap oil" to either the US, or someone with equal militant strength. The war ends with a snap. Was their voilence? No. But there was a gained position in power.

It's not voilence that solves the problem, it's the ability to disempower the conflicting party through which voilence provides that matters, and you can do this with other means than voilence. It's less "should voilence be fought with voilence" and more "How do I achieve a position of power equal and/or higher than that of my opponent, and what traits to I currently have that would do so.".

Asking a 90lb bookworm to go fisty cuffs with a 200lb jock is retarded.

The problematic duality that we hold that "voilence is neccessary because alternatives" don't always work is because the alternatives we have in a competitive based world is bullshit. Economics is built in a way that naturally breeds conflict of interest and will manifest into seperations, segregations and divides of all kinds. It's an exclusionary based profit model. It's why you'll see countries war it out, and it's why you'll see those same values of "dog eat dog" power play trickle down our cultural ladders to the playgrounds. Alternatives like open discussion and more altruistic building exercises are great in building bonds and allowing people to disarm without feeling vulnerable. But when dealing with a bully you're already dealing with someone who still feels vulnerable in these kinds of situations, who still values power as it's more prioritized in his set of adopted cultural values, and is reflective of repeated exposure to environments where he probably has to utilize or abide by these social presets. To say "hey now be friends, hold hands and let's talk it out, school is a safe place, go make daisy chains" is all nice and good, but at most cases it won't work because the bully won't see any need to change his behaviour and his current behaviour will still probably be re-enforced elsewhere.

So, in order to beat the bully without using voilence, you must do it in a manner that comes from a position of power, something he recognizes. After his submission, which is hard again if he's exposed to conflicting environments, will you be able to better handle remoulding his behaviour to one that's more altruistic and representative of an egalitarian, open culture.

mdk said
Not at all. Prison is the humane, non-violent alternative to physical punishment. Its failure is evidence in my favor.

Prison presents both physical, mental and emotional punishment by exposing offenders to other offenders and having them live with each other in confined spaces. The only known way a man reforms in prison is through religion, which is by chance the only cultural norm within the prison that enforces values that aren't "power through conflict" based and criminal by our standards.

To say Prison is humane because it's not outright official torture or capital punishment is saying a 2nd degree burn isn't painful because of the instance of a 3rd degree burn. It's still in the "punishment" direction.

Neobullseye said
I'll ask you a very simple question: Why? Why do you feel this way?

Look at human history.

Revans Exile said
Look at human history.

History is nothing more than biased recordings of past events. It's not a science and therefore fails to give any objective understanding on anything. Using history as a means to justify your views is literally using non-evidence to produce a non-objective opinion that upholds and re-enforces various inaccurate assumptions/dualities without any consultation of sociology, psychology and evolutionary human biology. Which are the appropriate fields of study to actually determine something worth reading on this topic without resorting to utterly disregarding your views.

scribz said
Prison presents both physical, mental and emotional punishment by exposing offenders to other offenders and having them live with each other in confined spaces. The only known way a man reforms in prison is through religion, which is by chance the only cultural norm within the prison that enforces values that aren't "power through conflict" based and criminal by our standards. To say Prison is humane because it's not outright official torture or capital punishment is saying a 2nd degree burn isn't painful because of the instance of a 3rd degree burn. It's still in the "punishment" direction.

I think you misunderstand. I'm arguing that violence is the cornerstone of legitimate authority. When I said 'Prison is the humane alternative,' I meant it sardonically. As in, 'Look what being nice got you.' It's a hellish cess-pool where stronger, more violent men seize powers that we, in our civil discretion, refused to take.

mdk said
I think you misunderstand. I'm arguing that violence is the cornerstone of legitimate authority. When I said 'Prison is the humane alternative,' I meant it sardonically. As in, 'Look what being nice got you.' It's a hellish cess-pool where stronger, more violent men seize powers that we, in our civil discretion, refused to take.

Aw okay. I say voilence can be a form of legitimate authority, but it truly comes down to power which can be enacted through altruistic means as well, as stances of authority are entirely situational.

mdk said
I think you misunderstand. I'm arguing that violence is the cornerstone of legitimate authority. When I said 'Prison is the humane alternative,' I meant it sardonically. As in, 'Look what being nice got you.' It's a hellish cess-pool where stronger, more violent men seize powers that we, in our civil discretion, refused to take.

