The virtuosity of bullying

[LooN3y]

I thought of a theory, and thought I would see what people think of it - see if it's reasonable and all. I'm exactly looking for as many counterarguments as possible, to see if it can be falsified. You know the mechanisms, 7even; that's how this thread came about.

Other than that, I think it's useful to mention that I am a person who strongly believes in the positive effects of a collective (and objective) morality. I do not believe in the righteousness of an egocentric darwinist approach to life. We as humans are better off together than alone. That's exactly how all the great achievements of mankind have been able to come into existance: the fact that Thomas Edison didn't have to bother with baking bread and breeding cows, ultimately resulted in lighted housing, just to name something. The surplus value of the human collective over its individuals is incredible.
Ultimately, if every man went after his own objective interests, an optimized collective functioning with strong discipline and a morality fitting human nature would be the outcome. The weakness behind all this is man's lack of objective perception. We're emotional beings (thank God), but that does lead to us coloring reality the way best fitting with the experiencing of pleasurable emotions. We're flawed, but not totally erroneous in our being. Man's got potential.

With that being said, I believe competition is a necessity for human progress (human progress being that which it takes to make existance on earth more balanced). It does not include exhausting the planet, "for only future generations will really be confronted with the consequences - it won't be our problem." Neither does it include terrorizing others for the sake of doing it. It doesn't justify violence, and it doesn't justify the willing systematic destruction of one's character. It does however justify people challenging each other, and calling one another out for deviant behavior. If you wish to be part of a social process, be (however usually unconsciously) willing to make concessions to that. Where (unwritten) rules apply, they are not meant to be broken. The ones who end up finding themselves victimized by bullying are however usually those living in irrational beliefs, assuming they can have friendship and affection without having to adapt to the norms. Such is the nature of bullying as a phenomenon: you get picked on for not complying whilst claiming a part of the social collective, as if that's a rightful claim. That's an irrational and egocentric attitude, neglecting the legitimacy and the reality of the environment.

However, to be different is not a sin. You can't just decide to be a freak and claim peoples respect though. If people wish to grant you their respect, you will have to earn it. Legitimize your deviance and they will accept it from you. I have a different approach to life than my friends, and even though we make fun of certain things (which is a process going both ways), underneath lies a foundation of respect. Both sides have earned the right to maintain their deviance. Had I not legitimized my deviance, I may have regarded the whole 'making fun' as being an act of bullying.

There lies the point of 'my theory': bullying serves a positive purpose, making it a virtuous act by its nature. It's the way 'bullies' defend their unwritten codes; the way the 'victims' are confronted with the nature of their claims. Bullying, or rather social challenging, is a mechanism used to stabilize a collective. It defends social cohesion, thus being crucial in maintaining unity and peace, ironic as it may seem.
(Please note that by 'bullying' I do not mean the structural terrorizing I mentioned earlier, hence why I prefer calling it 'social challenging')

You made a good point though, 7even, about verbal violence perhaps being only debatable in its difference from physical violence. It is the intention behind it that creates the difference if you ask me. Physical violence is always wrong, for it has no purpose other than to hurt. Structural verbal violence is wrong also (calling names, threatening), for it is a type of terrorizing a victim. It has no purpose other than to satisfy the narcsistic minds of the bullies.
The difference between that and what I call social challenging lies only in its nuance and intent. Narcistic violence is always wrong, for it is an egocentric act neglecting the reality of the social environment. If you wish to regard social challenging as an act of violence, at least acknowledge its progressive purpose: to keep people in check. It is a form of conscious social judgement, as opposed to the egocentric (and reality neglecting) motivations that spawn narcistic violence.

Concretely put, I don't hold the blind obeying of social or cultural norms as a virtue. It surely is a virtue to shape your identity through forming a realistic and progressive world view. Yet that's exactly what the 'victims' of bullying lack.

of course its better. i believe there is more similarties than differences as u compare a nation with a mafia. because the 1's that made the nations are the ones that had the most power, money, and men. like how the medival lords fight for power or kingship. it hasnt been that long only 500-600 years since than. and i believe democracy is still an experiment.