Trolls?

I was originally going to put this in the "selfe esteem/bullying" thread, but looking at its opening post I felt it was more of a let-out-your-stories thread than a dissection thread. So if you're looking to tell me about your traumatic backstory for no reason other than letting off steam, this isn't the place. Just saying. I want to ask about how you feel society views "trolls" and if you think those views are accurate or beneficial. If you have a personal example that helps your explanation, by all means, use it.

Anyhow, personally I think the anti-troll hype is counter productive. More than anything else, the phrase "troll" is just an ad-hominen comment used like any other insult nowadays. Everyone should condemn the action of bullying, be it on the internet or in real life, but labeling people as trolls can quickly become a form of "bullying" itself, or bickering at least.

My younger brother plays allot of Xbox; he plays halo 4 a good bit, he's honestly quite good, but sometimes he comes off as a troll in my opinion. However, at said times, he'll generally be the one calling the kids he's creaming in halo 4 "trolls," acting as if he's serving justice. This is what labeling and over demonization of bullying can do; create more conflict. We shouldn't be telling kids to "screw haters," we should be telling them that if someone does go out of their way to bully you, they've probably got problems of their own. Now, do their problems justify bullying? No, but we shouldn't teach kids to hate bulllies, we should teach kids to not bully.

Chat wrote...


Could you elaborate? I'm just curious to see what you call a troll.

In most regards, trolls are synonymous with prankster; however, there are more harmful variants, like those on Sarkeesian's kickstarter, although I do disdain her.

Trolling is primarily on the internet, but this hasn't stopped it from seeping into reality. As long as trolls aren't being totally despicable, I don't have a problem with them.

Also, I remember seeing something about how a school bully was turned into the bullied. That isn't an appropriate answer either.

And here's a nice video related to the subject:

I would say there is a difference between trolling and bullying, but they can overlap.
Bullying is specifically making someone else feel bad for your own pleasure (usually targeted at a specific person or group), whereas trolling is more, as has been said, like pranking; doing something silly to someone to make yourself or others laugh.
I'm sure most of us have been pranked at some point in our life, and often pranks are done between friends, making them seem like light-hearted fun. But at what point does it become bullying?
When people you are familiar with on the internet troll you, it's not so bad, but when you don't know who they are, it can be quite distressing. On top of that, it's much harder to know how someone feels when you're communicating through text on a screen, meaning trolls don't always know about or have to deal with how they're making the other person feel.
This is why people who are normally very kind (or at least, not bullies) can become trolls and make people feel bad without intending to.

I see your point. To be honest, I never really got bullied hardcore. In second grade I actually used to get into fairly legit fights, but the kid who "picked on" me was mentally disabled and only did what he did because he watched too much WWE. And I got in trouble for it. Ugh. Point being though, thank you for noting that the counter-bully-craze isn't just from people poorly mediating the situation.



It's got to the point where I kinda have two meanings for troll, what it's supposed to/used to mean, and the way people seem to use it nowadays.

Originally what I'd known as a troll is someone who takes say, a fake, ignorant stance as a means of getting a rise out of people. For example, pretending you think 9/11 was a hoax to piss people off.

Now people use it to mean either prankster, asshole, or both, and I was using that in my original paragraph.

People should stick up for others being bullied but this shouldnt really entail putting down the person who is doing the bullying.

As for trolling, I just view it as a silly net term but I guess they do relate.
Trolling is more about being intentionally offensive or annoying. Can be to an individual but can also just be in general. Ive been called a troll before when gaming with friends as I steal all the good loot or purposefully leave death traps for them and so forth. Just fun silly stuff.

Comments that try to bait anger and long reaction posts from people is also a form of trolling. The japanese term for it, fishing, is actually quite suitable since that is basically what it is all about. Fishing to annoy people for amusement.

Nichijou has a good scene demonstrating the process on a person to person basis. Forget what episode its in but has one of the characters literaly fishing in pop ups as she baits her friend into thinking shes praising her when really shes just poking fun at her to make her do something stupid.

I remember when trolling didn't mean you were harassing people, spamming or griefing. Now it just means, "person I don't like" or "pretending to be stupid".

As for bullying done online, in most cases it's easy to deal with. Blocking and reporting accounts that outright harass isn't difficult. More than likely, schools will have to teach some sort of cyber etiquette for various reasons that don't just include bullying.

That's not a difference, if someone is offended or hurt by the prank, then how is it different than bullying?