It's also a for-profit system that puts notoriously little time, money, and attention to actually help prisoners build marketable skills. In our country we incarcerate minorities in droves, who already encounter unique obstacles in the job market, and are further screwed with an arrest under the belt to boot. So, should this really be called 'being nice'? Frankly, it's a cheap pseudo-attempt that's more about money and sweeping problems under the rug rather than helping to change them.

Violence is not the cornerstone of legitimate authority. One can lead and gain trust through an assortment of avenues using intellect, experience, perceived power (ex. Claiming position granted by a deity, or the classic American 'God Wills It'), and so on. Violence is totally one way to gain authority, sure, but it's also a lazy way that opens numerous other issues. Like children who hold their resentment and learn to hide their undesirable habits for when authority looks away, so to do the people. A violent leader may well have a population that looks true on the surface, but is in fact quite dishonest behind their backs.

So we all agree then.

It can be a means of taking power but it's entirely situational and has a lot of negative repercussions such as being a demonstration that goes entirely against the values of a altruistic, egalitarian, co-operative and healthy society.

@Shon Harris: As I said. The vast majority come out of it okay. Some don't. Some do get long lasting scars and that's unfortunate. Some do become bullies because of it and that's unfortunate. However, we cannot then even pretend that it's comparable to a parent abusing their child with physical means. It's not. One of these things is hugely more detrimental than the other. We're talking on the level of tuna fish versus blue whale in size difference here, if you get what I'm trying to say.

I'm not saying that verbal abuse is right, or that it's something we should totally ignore. It's something that needs to be addressed, but with an entirely different set of instruments than physical abuse towards a child. Because the latter pretty much guarantees physical and psychological scars that will last the rest of their lives and often does translate into further child abuse later on down the line. It's a vicious cycle that usually requires outside interference to resolve.

On the other hand, verbal abuse is something every child goes through at least once in their lives. Especially now that we all have the Internet at our disposal. Everyone gets hurt and it services an actual purpose: Burst the special snowflake self-image if the parents can't will themselves to do it. Believe it or not, verbal abuse can be used to help a child grow more confident in themselves, not less confident--"The bully has to make you feel bad to feel better about himself, that means you're stronger than him simply by knowing he isn't anything without you!" You use the experience in a constructive manner to help your child deal with the fact that, in the real world, there will be a lot of hateful, spiteful people, and they can let it get to them, eat them away every day, or they can move on and grow up, became responsible people with courageous hearts.

Will it stop them from getting hurt? No, but some amount of pain is good pain. It's life pain, growing pain. It helps transition children into becoming adults: That is, how they deal with their pain helps define who it is they will be when they are adults.

Now, constant verbal abuse that lasts for months? Shit needs to get done, and there are avenues one can take, methods one can use, all of which avoid physical contact. However, Gwazi (intentionally or not) drew the comparison line at physical abuse of a child and bullying. Thus bullying by association gained the physical abuse attribute. The only logical response to someone trying to beat you, possible to severe injury or death, is to fight back physically. Hit them back. If you don't, they will hurt you and possible kill you.

That's all I'm trying to get at here, is the comparison is rather ludicrous on the face of it because the two problems are inherently completely different. The only tangential link they share is causing pain to the victim.

@Gwazi: And I'm not going to bother responding to everything Gwazi spewed because he entirely missed the point of everything I was saying, so that he could respond to something that I didn't say at all. Example: Hitler was used as an example of all of human history, and that if nobody fought him he would have kept doing his thing until the whole world was waving Nazi flags. Or until he went insane, as he did go insane when he was losing the defending war against the Allies and killed himself and his wife.

However, you somehow misconstrued this to mean that Hitler would have totally run away if America got involved, but instead they didn't and fought to the end--once again making it an argument about third party interventionism--something I've already, repeatedly stated, doesn't work.

The point of the example Gwazi is that malevolent predators--hunters--bullies, like Hitler, will continue to do what they do until someone stops them. Until someone hits them so fucking hard they give up. Hitler gave up in the end, he killed himself. A bully will give up in the end, either because you're too hard a mark to bully, or because they're sociopaths and you were forced to defend yourself until they were hospitalized. Pacifism doesn't work against a bully, it never has, it never will. You have to fight when physical confrontation occurs. All of human history has shown this. Time, and time, and time again. To ignore it is to literally ignore the war songs of mankind for the past ten thousand years.

