The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
The Wussification of Modern Society
Posts
And you think there's less taunting and psychological abuse when there's more fighting? They're not mutually exclusive. Maybe the particular bullies you were dealing with wouldn't give you a problem if fighting was an OK thing to do at your school, but there's still be taunting that'll just happen to someone else.
Tell me, oh great master of psychology, what is your hypothesis on this, since apparently you know so much more than me? I'd really like to know.
I said pretty much from the start that this was my opinion. I never tried to present it as fact. I even admitted that such stats don't exist to support my claim, or to debunk it. However, noticing that I'm not alone in thinking that kids should stand up for themselves, you would be hard pressed to prove that I'm full of shit.
It doesn't justify terrorizing them or anything, but there's nothing wrong with defending yourself against the tyranny of the weak. You use what you've got. An intelligent but weak of body person abuses with their wit and cunning, a slow-witted but able bodied person defends himself and holds his ground with his strength. This, of course, as a last resort. Or are you saying that physical strength is always stronger than intellectual strength, or that one is more terrible to wield than the other?
It's just not something you do when you have alternatives that can't hospitalize someone from accidentally overdoing it.
The only reason it doesn't work now is because I can't use it. If I did use it, it may likely work.
I think when the bully concentrates on the psychological aspect, ya, there's more psychological abuse. I'm not claiming they're mutually exclusive, but some bullies focus on one and excel at it.
When, exactly, made you think that you could say whatever the hell you want without being challenged by sticking "my opinion" at the end of it? It doesn't work that way.
I don't mind being challenged at all. I would just like a little more substance to the challenges than "you don't know shit." I really don't know what he wants, I already admitted that he's right, I can't prove anything. Yet he still hasn't presented his opinion.
I'd honestly like to hear his take on it.
Opinions can be wrong.
You haven't actually presented any compelling evidence that this is anything to be reasonably worried about. You can just say something on a debate forum and claim "it's my opinion!" when it falls apart under scrutiny. I don't have a theory about this particular problem because I don't believe it actually exists. I haven't seen anything that has shown that 1) too many kids are resorting to authority when faced with problems, or 2) that it's necessarily a bad thing.
Yes, some little shits will go too far and become dependent, but some little shits will also take "standing up for themselves" too far and become pugilistic, belligerent asshats. That's just going to happen, it doesn't mean that every kid that seeks help when they need help in dealing with a problem is going to wind up being a pussy for the rest of the lives.
See, I would totally wail that mother in the bean-machine.
Yes cause i clearly said that you should punch people anytime and everytime they insult you. Thanks for simplifying my argument so you can find fault with it.
I have only gotten in to two fights in my life.
Once, when a dude at a bar made a pretty derogatory remark about Jewish people and i happened to be with a Jewish girl. I asked him to watch his language, to which he responded with another degrading comment and proceeded to walk within about 2 inches of me. He then pushed me. Words had failed. I knocked him down and told him to leave if he couldn't tolerate others.
The other time involves a locker room, an arch-nemesis, and HS, which was the only time i got suspended. Conveniently, suspension, once, means very little.
The former was my point about insult. Words are always the first option. Sorry i thought you could infer that.
Yep. Sadly, it's often these people who never grow out of it. I've seen men almost 30 years old pick fights with people like they're school kids in a yard. It's kind of sad.
I didn't state it was my opinion because it was falling apart. As far as I'm concerned it hasn't fallen apart. Obviously we both have different experiences with this, and I can't prove you wrong any more than you can prove me wrong. I started this thread wanting other people's opinions on wether it was indeed a problem or not, and if so what they thought would be a good course of action to help change it.
I appreciate that you've finally given your opinion on the situation. Thanks.
As long as we're sharing anecdotes, I'd like to share this one. One of our favorite things to do to new kids was to insult them, and talk crap about anything to do all day. Never touched the kids. We'd usually have just one guy do all the taunting. And then when the kid gets fed up with it, and tries to put an end to it by shoving or punching our friend we "stick up" to him by eating the crap out of the kid, who clearly started the fight. And we'd get away with it because the rest of the class would say, yes, he did start the fight.