A manga I was recently reading, the character justified his acts by claiming it was "just for fun" and "it was a joke", but caused serious real world consequences, that resulted in bullying and harassment, by others, for the victim. The reason why I use a manga (3d Kanojo) is, it's a great example of the mind of a bully, bullying isn't always a conscious effort to try and hurt others. The assumption that it is "only a joke" undermines responsibility of caring for the victim opinion and feelings.

I'm not weighing in on the difference between the two or rather they are or not the same, but over the mindset that jokes don't fall under bullying.



I'd disagree with this, it's easy to make fake accounts, and the victim doesn't need to see the the harassment to suffer from it's effects, example: photoshoping a boy/girl doing something inappropriate and spreading it to others in the school. For sites that have a few people going over post reported for harassment it can take awhile, weeding through the false reports, legitimate reports, to boarder line and misunderstandings, concluding on a legitimate response to bullying (warnings, to banning, or suspension from site for a duration). Admins have to be careful to not carelessly ban someone. In the same way the teachers can't be everywhere bullying happens in school, the internet is 24/7, can be a phone or a forum, and outside their jurisdiction.

Looking back at my comment, I didn't really explain my point very well.

Bullying, as you say is really anything that causes grief to another person. Trolling does not have to cause someone grief (although it often does).

Also, I would generally say that bullying requires repeated offences, rather than just a single act. People can often have lapses of common sense where they accidentaly say or do something to hurt someone.

Oh of course. Trust me, I, personally, don't have any problems with it, but sometimes the hype seems to cause others to squabble. I guess it sounds like I'm trying to play peacemaker, but still.

The way I see it, there are three types of trolls:

1. The Obvious Troll. This is the troll that makes silly jokes, obvious to most people except for a few who fail to get the joke. For example, people who comment on a comedy video claiming it to be serious. These guys are mostly harmless.

2. The Flamewar Troll. These are probably the most dangerous because, as I see it, they go online with the defined goals which divide into creating overall flamewars and focusing on specific individuals which turns into cyberbullying. For example, people who go out of their way to burn YouTubers (back in the day, using legal loopholes) and people who go into topics of delicate situations with controversial posts.

3. The Honest Troll. An oxymoron, almost. These kinds of trolls are the ones who are trying to make points they genuinely believe in but are perceived as the Flamewar Troll which is a bad thing because people will ignore their views and let them carry on mistaken. Or, they will just give up. For example, almost every religious person who doesn't block comments and conspiracy theorists.

I don't have much to say on the matter and what I have said is essentially built on shifting sands but I think it is important to make a distinction as it has been pointed out, between trolling and bullying.

I wouldn't say the distinction is between what is caused on the person but with what intent said action is taken. I think it would be extremely subjective if it was based on the person hearing it and, if we are to understand the mind of the bully, it is counter-intuitive to focus on the mind of the bullied, at least for now.

I think the distintions should be on the intent of the bully/troll for the reason that his action can be the exact same in two different cases and be completely different. For instance, let's have Bully (original name, I know), John and Jane. Let's imagine John is a football player and Jane is a ballerina. If Bully says: «Hey, fatass» to both of them, it will probably be perceived as bullying by Jane but not on John since being heavy is probably a good thing for him. So the exact same action is different.

That's why I think bullying should be based on the alleged bully. If we do it the other way around, we fall into a realm of neverending relativism in which people will claim to be bullied when they hear things they don't like or even misinterpret. Making a joke would become a danger which is serious as jokes are an essential part of freedom of speech.

So, I think bullying is an action undertaken with the specific goal of harming the subject, physically or verbally whereas trolling is an action undertaken with the goal of getting attention of random people and then making fun of them. I guess the main difference, aside from the intent, is that bullying is also targetted whereas trolling is based on whoever takes the bait.

I don't believe in "honest trolls," someone who starts a "flamewar" while being honest, in my opinion, isn't a troll. They might be an asshole, but not a troll.

For 20 people, it may be one instant of laughing at another person's weakness, but for the one laughed at it's 20 instances of being ridiculed.

I'm not trying to argue with you, just that, the view point of the bully and the view point of the bullied are very different, and neither is any less "true". It's very hard to fairly and adequately define and deal with bullying, with cyber bullying, things have gotten even more complicated. The sheer absences of presence takes away any strong need to adhere to the others feelings when you can't even look them in the face while you commit hurtful acts, making it easier to dehumanize others.