The idea that one form of abuse is more detrimental or more serious than the other sounds more like personal belief than fact. So, yes, we can believe that both should be taken with an equal level of seriousness. And yes, we should engage with both physical and verbal abuse with the understanding that the two are all too often linked, and that how a parent treats their child with either will undoubtedly have significant effects in their lives. Whether every child who is told they are shit seeks confidence through bullying, or if they instead use more sinister means such as sexual assault or seeking higher offices to satisfy that hole, the problem is clear in our society. Punch me or call me a racial slur, either way, you're damaging a part of who I am. That damage will stay with me, whether the scar is visible or not.

Verbal abuse is not a tool. Brovo, can't you imagine better ways to teach your child that being a special snowflake is neither realistic nor ideal than to build that conception before breaking it down through any form of abusive tactic? Yes, we all will face verbal abuse in our lives. But if you're seeing it as a means to solve our entitlement problem, perhaps it'd be more effective to push education about power and oppression first. Hell, maybe we can ditch this idea that being super is more satisfying than being a part of a community you choose to nourish. Verbal abuse can cause some people to grow a thick skin and accept a reality that some people will always hate them. Sure, absolutely, that's something being a person of colour teaches you as you see those who face extreme racism and violence decide how to build their lives. But the simple fact is that just acknowledging that this suffering can make you strong isn't all that's necessary. This isn't some precious treasure you've revealed unto the world. Thriving from punishment requires more than an individual's will and perseverance, it requires support from outside too. You don't just get to move and grow up from being made to feel that you're less than everyone else. It's a form of socialization, and you should know already how painfully difficult it is to just change that veil you've been made to look through. Just recognizing it isn't enough. When verbal abuse is used, our perceptions are changed, and given time, they can be altered beyond our ability to just 'grow up'. So, no, I do not accept that one can just choose to be strong and buck up in the face of this sort of preventable abuse. It's an easy path to justify something so problematic as somehow useful, despite the irreparable damage it clearly leaves with so many.

Again, 'the only logical response to violence is to fight back' is an opinion and not a fact. Just because the easiest and most immediate response for you may be to respond with a show of force does not make it the exclusive OR most logical option. That's simply not how we all think, obviously. Take a step back on this issue though. You get that we're told the best way to engage with a bully is with equal or greater force, right? It's sort of the Western motto. The good guy is always good, even if they beat their nemesis to a pulp and kills hundreds of henchpeople on the way there. Johnny is getting picked on and beaten up, so Johnny's poppa is going to teach him how to deck the sucker. This right up there with Uncle Sam, American Pie, and the notion that we'll be give Hitler a solid right hook to the chin to turn him right around. Have you considered that it might be possible that while yes, you believe this, but perhaps the reason you come to this conclusion so passionately is because it's what we've all had depicted to us as we've grown up? It's harder to think of non-violent solutions. Those who do are usually assassinated and considered weak in the eyes of America. Ironically, even steadfast Judeo-Christian believers often seem to support giving a bully what's coming to them rather than turning the other cheek and responding with love. We pick and choose the easiest solution. It's satisfying to punch back, absolutely. But in my experience the way that temptation feels has rarely led me to good results. Besides, I'd be a monster to decide my life was more valuable than another's.

@Gwazi And I'm not going to bother responding to everything Gwazi spewed because he entirely missed the point of everything I was saying to respond to something that I didn't say at all. Example: Hitler was used as an example of all of human history, and that . Or until he went insane, as he did go insane when he was losing the defending war against the Allies and killed himself and his wife.However, you somehow misconstrued this to mean that Hitler would have totally run away if America got involved, but instead they didn't and fought to the end--once again making it an argument about third party interventionism--something I've already, repeatedly stated, doesn't work.The point of the example Gwazi is that malevolent predators--hunters--bullies, like Hitler, will continue to do what they do until someone stops them. Until someone hits them so fucking hard they give up. Hitler gave up in the end, he killed himself. A bully will give up in the end, either because you're too hard a mark to bully, or because they're sociopaths and you were forced to defend yourself until they were hospitalized. Pacifism doesn't work against a bully, it never has, it never will. You to fight when physical confrontation occurs. All of human history has shown this. Time, and time, and time again. To ignore it is to literally ignore the war songs of mankind for the past ten thousand years.

