This was a very interesting thread to read and included very interesting takes and perspectives by both Judy and Curtis - leaving the personal out of it, but acknowledging how the personal spurred some of the perspectives, I thought it was a good debate.
I am reminded, however, that each of our realities differs, and from my own experience, I have seldom succeeded in changing anyone's viewpoint on themselves or their position. Usually, in my family at least, the "other" person descends into defensiveness and then a victim mentality...accusing me of "taking their inventory." I usually counter with..."not true, I am not sitting in judgment, simply trying to explain how your behavior is affecting me and the children and asking you to consider what I am saying." Whereby, the fallback of the "other" is to attack by rewriting reality and the details of any said exchange and accusing me of being abusive and also crazy. I appreciate the debates here, more easily held, in part, I think, because they aren't influenced by physical presence. ________________________________ From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius <anartax...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:09 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bullying --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" >>>>> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: >>> <snip> >> I checked many definitions of the term when I designed my course >> including over a dozen books on the subject. I am familiar with >> the term in detail and you are misusing it as a way to make Sal >> look bad. It also neuters an important term following your absurd >> assertion that a power differential is not key. > > This is just bluster, Curtis. In fact, you're attempting > to bully *me*. I think Curtis is just elucidating points > <snip> >>> The Merriam Webster Collegiate* Dictionary, 11th edition, >>> has this definition: >>> >>> "a blustering browbeating person; especially: one >>> habitually cruel to others who are weaker." >>> >>> "Especially" does not mean "limited to." >> >> The definition of browbeating includes "intimidation" because >> it also rests on an inequality of power to be >> meaningful. > > Are you really trying to claim one person can't intimidate > another person unless there's an inequality of power to > start with? That's just bizarre. Intimidation can *create* > an inequality of power between two people who were peers > to start with. And so, of course, can bullying. > >> "Especially" means in particular, to help distinguish this >> word's meanings from others. In other words they are >> defining the term in terms of its reliance on the other >> person being weaker. > > Nope, you're wrong, sorry. "Especially" defines a special > sense distinguished from the more general sense of the > definition that precedes it. "Especially" does not *limit* > how the word may be used to that special sense. At least > not per Merriam-Webster. It's called a "sense divider." -------------------- es·pe·cial·ly adverb Used to single out one person, thing, or situation over all others - he despised them all, especially Sylvester - a new song, written especially for Jonathan To a great extent; very much - he didn't especially like dancing - sleep is especially important for growing children -------------------- I think Judy got you there Curtis. I got this definition of 'bullying' from a New Zealand website: "Bullying is when someone keeps doing or saying things to have power over another person. Some of the ways they bully other people are by: calling them names, saying or writing nasty things about them, leaving them out of activities, not talking to them, threatening them, making them feel uncomfortable or scared, taking or damaging their things, hitting or kicking them, or making them do things they don't want to do." Maybe there is a difference in the way girls and women intimidate, and the way boys and men intimidate. Whether there is a perceived power differential or not, the bully thinks they have the power, that the power differential exists and the advantage is on their side. In a person to person situation, this may already be established early in childhood. Certain people are known to be weaker than others, less agressive than others, and some take advantage of that knowledge. A bully is only surprised if their perception of power is in error. For example, in male oriented action movies, the protagonist is theatened by the antagonist or his henchmen. The protagonist and/or the henchment make their move and get creamed, they get their butts kicked by the protagonist. But in a school yard etc., this is much less likely, kids kind of know where they are in the heirarchy of doom. Online it is a bit more complicated because the visual, intuitive physical clues about power are much less in