I really like this, I never thought of defining a distinction between trolls, short sighted me I guess. But I'd like to thank you for this, my view expanded by this.



Example: One guy(A), really not liking another guy(B), post embarrassing pictures of guy(B) being made to crossdressing as a child by his mother, on a website popular in the school(reddit). Many onlookers, having no idea who it is, leave half thought out comments in reaction to the pictures, many hurtful, but most onlookers assuming the person in the picture will never see. Guy(A) links guy(B) to the comment section...

Guy(A) is definitely at fault, but what if the scenario is changed to, guy(B)'s pictures being of him performing in ballet and guy(A) attempting to show what he thinks is "cool" to others, resulting in half thought out negative remarks such as "that's so gay", "so weird", and "eww" ect. In this scenario, their is no intent to hurt, guy(B) is still anonymous, but still subjected to ridicule that the perpetrators are unaware of.

Example 2: A girl is clumsy, always falling down during physical activity. Students come to expect failure from and laugh at the idea of her attempting to do physical activity, it's not that they are trying to hurt her, but that their sensibility finds human error humors.

What about those who don't find it funny but see it as an opportunity to "fit in", joining in on the laughter to become apart of the perceived "cooler group". A self serving motive, yes, but their is no intent to hurt the girl, but it still contributes to the bullying endured by the victim.

Example 3: A student(A) does something embarrassing with little to no control over, such as, trows up in class. Student(B) comes up with a cruel but catchy nick-name without thinking to much about it. It catches on, and the whole school starts to refer to Student(A) as such, with just as little thought put into it as student(B) had. To student(B), it may just be the same "you insult me, I insult you" that student(B) and all his friends pull, but for student(A), it's a one side wave of over 30 students on a daily basis.

When the teacher tries to explain to all of the students that there words hurt, they don't understand, especially student(B) who, he and his friends, commit towards each other on a daily basis. Worst off, it could lead to student(B) and his friends to find student(A) to be "sensitive" and "annoying" because they are now in trouble because student(A) wasn't as thick skinned as them. Which could result in bullying, but for them, is revenge/fair retribution.

(I'm not justifying any of my scenarios, simply that, bullying doesn't always work out to be as simple as "I just want to hurt others".)



I think that is a good place to go to, having people be more empathetic and sympathetic to the feelings /plight of others. To pause and think about the plausible outcomes to poorly contrived statements and actions. If we have to tip-toe a bit, I think that's better than hurting and fighting with one another.

I'm not saying to go all the way in this direction, but leaning more into it would be a lot better. Despite the bullying I've endured, I know, for a fact, I've inadvertently and/or directly hurt others with poorly thought out statements, as a child, for attention from my peers. Not to hurt others but to be seen as "cool" because I was tired of being the bullied, I've had the same done to me countless times. There wasn't an intent to hurt, in most of those cases, just a desire for positive attention. A self serving motive that ignores the victim's feelings and emotions.

In response to example 1: I think the nail in the coffin is how you introduce person B claiming that person A doesn't really like him. I think that shows the action was done with intent to offend. The random guys on the Internet were not bullies, as I see it, but person A was.

In response to example 2: I am not defending that people should be inconsiderate. But I don't think they should be accused of being bullies either. I can perfectly imagine (as it has happened before my eyes) a scenario where people laugh and either she laughs too or people realize when it's time to stop and help out. In my P.E. classes, after someone fell it usually was laughter, «oh fuck, is he okay?», help him out then laughter again.

In response to example 3: I dunno, I don't claim to be an expert but I see things differently. I think that if «Pukey» showed up in an anti-bullying video, he would be the odd man out.

Again, I don't think people should be brutally honest all the time. If we were, we'd be walking around in the street, we'd see someone and go «I really don't like your hair. Carry on». There would be no point. But I think it's also about context. If you go to a stand up comedy show and sit in the front, you can expect a few jokes at your expense. Is that bullying? I don't think so. If you are with a large group of friends, maybe have a few drinks and someone says something about you that you don't like. Is that bullying?

I also don't say people lie when they say they have been hurt by such and such comments. I just think that saying they have been bullied is an insult to people who really have been bullied. I for one don't think I've ever bullied anyone and don't think I've ever been bullied. But, like everyone else on this planet, I have heard offensive things about me and have said them in return. If that's bullying, my point is that we should all be in jail (or whatever punishment is attributed to bullying).