And get right back to taunting him the next day. So they get a helping of the bloody mouth along with a side dish of assholes who won't shut the fuck up. Some people did it to kids who aren't new, and they still fall for it, because even when you know why they're doing it, it's just hard to ignore a persistent troll.
I actually used to see a lot more taunting, because taunting someone is one of the easiest ways to get into a fight, and the one that puts the least blame on the instigator.
I've seen something like that, but it would end after the victim was provoked enough to start fighting and the bully would call a teacher and get the kid in trouble, then repeat the process. But ganging up on the kid... damn.
Nevertheless, I think that people just need to assess their situations before they take the next step, whether it be shooting an insult, fighting, or seeking the aid of authority.
When I was in high school we had guys who all roamed around in cliques and all they did were pick at people indescriminately. Sometimes they would even fight people if they insulted back or got angry about it. I summed it up early that all those guys rolled together and constantly "clowned" on people because they were just insecure and only used each other as props for their lack of self-confidence. It was evident because when they'd be in a group together, they'd pick and taunt; however, catch one of them alone and they were all trying to be buddy buddy. But this was just in -my- situation.
I'm a small guy. Back then I was 5'3 and weighed 116lbs. I got picked on -a lot- just for that. I'm also an honest person with good intentions. I never start trouble and all that good jazz so the teachers all favored me. Eventually, those guys stopped messing with me. Why? Because when they'd pick and taunt, I'd simply ignore them. Treat them as if they didn't even exist. They eventually stopped with the taunting and tried other tactics, such as actually confronting me and being physical. I'd encounter a few face-to-face moments where a bully would be saying something like "Don't act like you don't hear me. I'll kick your ass. Blah blah blah". I didn't say anything, just stood there staring at them with one of those "You're boring me, go get a life and get out of my face" looks. And it goes back to being an honest person with good intentions. My friends would automatically take up for me, authority figures would take up for me, and I wouldn't even have to dirty my hands or anything. It wasn't a case of me not defending myself, it was me using my brain. I'm a small guy, I'm strong for my size, but I'd really rather not get into a fist fight. The consequences suck.
My mom was a single parent and worked sun up to sun down, she didn't have time for me to be fighting and getting expelled.
I really, really, really abhor stupid people(along with those idiots who hurt themselves doing stupid stuff like DDTing a buddy off of a roof onto a table on the ground and screaming about it in pain afterwards...). People who try to provoke others for no reason at all kind of fall into that category to me. Being as though I didn't want to fight those guys, I'd do other things to get them back. Little stuff, like if they asked me for answers I'd just stare at them or give a smart remark aloud while the class was quiet "You want the answer to -what-?". Or if they'd drop something, I'd simply walk by them, step over whatever they'd dropped and continue on my way. Just simple signs of me not caring about them very much.
Long story short, not that kids should get into fist fights, but I think they should actually take a step back and assess their situations then adjust fire from there. It's easier to befriend alot of people (especially bigger friends who will take up for you) rather than try to just be a hardass and punch everyone in the face. I think that parents should teach their kids to defend themselves, but being physical isn't -always- the best answer.
People are crazy nowadays.. like it was said that the kid got killed with an ice pick over a simple disagreement. How ignorant does -that- sound? "I killed that fucker because MY team is better than his!" The word "Opinion" exists for a reason.
Oh, the portrayal of the schoolyard as a microcosm of society at large isn't entirely bollocks. That's where the 1% of truth comes from.
But why is it the "bullying" victim's fault that he didn't properly stick up for himself? Why the focus on him? How about focusing - for a change - on the nature of "bullying" and how it is, essentially, abuse?
