--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote:
While Judy is being very specific verbally, I think Curtis is being just practical with his view of bullying, and this argument is about two different views. We are being equally specific. Judy is just pretending that the definitions don't say what they say about how to apply the term bully. She wants to use it for people she doesn't like to make their behavior look worse than it is. It is one thing to say someone made a sarcastic post that might hurt someone's feelings. It is quite another to accuse someone of the offense of bullying when they have not, or in this case, could not have done so. Your experience speaks to the the way the term is understood by all of us here, Judy was on a fool's errand from the beginning. She knows what the word means and how unfair it makes the person sound. That is why she chose it. Since Sal is not here to correct the error in her more concise snappy style, I was left with all my words. But I am having fun, you too? > > Curtis & Judy > > This has been going on quite some time. I felt an impulse, no doubt governed > by some laws of nature, to pipe in, though contrary to what I said before > about wanting to stay out of it. > > Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: > Definition of BULLY > 1 > archaic > a : sweetheart > b : a fine chap > 2 > a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to > others who are weaker > b : pimp > 3 > : a hired ruffian > > Origin of BULLY > probably from Middle Dutch boele lover; akin to Middle Low German bÅle > lover, Middle High German buole > First Known Use: 1538 > > Hey you two are battling world-views, not so much definitions. Words change > with time, meanings drift, and on the personal level of life, we generally > also do not have dictionary definitions in our minds when we use words, it is > often intuitive use based on how we learned the word in relation to other > words that we have heard. Words only have meaning in relation to other words > and experiences, and in a population this is always in a state of flux. > Dictionaries also are not the rule for a word, but a record of how it has > been used in the past. If we were to go with the archaic meaning of bully in > Merriam-Webster, then if Curtis is bullying Judy and bullying were not an > especial use, but general, she would be a sweetheart, which reading this > forum, surely is not the case. By using the word to mean sweetheart, I am > using the word in the most general time-inclusive way possible, by allowing > an archaic definition. > > Judy is an editor. Curtis is a working musician. Judy is using the book, and > Curtis is using living language, and possibly experience, in his use of the > word. > > I tend to go along with Curtis. In my own experiences of bullying, a long > time ago, I tended to get picked on; I was less strong, and perceived as > probably weaker. The few times, alas, that I picked on someone, it was > someone I perceived as weaker. I dread these memories, but not the ones where > I was picked on. Sometimes I would stand up to the bully, and even if it did > not come out to my advantage, it did earn me some respect in the eyes of the > bully. So the stronger weaker dichotomy, I feel, holds well. > > Note that this Merriam-Webster definition says one who is habitually cruel to > the weaker person, but not all instances are habitual. A person who browbeats > another even once can be a bully. Being a bully (since I was apparently one > for or two incidents in my life) is like a state of consciousness, you cannot > do it unless you perceive that you will over-master the other person, beat > them down, or destroy them. It is an intuitive sort of thing - this person is > some kind of wimp, and I will win because I am absolutely sure they will > crumble. It is a state of experiencing power over its lack. It is being > coloured with the essential quality of evil, the opposite of well-being. But > I think its quality involves a physical sense of might. > > This does not really exist here on the forum, it is all mental on the forum, > even though we read physical words on a screen, the interactions are not > physical like even a simple face-to-face conversation. An audio chat would be > something closer, and a video chat might be closer still, but the sense of > physical threat is what really delineates a bully. > > Oxford Dictionaries ( http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bully } > > bully > > noun (plural bullies) > > a person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are > weaker: > he is a ranting, domineering bully > > verb (bullies, bullying, bullied) > > use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to > force them to do something: > a local man was bullied into helping them > > Origin: > > mid 16th century: probably from Middle Dutch boele 'lover'. Original use was > as a term of endearment applied to either sex; it later became a familiar > form of address to a male friend. The current sense dates from the late 17th > century > > I would try the Oxford English Dictionary, but subscription costs are like > £215 (= US $340) a year for online use. > > Not very many people I know walk around with a dictionary in their head and > use that as the basis for what they say. We interact by jousting our > typically erroneous world views, much ado about nothing. Kiss and make up > kids. Is that making up? Making out? A hormone and/or neurological pressing > of exogenous surfaces together? Chemical activity? > > These online debates are so long and line-by-line complex that it is > difficult to not leave out something, almost nobody has a memory good enough > to recall all the details, so castigating each other about leaving out some > detail seems mostly pointless. But having argued with Judy myself, I do > admire Curtis's resolve here. I think I would just give up and nuke New > Jersey. While Judy is being very specific verbally, I think Curtis is being > just practical with his view of bullying, and this argument is about two > different views. My own experience is if we have a world view that is so > fixed on our description of what real is, we are almost certainly wrong. > > Perhaps the matter could be settled in the ring. Curtis, how much do you > weigh? Judy, how much do you weigh? Curtis looks pretty solid. I think I > would bet on Curtis were he in this situation to act as a bully. But being a > bully is not a good thing in my opinion, so in this situation would anyone > like to step up from the bottom rung of darkness and hire Curtis as a > mercenary? >