My example were a point of reference, an easily identifiable scenario. I am not saying anyone in my scenarios is a bully, but that the act of bullying is not something as simple as an "ill mannered persons with intent to hurt feeble non-combative victims". As well, that the act of being bullied is not so easily defined; Not just a matter of a single/consistent perpetrator.

I don't understand your 3rd response, it might be because I never watched that bully movie, so I might need you to elaborate on your point a bit.



While that may be honest, it is also unnecessary, inconsiderate (lacking empathy), and rude. I was not saying this is what I think people should be. As for more honesty, that is a tricky subject, honesty "alone" wouldn't improve things. My argument is for more empathy and sympathy for one another.

As for the comedian, even they don't blatantly utter out whatever they can fathom off the top of their head, they strive for witty and humors observations even the butt of the joke can laugh off. Or at least the good ones do, the bad ones are "boo"d off the stage.

It can be as you said, context can make a difference, but that doesn't undermine my examples (as far as I see it), no one goes to school to or expecting to be ridiculed like they may expect from a comedy club, more over, everyone in the comedy club is under the consensus that everything said is within good fun, not an attempt to hurt and/or destroy others. Even the random "insult others on the streets" example doesn't compare well to a school environment in which the people they talk to are classmates that the student must get along with for prolonged periods of time, not random strangers on the street.



Bullying is not always a conscious effort, as well, group mentality can act as a single person in the eyes of one. Take for instance, you live in a cage, with a remote controlled robot delivering food to you, never seeing the one controlling it, to the one in the cage, it is one robot, but from the other end, it could have gone through 10-20 different hands. This is not a direct example, but an idea of the concept towards interpretation. Another example, a bit more identifiable, would be "Anonymous", it may be a group of 4 guys or a group of 4million, but instead of looking at them as individuals, they are seen as one collective sharing the same will and motives.

I'm not saying your at fault for anything, but that your concept of bullying is too linear and the feelings and experience of being bullied is not simply the experience easily defined by example such as the Simpsons (Nelson > Bart). That a group of people can unknowingly act as a single entity and inflict the same act and type of harm without intent or restraint.

If I had to generalize my definition of bullying, "an act that can cause physical or emotional harm to another for prolong periods of time, rather by one or group, rather consciously or not". More-or-less. I realize there are already other definitions, but I find most of them to be to exclusive and linear. Many of the western examples don't apply the type of bullying portrayed in Japanese schools, such as ostracizing and vandalism as well doesn't incorporate the type of bullying that the teachers can portray, such as singling out and demonizing. As well, most of them define ill intent from the perpetrator(s), which is not always the case. In some cases, the bully may even feel justified, a type of "Karma" or "social justice" is being committed against one who "deserves it", such as "reverse bullying".

The reason I give my definition is, I find arguing over the semantics of the term "bully" to be a frivolous pursuit, and would like to put my cards on the table and create a clear understanding of our positions on this matter, or at least mine so you can understand where I am coming from.

Not a bully movie, an anti-bullying video. I just mean if a group of people decide to make a video about raising awareness to bullying and they decide to get, I don't know, someone who's been beaten at school with no provocation, someone who's had her hair shaven and then you'd get someone who's been given a nickname. My reaction would be: why's he there?



I don't think context by itself undermines your examples but I don't see how the second and third examples are cases of bullying. The people being allegedly bullied can have an ungodly hatred of those things but I still don't think you can call it bullying just because they would feel this or that. On the flipside, I've also experienced people telling me things that didn't offend me but that I knew were done with intent to hurt like when people insult me with full paragraphs of how I'm a disgusting American which I'm factually not.



My definition of bullying is literally as old as my first post in this thread. I don't claim perfection on it, far from that.

My main problem with this is that it is, with no surprise, an emotional discussion. I don't think everyone thinks objectively on this and rather they base their posts on their experiences with bullying. I also want to be very careful so no one slips into the other side of my argument. In other words, I don't think it is a good idea to always say what we think about everyone. Like I pointed out with the random person on the street example, it's just pointless. With people we deal with everyday, it can be purely unnecessary and can lead to negative results. So I don't say it's okay to insult randomly (although as I can claim in other posts, even the most offensive things in the world can be true).

But I think we have to keep a clear mind. I grant you that the people you create in your examples feel shattered, I don't doubt that. But I think that calling the others bullies just because they offended leads, in my view, to complications such that simple words can be bullying.