Okay, okay. I'll ignore - for now - that this entire thread is premised on the principle of blaming the victim. I'll also ignore that it's only marginally different from old "boys will be boys" tropes condoning bullying. I'll focus instead on what bullying is. Bullying is abuse among peers. It's where one child - who is older, stronger, bigger, or more popular - uses his or her power to dehumanize another child. When a more powerful party dehumanizes, degrades, and possibly attacks a less powerful party in a marriage or a workplace, we call it "abuse." We don't call it "abuse" on the schoolyard because "abuse" is a scary word and we don't want to think that 8-year-olds are capable of abuse. But guess what? Abuse doesn't suddenly emerge whole-cloth at the age of 18. It starts with a pattern of behaviors sometimes reaching back into childhood.
What does abuse teach the victim? It teaches the victim that they're worthless. It teaches them that they don't deserve to be treated well. It teaches them that the world is a scary, dangerous place where people who have power will flaunt it and use it to push the disempowered into the dirt.
So how do we counteract that message? We teach the victim that there are powerful people who are looking out for their best interests. We teach them that humanity - despite its bad apples - is doing what it can to make sure that the disempowered are not treated unfairly, that there are avenues by which the disempowered can seek assistance, protection, defense.
Besides that, it is easy for people to forget that abusers - including bullies - rarely confine their abuse to a single victim. It is not only the right, but also the responsibility, of victims of abuse to make authority figures aware that abuse is taking place to ensure that the abuser is dealt with properly. In the workplace, this may be as simple as harassment training or as serious as a termination or even a lawsuit. In a marriage, this may mean a restraining order or it may mean jail time.
In the schoolyard, it means the abuser should be separated from his peers, placed in detention, and - this is the important part - put through mandatory psychiatric evaluation. Why psych evaluation? Simple: it clearly conveys to the abuser and to the abuser's peers that abuse is not only morally wrong, but abnormal and unacceptable. It shows the abuser that abuse behavior is an illness and will not be tolerated.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Edit: Feral
The only time I ever had trouble with people was in elementary school. One time in middle school I said something at a concert or whatever, and these people begind me started throwing bits of paper and shit at me. I stared forward and did nothing, and after 30 or so seconds they stopped. I think by then I had become intelligent enough to realize me and the people I don't like could just avoid each other and get along. I went to highschool with that same person and we didn't really acknowledge each other, much less speak.
In elementary school a kid was vicious to me. I don't really know why but he taunted me fairly mercilessly. I look back on it now not with anguish or sorrow but just more confusion. I didn't end up fighting him or anything. In fact a teacher took me aside and said that he was a joker, someone who talked big but wouldn't get into a confrontation. I should just ignore him and all that. I should have but I think I just let him get to me anyway.
And I don't think our society has become more wussified it's just more civilized.
Eventually though it didn't really work. So I grabbed him by the throat and banged his head into a locker a bunch of times. This seemed to be a more effective solution to resolving the problem.
One time in elementary school two kids were throwing my newly purchased baseball hat back and forth. I did the running back and forth thing for a bit and tried to get it back. Then I got frustrated, knocked one of the kids down and pummeled him even though he didn't have my hat.
I did get my hat back though.
Tell me, if an abused wife were to fight back against her husband beating her so she could escape and report him to the police, would the police throw her in jail too? Would she be charged and tried for the exact same crimes as he was? No? didn't think so. Now perhaps you can see why there are PROBLEMS with our current school system's way of handling it. They go after both parties equally with zero regard for evidence, situation or any other circumstantial factors of any kind, you touch the other kid, you both get the same instant, extreme level of punishment, period. Tell me, does that exactly sound condusive to a mentally healthy environment?
Funny, because to me it seems that schools are actually the ones passing the blame. They're saying that they don't want to be responsible for anything so they instantly throw out common sense and any semblance of intelligent thought for an authoritarian policy that hurts the victims far more than it helps them. It doesn't discourage violence at all, in fact it encourages it by showing bullies how to manipulate and use the rules as leverage to keep his victim silent. This sort of thing sadly also happens in real life too. Is teaching children the fine art of blackmail or that they cannot defend themselves for any reason (or they'll suffer severe consiquences) a good life lesson?
