Lifestyle > Train of Thought
The virtuosity of bullying
swangin and bangin:
--- Quote from: swangin and bangin on January 07, 2008, 03:11:52 AM ---please shut the fuck up
--- End quote ---
LooN3y:
--- Quote from: swangin and bangin on January 07, 2008, 03:25:27 AM ---
--- Quote from: swangin and bangin on January 07, 2008, 03:11:52 AM ---please shut the fuck up
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
y dont you shut the fuck up. your the one that comments on my posts.
swangin and bangin:
--- Quote from: swangin and bangin on January 07, 2008, 03:25:27 AM ---
--- Quote from: swangin and bangin on January 07, 2008, 03:11:52 AM ---please shut the fuck up
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Elevz:
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.
Elevz:
Perhaps it's interesting to also tell where all this came from, just for background info.
I was over at my parents' place the other day, and they were watching a tv show in which they reunite high school classes and provide some background on the people of that class, talk about everything that happened to them ever since, and the way things went on 'back in the days' when that class was in function. This time, they included an item on bullying.
One man (in a subtile way) complained about how he's still traumatized (he put that very boldly) about being bullied back in the days. When the others in that class were individually asked about this before the recording of the final show, no one even remembered anything serious ever happening. Mister Victim complained how he was thrown out of the window on ground level, and how people used to pick on him all the time. He was very bittered about it.
They confronted the 'main bully' with him during an excursion by the two of them. The bully basically didn't have a clue at first. Back then he was occasionally thrown out of the window just alike. He didn't really apologize for supposedly bullying, for he had never had any intentions to hurt, nor had he knowingly done so. He was an assertive man though, while the 'victim' looked like an insecure dork with a mental disorder. He may have actually had a disorder, I don't know. He didn't mind assuming the role of the victim though, while NOBODY in the class ever realised anything serious went on. Does that make everyone else blind, or is there something wrong about this unstable victim?
It made me think back of the reply I got a few weeks ago when I added an old classmate of mine to my friends list on Hyves (a profile website comparable to myspace). He literally (translated) sent me this:
"Subject: explanation why a friend request
Message: i have a question why do you want to add me as a friend while you used to hurt me in a terrifying way?? that's to me really an incredible mystery i'll be hearing from you."
I couldn't help but laughing when I saw this. This is a kid I used to hang out with when I was young; we used to be in the same football team and we were in the same class for many years. He had a bad temper though, which caused him to burst out in an unfocused rage of anger like once a week. He once attempted to attack people with his head out front, and because he also walked funny we called him penggoat (penguin/goat) for some days. You know how children are - we thought it was funny. He got mad and violent every once in a while, but outside of that we perfectly got along. We hung out for years after the incident and everything was cool (throughout the years he lost his bad temper); when high school came, our ways went apart and I quit playing football after a while. Never heard from him again, until I came across his profile and clicked that "add friend" button.
Now after years, I can look back on that situation and say me and my friends were actively correcting him on his behavior. Children aren't very nuanced when it comes to such situations, but we perfectly made clear what was acceptable and what wasn't, according to the rules of the group. It was his choice to be part of that group. We never beat him, we never threatened to harm him, we didn't structurally terrorize him - we only sentenced his flaws. He even overcame them throughout time.
Somewhere along the way, after I never saw him again, someone or something must have triggered a bad sense of injustice within him. Like we had no rights to apply our rules to our friendship bonds; as if social existance is unconditional. That's a leecher's attitude, to want to have your cake and eat it too. Something must have happened to him, or maybe someone close to him offered him help, turning his former 'bullies' into the scapegoats for all that was wrong about him. It perhaps made his life easier, coming to terms with the 'fact' that everything that's wrong about him can be blamed on some bullies from back in the day. Reading his message, I thought it would be better if I didn't reply. I don't want to stir up the safe shell he's living in. If he's comfortable with his illusions, I'll let him be.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version