For example, and keep in mind this is a counter-example so its goal is to be stupid, just today in class, the professor told us to do some exercises which is a first and since I've been having trouble in that class, I put my pen down and stared into space. He was checking each of us individually and I explained I had to skip a few classes and had no clue what I was supposed to do. No one in the class even paid attention. Then he pointed me to the page of the textbook that explained it and told me to study it. This is 10000% better than most college professors because he actually cared. But it made me feel completely stupid and since I'm a bit of a wuss too (like I said in the volatile thread) I've been feeling down ever since. So what, is the professor a bully? Of course not.

So, I think in some cases bullies need to be stopped whereas in other cases we need to think: is there really something to punish?

I had a similar discussion in a post here in which the guy told a story in which someone said he was about to cry and everybody laughed, something along those lines. Well, when Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr pinpoint someone in the audience, the camera focuses on them, they are being watched by thousands of people, being fiercely insulted whilst everyone laughs. I know, I know - context. But if that same guy was in that situation it wouldn't even be bullying, it would be pure torture. He would probably declare universal fatwa's. All this to explain there may be some subjectivity and the offended person may exaggerate which is 100% understandable when people act on their emotions. But it wouldn't warrant labelling the other person as a bully and have him/her answer for it.

Just because you don't perceive yourself being bullied doesn't mean it's not happening. There are always two (or more) sides to a conflict, each with their own view. To reverse the angle, it's no less bullying, just because the bulling doesn't see himself as committing bullying.



Again, I'm not calling them bullies, I'm equating their behavior to that of what "bullies" commit. To say, you don't have to be a bully to behave like one. The same way you don't have to be a troll to act in such a manner.

If I were to summarize it differently, bullies and bulling behavior, I hold to different interpretations/regards. That, simply because the perpetrator is not defined as a bully, the acts are no less significant for the victim.

That most of my focus was to establish my belief for more empathy to avoid these types of situations that spawn bullying behavior.



In this scenario (or real life event), you were able to identify positive association from those involved. And the source of your anguish is no individual person but from your own limitations that you felt should (and would if things had gone as they were supposed to) be on par with others.

While your class may have shunned you, which could be interpreted to make you feel bad for your limitations. The only ones actively involving themselves gave you positive reinforcement. That is only found in my alternative 1 example, but the source of guy(B)'s anguish is not the reinforcement, but the ridicule.

To add, since it seems as if I am coming off this way, I don't think every negative response is capable of being tackled. I'm a pessimist, I don't believe in a perfect system where no one hurts another. But I do believe the current system can be improved.



That's the thing, I'm not arguing over whose in the right or wrong, but over how to handle the behavior and prevent it from occurring in the first place.

Physically stopping the bully from conducting their behavior doesn't actually deal with the issue, in addition, can cause the bully to become a victim themselves through singling out. Not all people who conduct themselves in such a fashion are aware of the effects of their actions.

What is the saying, "children can be so cruel", children, unless specifically taught (consciously or unconsciously), are most often unaware of the effects of their actions. Unless they experience it themselves they most often won't bother to consider the impact. Empathy doesn't help them to experience it, but does help them to pause and think of how it would feel in reverse roles. Because of this, we won't ever be able to know each others experiences, but at least there will be conscious effort to where there is none now.



Forgive me for misunderstanding if I do, I want to say this since I am assuming your stance quite a bit lately, you sound as if your saying people need "thicker skin" (as the saying goes).

A problem with that is, there is no "standard" for how tough a person should be towards ridicule. To say that the problem is the victim inability to cope ignores the other half which is, imo, the bigger problem, "insensitivity". While the inability to deal with conflict is a problem, I find the inability to restrain hurtful behavior a bigger one. And in the end, even the hardest substance in the universe is subject to entropy, no one is invincible.

As a final bit, most who are bullied, don't label, they are subjecting themselves to humiliation and suffering, to accuse of bullying would be a defiant action. Most who are bullied fear repercussions from defiance, seeing as it doesn't start as a 100% submissive relationship, they most often experience the consequences of defiance. In a situation where the entire group is acting as the "bully", the common response is to find the quickest and easiest means of reconciliation that leads to the path of less suffering. Often, running away, cutting off communication, sometimes calling for help from people they perceive to be capable of helping them (but this almost never works).