And the current zero tolerance situation makes it even worse by teaching them that they are powerless in a system of countless rules to do anything. It traps them in technicallities and shows them how all they can do is blindly submit or compromise their own dignity and physical/mental safety at the hands of their tormentors or face severe authoritarian punishment. Unless of course, THEY want to become bullies themselves and learn the same art of blackmail and leverage. So in a way this same system can even create more abusive people and bullies by showing them that being like that is the only way to survive in life.
We also need to teach the victim that THEY are powerful people and that THEY don't need nor deserve to be treated so unfairly and that THEY have many options to choose from and that THEY are responsible for deciding intelligently how to handle and solve their problems. Be it doing it on their own, with friends, or talking to authorities. The key thing here though is to teach people that THEY have the power and not that they are weaklings who must depend solely on the authority of others to solve their every problem. Am I endorsing violent solutions? Hardly, I personally believe violence should always be the last solution to any problem. That said I believe the key issue here is making people feel powerful and confident in themselves. This culture of making the bullied feel weak and dependent will only lead to severe problems down the line, and without saying too much, yes, I do know very well from personal experience that this IS where it can go for many people.
The authorities do indeed play an important role in any situation of abuse. That said the authorities cannot and are not able nor legally held responsible to pre-emptively protect or stop situations of abuse from occuring. When a situation arises it is up to the victim to get out of that situation as best they can, that said there may be many options on how to do that. The authorities only come into play after the fact and they cannot help you out of the present situation that has just started right now. That's the big gripe here, we're not teaching people how to solve the situation right in front of their face.
What good are the police to a wife who was beaten to death becase her upbringing taught her she was weak and that the authorities would punish her if she defended against her husband's attacks with force? Sure he'll go to jail eventually, but a lot of good that does to the dead wife. She needs to have known beforehand she was a strong and capable individual and that if her husband comes at her violently she has every right to defend herself and escape however she can, and then report him to the authorities.
Well that's all good and well but that does absolutely zero to address the crux of the issue here. The issue being that our schools are breeding a culture who is being told that it is never okay, ever, to defend themselves with force, that the strong and treacherous triumph in life and that the authorities demand total obedience or they will punish you more severely than the bullies would. This is wrong, and not going to help our society at all.
I believe in essense, you said a lot of great things, however, at the same time, I dissagree strongly.
You talk about a more powerful party dehumanizing a weaker person. You talk about actions "teaching" a child that he is worthless. Well, I'm going to blame the victim, and perhaps the victim's upbringing here. The only person that can dehumanize you and make you believe that you have less worth than you actually have is yourself. The self hatred that many people who are bullied feels is not because of the fact that they're bullied. Its because they were powerless to prevent it. They think of themselves as worthless because they failed to take action to protect themselves, whether this came in the form of a verbal response or with fists. And they're right. That is the correct response for the body to have. They felt shame that they couldn't defend their pride.
Do you think that it helps someone's feelings of self-worth to have to crawl to a higher authority in order to deal with their problems? It doesn't. Not only do you get the wonderful feeling of being hated even more by your peers, but you feel even more powerless as an individual. You can't do anything on your own and have to hide behind someone who is bigger than you to survive. Thats a terrible way to think. That's a terrible way to teach our children to think. In order to empower your children, you have to let them empower themselves.
It's not as though I don't blame the bullies. They have no their own problems. But in order to become a person who has any sort of faith in yourself, you have to believe in yourself enough to stand up to people who want to bring you down.
40 years ago, two kids would agree to meet behind the school yard and settle their problems with a few punches. No one would be worse for wear besides a few scrapes and a bruise, and at the end, the two boys would shake hands and be better friends for it. Mutual respect is the result when people stand up for themselves.