evidence. A number of online incidents of bullying seem to have relied on an actual physical familiarity of the people. Now here on FFL, it is less clear, though there are pictures of some of the people here. I do not think Curtis talks like a bully normally, and Judy, I think you tend to use language in a way that seems kind of like bullying, in the sense of the New Zealand definition, I think you use it to attempt to get power over others. Your are probably better at this than Curtis could be because you know meanings and syntax better. Curtis mispells words from time to time. >> But all this is bluff and bluster parsing on your part. You >> know that you were using the term to make Sal look worse than >> if she was just being sarcastic, you were implying that she >> was doing something that we all sense is unfair, bullying. > > That would make no sense at all, Curtis, since we all know > there are no power differentials on FFL. > >> Or would you be comfortable with a claim that Robin's long >> criticisms of me were an act of bullying on his part? > > Sure. Not anywhere near as nasty as Sal's bullying, though. > Or as malicious as your bullying of him with regard to the > "open letter." Or your collusion with Barry to bully him > about not giving you a Reader's Digest version of his > five-parter. > >> Do you bully Barry in your long castigation exercises here? > > Sure. Just as he bullies me in his long castigation exercises > here. > >> The meaningfulness of the term relies on the unequal nature >> of the relationship and therefore Sal never bullied anyone >> here, you never bullied anyone here, because we are all equal >> and cannot bully each other here. > > Curtis Has Spoken. Thus Must It Be, because Curtis will not > permit any context but his own, no matter how valid another > context is. > >>> The verb "to bully" is defined thus: >>> >>> "1: to treat abusively; 2: to affect by means of force >>> or coercion; intransitive verb: to use browbeating >>> language or behavior: BLUSTER" > > So I guess if I said "Sal bullies people," Curtis would > have trouble finding a way to object. That's why Curtis > carefully ignored the definition of the verb, which does > not include anything about a power differential. > > <snip> >>> Of course the "power differential" notion is *part of* >>> most definitions, but it's usually in the "especially" >>> sense, i.e., the term "bully" does not *require* that >>> a power differential exist. >> >> Just if you want the term to be meaningfully distinguished >> from other concepts. If you are arguing that blibbity blab >> is the same as blibbity blimp then you have left a rational >> discussion. > > Empty and lame, Curtis. No such distinction is necessary, > *unless you want to convey a power differential* as distinct > from bullying that does *not* involve a power differential. > Which is fine and useful, but it doesn't erase the more > general meaning of the term. > >> The word has a meaning and you purposefully misapplied it >> to make her look worse. > > As noted, Curtis, this doesn't make sense. > >> Now your dancing is getting comical and I appreciate that. > > I've been chuckling throughout this discussion, actually. > You thought you had found a way to put me down, but it > just isn't working out as you expected. And typically > with you when that happens, you end up spinning yourself > into ludicrousness to try to *force* it to happen. But it > ain't gonna. > >>>> But more importantly, there is a whole body of knowledge about >>>> bullying behavior that I am referencing. There is no use of >>>> the term in a social situations that doesn't include this >>>> important piece. You know this, which is why you chose the >>>> term as adding more inappropriate drama to your charge. >>> >>> Well, actually, I know to the contrary. And "inappropriate >>> drama" is not the best way to make one's case, so it's not >>> an approach I'd be likely to take. >> >> Nice dodge of the whole body of knowledge about bullying that >> goes beyond the words of the definition to make sure people >> don't misunderstand its meaning and misuse it as you have. > > Didn't misunderstand it, didn't misuse it. I just didn't use > it the way you prefer it to be used. > >> And yes, the drama of the word was inappropriate because >> it is inaccurate and misleading. > > In your preferred sense. But I did not, of course, use it > in that sense, because--as I said--nobody here would buy > into the notion that Sal somehow has more power here than > the people she bullies. > > <snip> >>>> All the definitions I have read contain the power differential >>>> as a part of what defines it as bullying. You have to go to >>>> uncommon usage to find examples of it being used any other way. >>> >>> Quite possibly in the social sciences or psychology context, >>> but in common parlance the