The problem isn't too many students are filling false reports, no matter what system it is, their will always be false reports, the problem is that bullying behavior is too rampant and growing with the integration of technology into our new generations of youths. Where these children can hurt one another outside the eyes of their guardians/care takers. If this is allowed to continue to grow, it will not only affect children but the following generations of adults. Making people tougher skin would only teach our youths that the world is/will become tougher and that no one has any intent to prevent this outcome.

That's the problem: knowing when it happens. I think one person can feel like he's being bullied when he is being bullied just the same way he can feel bullied when he's not being bullied. How are we supposed to know if it depends on the person's sensitivity?



I hadn't considered that... Seems like a good point (especially with the trolls since I mentioned Honest Trolls). I see what you mean but I don't think, personally, that it entails bullying behavior, when acted upon by non-bullies, isn't in iself a bullying action. You make a good point because the same comedians I mentioned are often accused of being bullies. Again, I understand where people come from but I don't think it follows when that perception is entirely theirs.



Real life event... And before anything else, the class didn't shun. They didn't even pay attention, which I think actually furthers your point. I understand the difference between my case and all others but the thing is that I left there feeling down specifically because of what the professor said. And I could even have left there happy, a few months later fail the exam and then I'd be miserable. So the professor did something that made me feel bad but which will (hopefully) carry positive results.

I don't think we can invent a system in which no one hurts one another but I think in some cases, things people deem bad can be good or necessary. If we go around equating that with bullying or trolling we are being self-centered instead of taking actual good advice. The professor could even have pin pointed him. That would be embarassing but it would probably force me to study. It would drive something.



Teaching empathy is one thing, a good thing. But in some cases, I think we have to speak up. I'm not even going into big, meaningful stuff but while it may be embarassing when people say we have something in our teeth, it is better than smiling all day unaware of it. I actually feel guilty when that happens because I'm afraid of pointing it out to people even though they should be angry at me if I don't say it. Again, some things are better off said even if it may offend or embarass.



I don't think they need to have thicker skin as I know that is unrealistic to ask of people. All I think is that they can't accuse someone of bullying just because he said something they didn't like.

Of course, bullying happens and it's dangerous. But I also think that the opposite is dangerous. I think this is the case because measures taken against it often border or even go hand in hand with censorship. The newest example is those feminists who actually want the word «bossy» to be forbidden. Another that comes to mind is when Michael (from The Office US) fell into a koi pond and to stop people from making fun of him he made a rule that meant each person could choose something about which no one could make fun of him with.

Even though bullying makes some people miserable, I still think we can't base the dangerous of it on how we take things. Yet another example: Some people have a pretty thick skin about almost everything, you can make fun of them about whatever you want. But if you say something like: «I don't think there's proof Jesus existed» They will go balistic. I wouldn't doubt their anger, hummiliation, offense, none of that but I would doubt the right they want to have to silence the other guy.

(I think) It depends on the circumstances and the context. As opposed to assuming the victim is overreacting to the situations, the situations needs to be analyzed first to determine any wrong doing. To assume the victim is lying is a reverse "guilty without proven", and will most likely create a bias view towards the information present for the case. The view needs to remain impartial till a decision can be made.



I think this is a difference of opinion, but I'm glad your understand mine. I regard the victim and the perpetrators perspective as two different truths to the situations, and when it's an entire crowd, theirs that many more motives, desires, and views to the situation.



For your situations, it doesn't sound as if your source of anguish is any specific person, as well, your conflict isn't a matter of a single (or multiple) person(s) causing you to feel less of for an inability/mistake.

I do think a person tackling good and bad (more specifically, difficult) things to grow a sense of independence is a good thing (though the specifics need to be discussed, so to not leave this statement open ended). But I don't think bullying behavior is one of those. This is the major point in which we differ, that the victim is overly-sensitive that they are assuming bullying. Personal experience, gives me a bias view of victims normally not seeking help, as seeking help would be a defiant behavior, and allowing bullying to yourself is a subjecting choice that remains consistent throughout the experience. Bullying establishes fear within the victim, fear of ones own well being. Defiant behavior only results in worse treatment, so bullied victims are made to fear retaliation invoking harsher bullying by the ones conducting such behavior.

This would either have to be new or foreign to my area (of experience), for over-sensitivity has never been the problem. Most often, the biggest problems were teachers trying to pretend nothing was happening to avoid any kind of conflict for themselves and the school. An "oblivious" stance. One, that I've learned through anime, is a rather common attempt to avoid blame through "if we don't help no one, we can't be blamed for the ones we would miss" and "our school reputation won't go down for all the cases of bullying present if it is a rampant activity within our school".