Wasn't Hitler a watercolour artist who fancied architectural and landscape paintings first? He was rejected from art school before falling into poverty until the Great War. Even before the unfair treaties following the war, racism was rampant around Germany. In the aftermath, when far more turned to racism in order to blame newcomers to their country for the suffering the German population endured-- pretty familiar to today -- Hitler found some truth in such blaming. He was one among a many desperate for some solace for the misfortune of their nation and the extreme poverty they faced. Many can feel turned against by the world, but the treaties which bankrupted Germany were literally signed by the world's largest powers. It should be no surprise that such collective force would inspire a deep pride in enduring such trauma, as well as the subsequent superiority complex after rising from the ashes.

The Hitler story continues, obviously, but my point is he doesn't do this alone. Using the Hitler example in any context requires us to consider the cultural context that fed into his perspective and the unfortunate truth that Hitler was not some lone madman. He is unlikely to have grown into what he was without the community of hatred to validate and perpetuate his hateful point of view. So as with any form of abuse, with Hitler too, after we settle the initial violence we need to focus on the systematic problems. There are clear issues leading to many of our bullies and killers, and chalking everything up to them 'just being sadistic' is ignoring the possibility that something else is going on. The longer we ignore that possibility, the longer allow others to be exposed to the problems and crack.

ShonHarris said Violence is not the cornerstone of legitimate authority. One can lead and gain trust through an assortment of avenues using intellect, experience, perceived power (ex. Claiming position granted by a deity, or the classic American 'God Wills It'), and so on. Violence is totally one way to gain authority, sure, but it's also a lazy way that opens numerous other issues. Like children who hold their resentment and learn to hide their undesirable habits for when authority looks away, so to do the people. A violent leader may well have a population that looks true on the surface, but is in fact quite dishonest behind their backs.

I'm not discounting the value of intellect, compassion, learning, merely accounting for the role of force (and it should be noted that up until now, we've been talking about 'over the line' criminal types). Prison walls can't be guarded by teachers. They can and should contain teachers! But they are built with hammers, lined with razor wire, manned with guns, dotted with floodlights. All of the beautiful things we've accomplished as a species are made possible largely by our capacity for violence. I don't see that as a flaw. All power is an exercise of force, compulsion. Many wonderful things are done by people without power, without the capacity to exert force upon others, and I think that's fantastic. Still, Rome was built of blood, not marble, and if it wasn't for the musket, New York would be longhouses. Maybe that would have been better. I think acknowledging the nature of authority is a crucial part of its just application -- one we too often miss, when we get caught up talking about how things ought to be.

scribz said
History is nothing more than biased recordings of past events. It's not a science and therefore fails to give any objective understanding on anything. Using history as a means to justify your views is literally using non-evidence to produce a non-objective opinion that upholds and re-enforces various inaccurate assumptions/dualities without any consultation of sociology, psychology and evolutionary human biology. Which are the appropriate fields of study to actually determine something worth reading on this topic without resorting to utterly disregarding your views.

I am not talking the specifics of human history such as this country won this war, or this group committed atrocities. I am talking about human history of the species being violent evil garbage.

Gwazi, there is no denying that prevention is the best option. But as i said before, bullying is often a decision, and not some instinctual act of violence. Yes, that means you have to reason the person - but tell me: how hard do you think it is to change someones view on life, on what should be or not be, what is acceptable and how THEY should act? It sometimes is DAMN FUCKING HARD, so fucking hard it seems that there is no way of changing them. And that is where violence steps in. Break them, beat those stubborn bastards into surrender, so that they stay put at least for the time being. Violence is often sided with desparation, or mere lack of precious time. It took centuries for humanity to rise from the barbaric past of undying war, slavery and upper-class tyranny, and it might take us even longer to rid ourselves of what we have now.

Hmm. How about we try approaching this from a different position since we're not all getting through to each other, using clarification.

#1: If it's non-violent (verbal) abuse, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things? (ex: Do you first attempt to communicate, then turn to others for help, then resort to violence as a last resort? Is there an ordered structure, is it one option only, is it situational dependent?)

#2: If it's physical abuse, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things?

#3: If it's physical or verbal abuse by a parent, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things?

It seems we all agree these things are problems but we don't agree on resolution, so lets try to clarify the questions a bit more, then put the solutions more in a list of most favourable to least favourable as opposed to some generic "my way is right". Isn't this the sort of situation where there are multiple solutions, but some might be better than others anyway?