3 ms·

> Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing

> Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing something else.

breischl 11y ago
>>Bullying implies violence. That is incorrect. Dictionary definition: "Persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person." So if I followed you around HN for the rest of the week responding to all postings/comments with insults and browbeating, that would be completely non-violent but still bullying. https://www.wordnik.com/words/bullying https://www.wordnik.com/words/bullying
- tangent128 11y ago
  Dictionary definitions inherently lag behind practical usage; I would have no problem classifying harassment as a non-physical class of violence. Especially given cases where it can be more damaging to a person than physical assaults against their meat.
- kaonashi 11y ago
  I mean if we're going to use that definition, then the shirt itself was harassment. Or is it just if I'm oblivious to the harassment I cause & don't care to find out, then it's somehow morally superior to someone repeatedly and strenuously asking me to stop?
  - breischl 11y ago
    >>I mean if we're going to use that definition, then the shirt itself was harassment. I'll just assume you meant "bullying" instead of "harassment" since that was the immediate topic. From my brief research it seems Matt Taylor wore the shirt because he liked it, not with an intention to harass women, so it fails the intent clause of the definition. And it appears he only wore it once, so it would also fail the persistence clause. Thus it wouldn't be bullying by that definition. I suspect that wearing that shirt would qualify as harassment under some definitions, such as US workplace law. And I personally think it's in terrible taste in most contexts.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    How is wearing a tacky bowling shirt "persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person"? Can you, at the very least, point to that person?
ebrenes 11y ago
One of the most stereotypical cases of bullying is to be openly mocked and made fun of in front of your peers for a perceived difference. There's no violence involved in that. Have a look at what constitutes bullying [0] Violence is but a subset of it. Unless we were to water down the definition of violence to include any manner of ridicule. At which, you're diluting the definition of violence under the guise of staying steadfast on the definition of bullying necessarily including violence. [0] http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=44eaf3f0-fd67-58fb-c7b6-c4a8b6dabda3&PageNumber=2 http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=44eaf3f0-f...
- pervycreeper 11y ago
  There has been an extraordinary semantic creep of the term "violence" under feminism. Everything they don't like is classified as violence, from one's mere gaze, to so-called "cyberviolence", to one's body posture, tone of voice, lack of social deference, or any other perceived arrogation of status.

> Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing something else.

breischl 11y ago

>>Bullying implies violence. That is incorrect. Dictionary definition: "Persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person." So if I followed you around HN for the rest of the week responding to all postings/comments with insults and browbeating, that would be completely non-violent but still bullying. https://www.wordnik.com/words/bullying https://www.wordnik.com/words/bullying

tangent128 11y ago
Dictionary definitions inherently lag behind practical usage; I would have no problem classifying harassment as a non-physical class of violence. Especially given cases where it can be more damaging to a person than physical assaults against their meat.
kaonashi 11y ago
I mean if we're going to use that definition, then the shirt itself was harassment. Or is it just if I'm oblivious to the harassment I cause & don't care to find out, then it's somehow morally superior to someone repeatedly and strenuously asking me to stop?
- breischl 11y ago
  >>I mean if we're going to use that definition, then the shirt itself was harassment. I'll just assume you meant "bullying" instead of "harassment" since that was the immediate topic. From my brief research it seems Matt Taylor wore the shirt because he liked it, not with an intention to harass women, so it fails the intent clause of the definition. And it appears he only wore it once, so it would also fail the persistence clause. Thus it wouldn't be bullying by that definition. I suspect that wearing that shirt would qualify as harassment under some definitions, such as US workplace law. And I personally think it's in terrible taste in most contexts.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  How is wearing a tacky bowling shirt "persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person"? Can you, at the very least, point to that person?

ebrenes 11y ago

One of the most stereotypical cases of bullying is to be openly mocked and made fun of in front of your peers for a perceived difference. There's no violence involved in that. Have a look at what constitutes bullying [0] Violence is but a subset of it. Unless we were to water down the definition of violence to include any manner of ridicule. At which, you're diluting the definition of violence under the guise of staying steadfast on the definition of bullying necessarily including violence. [0] http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=44eaf3f0-fd67-58fb-c7b6-c4a8b6dabda3&PageNumber=2 http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=44eaf3f0-f...

pervycreeper 11y ago
There has been an extraordinary semantic creep of the term "violence" under feminism. Everything they don't like is classified as violence, from one's mere gaze, to so-called "cyberviolence", to one's body posture, tone of voice, lack of social deference, or any other perceived arrogation of status.