Honesty is a tricky subject for me, too much for me to go into, too much for me to convey and analyze for this post, (it doesn't help that I don't have a complete/fixed opinion of it). But I think it's better in, that case, to tell them about the thing in their teeth.

But I am missing how this equates to bullying and bullying behavior, I think we went off topic a little bit here. If your saying that the person would assume they are being bullied because someone is telling them they have something in their teeth, I would think it depends on context. Is it stated after the person pulls the guy to the side (bathroom for example) and point it out in private, or is it stated, in a crowed place, loudly enough for all to hear, or is it stated absentmindedly ignoring the surroundings. If, empathy plays a roll in this, the person will be able to tell that the 3rd scenario had no ill intent. 2nd scenario was bullying (or at least bullying behavior, empathy would help differentiate if their was ill intent). 1st scenario should convey concern. And I would think it rare for someone to assume all 3 as a bullying attempt.



As I have said, I don't know what it's like in every school, but this was a rather rare occurrence in my experiences. I have seen this done, but rarely when it pertains to the subject of bullying, and most often from people purposely seeking conflict.



If the measures you mention include the "reverse bullying" I've heard of, yes I believe that doesn't help anything, only continues the cycle of damaging another person (and as a child).

Some people believe censorship to be a "good thing", I view it as utterly pointless and counter productive... "meh~" is all I can say to those case examples you gave.



That's a difference of opinion, which they can have, the person not believing in god does not hurt the one who does, directly. The person may feel hurt or betrayed that someone, whose opinion matters to them, doesn't believe, but the opinion of disbelief is not an attack on the believers opinion. Of course context does matter greatly in this case as well (I can imagine too many different scenarios, so I am skipping it this time), as is, the statement of a lack of belief does not count as bullying or bullying behavior from my personal view.

I understand your saying, those who are such people, can accuse others of bullying, but as long as the people who are listening, actually listen to both(all) sides of the case with an impartial stance, a fair and acceptable outcome should be made. This hinges more on the quality of the mediator as opposed to the "might not be" victim(s). If the mediator has a high capacity of empathy and patients, a victimless conflict should have a more than adequate conclusion.

If the word «victim» in that sentence contains an emotional charge (i.e. he/she who is suffering unjustly at the hands of others) your point becomes shady in the sense that it makes be obviously wrong. My point is that, in overly-sensitive cases, the «victim» isn't a victim at all.

I am perfectly aware that bullying is a dangerous subject. But I am also become increasingly aware that our social norms are being pushed to a state in which we won't be able to say anything at all with fear of offending people. It is slashing away at free speech and taking a small, but significant step, towards some sort of Orwellian nightmare. I'm not saying bullied kids should «grow a pair» as a way to fix their problems but I am saying that easily offended people should.



We have been going for a while but it equates to the discussion in the sense that we talking about offense caused in people (some sort of basic, very basic definition of bullying). And I came up (or at least tried) with counter-examples as an attempt to show that sometimes offense can be caused when bullying does not exist. And the teeth example is more or less supposed to be silly. I actually remembered it from a sitcom called Scrubs in which a guy told that to a girl and she, being very obsessive and insecure, became very self-aware and uncomfortable. I know it is a sitcom but trivial things can cause offense. My beef with this issue is when people call others bullies for this.



You may be a stoic (something I am in some aspects and wish I could be more of in others) but it shouldn't be a meh reaction. At least with regards to the first case for it pertains to a group of women who, feeling bullied by the word «bossy» began raising money in order to censor that word. It is completely insane and I think, a good example as to when those who perceived to be bullied take wrong actions.



The context in which that example occured to me was in conversation with a group of friends, some which I knew quite well, others were friends of friends and others were friends of friends of friends. The one that did go balistic was someone who's face I hardly recognized. I don't think he cared about my opinion, he deeply cared about his. So, a statement regarding historical evidence (something which bores the living hell out of most people in the world) was enough to trigger a harsh response. Couldn't it be the same when clumsy girls fall in gym class? Maybe or maybe not. I dunno. I could also really bully that Christian dude (although I was close enough to get punched as it was), I could have been vitriolic but I wasn't and it was enough to offend him. If this happens, as it does in the bossy case, it seems as though bullying is more clearly definied with intention rather than offense. Granted, some people many be bullies without realizing but I think in that situation, they would easily be called to reason and stop. Unless they were sociopaths which bullies, more or less, are.