These days, if there is a fight, regardless of who is at fault, oftentimes both children will be expelled. In the worst cases the parents enter the fray and file law suits against the parents of the other child. Police! of all things get involved. Children get sent to juvenile hall. What did those children learn from that situation? They learned that they are powerless. They learned that if they don't do exactly what others tell them, they'll get their entire lives fucked up.
40 years ago if a kid gets in trouble and has spend a few nights in jail, that kid's parents would leave him there to learn his lesson. These days, the parents will jump to their child's defense regardless of what crime their kid committed. It's ridiculous.
I'm sorry, I got off on a tangent.
Anyways, just needed to write that out I guess and put my thoughts down somewhere.
School officials out where I lived did that already to a lesser extent. It doesn't necessarily need to be air tight (since ideally expulsion shouldn't automatically be the minimum punishment) but zero tolerance puts the victim in the hot seat more in practice than anything else. So the only thing I can think of is to try and just make things more graduated and based on what's known or can be found out within reason, regarding the situation. Granted these are based more off of my own and others' experiences in the public school system. What would you propose?
You're a fucking idiot. Just like all the other people in this thread who appear to think that the 19-fucking-50's were the epitome of human civilisation. I tried taking control and fighting back against a bully once. You know what happened? I got my ass handed to me because she was Samoan and outmassed me by roughly 3:1. You know what powerlessness is? Its not failing to defend yourself. Its your principal getting up in front of the school a week later and declaring that bullying doesn't exist at your school, when you're living it every day. Its lack of justice. Fighting doesn't fucking matter, and as far as I'm concerned you're just one more pansy-ass middle class pussy who's never been within earshot of actual violence and is retarded enough to think that Tyler Durden was actually the hero in Fight Club. Die in a fire, and take your idiotic ideas about appropriate social behaviour with you.
Zero-tolerance. If a teacher is close enough to see who started what, then they're close enough for there to be no need for anyone to respond with violence.
Cause teachers never fail to witness who started what.
He doesn't, but I sure as shit do, since I know you were fucking retarded enough to declare that the suicide rate was a result of 'people not being able to cope', apparently because they weren't beaten enough as children. Anyone with a speck of basic psych ed knows that the suicide rate is far more closely connected to social isolation and is in fact exacerbated by abuse. You do not get to claim authority in this abortion of a thread.
I didn't declare it was, I said that they might be related. And I don't think it's a bit retarded at all to assume that if these people could fucking cope better they wouldn't go and off themselves. I think that's pretty goddamn logical.
tldr; I wish I wasn't a wuss due to not everyone being wusses, and more than capable of punching me.
That's a load of horse shit, and demonstratably false.
Because apparently, ballbaggins thinks that civilisation is overrated and that we should return to our monkey instincts. In which case, I'll be over there in the corner, cheating on all of you sequentially in an attempt to fool you into providing for my horde of young. How does that sound?
You are wrong, and objectively stupid, given that spending an hour on wikipedia could have cured you of this. I pointed out the flaws in your hypothesis yesterday, when you pm'd me about making this thread, and you ignored me completely because your stupid pet theory made you feel good. You fail, sir!
How is "If people could better cope, they wouldn't kill themselves because of social isolation" wrong? Are you saying that anyone who feels socially isolated is pretty much doomed to suicide because there is no coping with it?
And I don't believe I added the suicide thing into the OP, unless I'm mistaken, so I guess I must have listened to you at least a bit.
The only one you'll learn how to effectively fight is by fighting and fighting, and getting your ass kicked and fighting some more. And for what? What do you learn after all that fighting? You learn how to fight. That's pretty much it. What's that worth?
While I agree with the concept, a teacher is not always there to see or intercede. I don't know about other campuses but on mine there weren't enough teachers to monitor everything. Plus, how would you define violence? Where I went, even a light push to make your way past someone preventing you from moving was enough. Especially since if it degraded into he-said, she-said, the conclusion reached was typically "ignore what either say and give both extreme punishment."
Not getting your jaw broken. You can learn to fight under controlled circumstances so being able to defend yourself is a net gain for your body's health.