term frequently does not involve >>> the power differential component. >> >> In common parlance it is used in situations where someone >> has power over another person. > > And also frequently where there's no power differential. > >> Equals cannot bully each other. They are doing something else. > > In your preferred definition. > >>>>>> (In the context of your use of the term "stupid, stupid >>>>>> Sal" exactly one kajillion times that seems a bit >>>>>> hypocritical.) >>>>> >>>>> You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping the "taste of >>>>> one's own medicine" concept. >>>> >>>> I understand how you are using it. When you do it, it is a >>>> taste of ..., when others do it is hypocrisy. >>> >>> Um, no, it isn't. You do not, in fact, understand how I'm >>> using it. Or rather, you've decided you'll impose your own >>> context even though you know it's not the same as mine. >>> That's just what you *do*, attempt to erase all other >>> contexts and substitute your own, as if the others never >>> existed. >> >> Well the term bully has a meaning beyond my "context". > > We were talking here about "taste of one's own medicine." > I guess you thought it would be prudent to back out of > that discussion, having proposed an obviously absurd > context. > >> And I don't buy your justification for maligning Sal in her >> absence with an unfair term. > > Actually I didn't do any justifying. But since you bring it > up, I was commenting to someone who I felt had mischaracterized > the situation, portraying *me* as having unfairly beat up on > Sal. > >> Bullies are really bad because they are exploiting weakness >> in someone. It is not the same as equals here mixing it up >> as we do. > > In your definition. Not mine. > >> It was a character charge that was uncalled for > > In your definition. Not mine. > >> so I challenged it. I had no idea you would actually go the >> definition route and then post the definition that proves my >> point for me! > > Actually, of course, it proves *my* point, that the term > is used in the general sense without an implication of > a power differential. > >> All to avoid admitting that your hyperbole got out of hand on >> poor Sal. > > Too funny. A dog with a bone. But there ain't no meat on > it, Curtis. > >> You know poor stupid Sal...mmmm....perhaps given your view >> of her it was you doing the bullying of her? > > Bullying her back, yes indeed. > >> Taking advantage of the poor thing with your superior >> intelligence and bullying her? > > "Taste of her own medicine," Curtis. She likes to bully > people for what *she* thinks is stupid, but more often than > not she thinks it's stupid because she hasn't been paying > attention or has ignored some significant point or is > simply ignorant about some aspect. So she lets loose without > having thought things through, accusing someone else of > doing what *she* is doing. > >> No, I think you hate Sal because she was one of the tersest >> writers here in calling you on your games. > > Dear heaven, that's too hilarious. What she actually did > was demonstrate the behavior I just described. > > <snip> >>>>>> It is interesting that the one person who actually did >>>>>> try to gain some technological leverage over others here, >>>>>> and got bounced for it, never earned your use of the >>>>>> term. >>>>> >>>>> "Technological leverage"? No idea what you're talking about. >>>> >>>> Flooding search engines and outing people oneline. >>> >>> Still don't get it, sorry. You mean because he used >>> technology to make posts here? Since we all do that, >>> what's the distinction you're trying to make? >> >> I know that I am not going to get through here if the >> term "flooding search engines" doesn't work. There is >> technical knowledge involved in how they work to allow >> them to be used to actually hurt someone beyond the >> confines of this group. > > Which I would have had to know about in order to call Ravi > out for using "technological leverage." Ooops! You talked > yourself right out of that accusation, didn't you? > >>>>>> Since you know the distinctions that define this term, I can >>>>>> only conclude that you are unfairly loading your language to >>>>>> make it seem as if she was actually capable of violating >>>>>> someone in a lower power position. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, you are pretending an optional distinction >> >> No, optional distinctions in dictionaries are specified as such. > > "Esp." is one of the ways to make such a specification. > >> You are avoiding the defining characteristic to avoid being >> called on your attempt to make Sal look worse. You are >> unable to own your agenda so you are spinning and spinning, >> hoping I will tire. > > You're already tired, Curtis, judging by the lameness of > your attempts to hang on here. > > <snip> >>>>> One might, however, make a case for the creation on >>>>> forums like FFL of ad hoc power differentials via a >>>>> person's alliance with a clique of the more forceful, >>>>> prominent posters. In that sense, Sal's alliance with >>>>> Barry's clique could be said to create a power >>>>> differential between her and many of the folks she >>>>> habitually beat up on who are not so allied. >>>> >>>> This is not a term used for adults for good reason. We >>>> don't have to be a part of this social group, we can just >>>> leave. Our income is not dependent on it and we are under >>>> no obligation to stay as kids are in schools where this >>>> behavior occurs. Now you are attempting to ruin the >>>> important distinctions of another term to avoid just >>>> copping to your misuse. >>> >>> Now you've spun your way into outer space, Curtis. What >>> you've done is to create your own definition narrowly >>> tailored so it doesn't apply to Sal, and then accused *me* >>> of misusing it. Sorry, doesn't fly. >> >> No, all the definitions, including the one you posted, are >> contingent on the concept of power differential. > > Nope, sorry. No matter how many times you repeat this claim, > it'll still be wrong. The general sense in which I used the > term, which does not involve power differentials, is the > first definition in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate. It's > *followed* by the "esp." sense, which defines a more > specific use but does not *limit* the use to that sense. > >> It is the keystone of the use of the term in every context >> it is used that I know of. > > Well, now you know of a different one. > >> And you knew this which is why you accused Sal of it. > > I know the term can be used this way. That was not, however, > how I used it, because of the obvious fact that there are no > established power differentials on FFL, only ad hoc ones. > >> It looked very unflattering, as if she would take advantage >> of another person's weakness in the way a bully does. > > Funnily enough, that's exactly what she does. Or tries to > do. Mark Landau is a good example: She perceived him to be > weak and bullied him unmercifully about trying to sell MMY's > sandals to keep a roof over his head. You should go back and > look at some of those posts. She was explicit that she > thought he was a wimp. > > <snip> >>> Sal has consistently been a bully here, and the numerous >>> flaws in your exceedingly lame attempt to attack me have >>> been called out. >> >> So define it for us so we know how to distinguish what Sal >> did from what you do Judy. > > She attacks gratuitously (and, much of the time, stupidly). > >> Do we all bully each other here? > > Some of us do, some of us don't. > >> Who bullies here and who does not bully? > > John, Merudanda, Rick, cardemeister, wleed3, Patrick, merlin > never bully. Susan, Ann, Emily, obbajeeba, Robert do so very > rarely. Most others do bully, some more, some less. > >> Lets see how you consistently apply this term and what you >> are conveying by it if you insist you don't mean an >> exploitation of a power differential. The last time I saw >> this term used here it was to accuse Barry of bullying >> Robin. I objected to is misuse then also. > > And you were wrong then too. > > The bottom line, though, is that there *are* power > differentials here. Not official ones, like teacher/ > student or employer/employee, but ad hoc ones. You > and Barry have claimed many times that *I* have a lot > of power because of my "forceful personality," so much > so that I can control how other (presumably weaker) > people think about various issues. And then because > these other people ally themselves with me, I have > even more power. > > So unless you want to admit that notion is ridiculous, > you're going to have to back down from the notion that > we all have equal power here. > > Note that the "esp." part of the dictionary definition > does not specify *established* or "official" power > differentials; it just says "cruel to others who are > weaker." That people are peers in terms of status does > not mean they're peers in terms of personal power. > > One last point: People may bully others *to make them > weaker* because they perceive their targets' strength > to be a threat. They may or may not succeed in weakening > the targets, but that's often the intention. It's why > you and Barry mocked Robin for not summarizing his five- > parter, for example. It's why Barry kept attacking Robin > for his writing style. It's always been why Barry has > attacked me and raunchy. It's why you've gone after me > for what I said about Sal. And so on and so on. > > One way or another, bullying *is* about power > differentials. But the dynamics are much more varied and > subtle (and *interesting*, for that matter) than you've > taken account of. >
