7 ms·

Fuck this. I'm not a violent person. I never have been and never will be. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems. Reverting to our animal nature is

by seldo 16y ago

Fuck this. I'm not a violent person. I never have been and never will be. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems. Reverting to our animal nature is rejecting the progress we have made in our brains overriding unproductive basic survival impulses in favour of smarter solutions. That's not to say this approach doesn't work. For some people it works perfectly. But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse. And even if it works, all you've done is validate the world view that might makes right. The world is full of idiots who ruin the lives of others, both at the micro level of domestic abuse and the macro level of dictatorships, because of this principle. It's the law of the jungle, and you know what? We don't live in the fucking jungle any more. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength. Nobody should know that better than HN, a community of nerds who dream of changing the world one keystroke at a time. I'm disappointed to see how much support there is for this idea. The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable. Kids don't take dumps in the hallways because there's no payoff to doing so. But if you beat up the unpopular kid, you get some credibility. Rob them of that credibility, rob them of their motivation, and you end bullying, without swinging a fist.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 16y ago
> The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable. Sure, the bullied kid — which generally has low sociability, either from the start or following the ostracization coming along with the bullying, and few if any friends — is going to make bullying "socially unacceptable". That's a very nice feel-good declaration, but it's about as helpful as "smack yourself in the mouth to help them so the beating is shorter"
jimbokun 16y ago
"The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable." And until then?
- zacharycohn 16y ago
  I'd like to see a roadmap to making bullying socially unacceptable. Especially one that creates a sustainable solution as opposed to one that has to be re-implemented every year when you get new 6th graders..
  - gaius 16y ago
    To do that you'd first need to be in a situation where teachers earned the kids respect instead of demanding it by fiat.
  - moshezadka 16y ago
    Here is a sustainable approach: make sure that teachers are legally obligated to report bullying instances they are aware of to the police. (This law can be passed in the municipal, state or federal levels -- it doesn't matter.) Bullying is assault. The first time the police gets involved, it will be unpleasant for the bully. The second time, he gets arrested. The next bully to come along might realize he doesn't want a criminal record, and if he doesn't, his parents might. And if they don't stop, they get sent away to juvie. Why do we assume highschool/middleschool kids are somehow untouchable by the law?
    - neworbit 16y ago
      ...because in some circumstances, they are. Cavanagh has vandals on film and admitting their guilt on facebook - cops don't follow up. More important things to do, I guess. Ever had to actually get the police to follow up on something like that? They'll take your report... but if no one is injured, it often ends there.
    - zacharycohn 16y ago
      They're not untouchable, but every year you're going to have a whole new group of kids "becoming" bullies. So any "sustainable" approach has to be made with parents, not the school system, because it's parents who are ultimately responsible.
zavulon 16y ago
> But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse. I can't even begin to list how many things are wrong with this. So fighting is only worth it when you know you're going to win? The author's point is if you stand up for yourself against a much bigger and stronger bully, you WILL get your ass kicked. But that's fine. Everybody gets their ass kicked once in a while. But the fact that you were not afraid to stand up for yourself gets you respect. The bullies will likely move on onto the easier targets that don't fight back. I agree with 99% of this article. Except this: > I’ve got some sets of names I’d name my sons as they’re born. They’re unconventional names – Cosimo Marshall or Aurelius Marshall if the boy’s mother was Italian, Zhuge Marshall if he was Chinese. The boy will likely get teased. Ya think?? And even though you realize it, you're still planning to do it? I'm sure the kid will be VERY grateful when he grows up.
- chc 16y ago
  Naming a kid something that will get him teased makes about as much sense as picking a fight with someone you know will beat you. In fact, Sebastian actually says the weird names are a way of picking a fight with the bullies of the world, just like you approved of earlier.
  - nailer 16y ago
    If you hurt someone, they wont want to attack you again, regardless of who wins.
    - maxawaytoolong 16y ago
      Yeah right, this is exactly what they want to do. It's bizarre this is even considered, because this whole thread is filled with revenge fantasies about bullies. Why would you think the bully is just going to think "oh yes, zhuge omarion lionhearted is the superior fighter, I concede" like in some corny kung-fu movie? If you hurt a bully, they are just going to plot out how they are going to hurt you worse the next chance they get... Finally, if violence is truly the answer, why not just go all-out Columbine from the beginning? There's no more bullying when the bully is dead. Then the problem is truly "solved," right?
zacharycohn 16y ago
"But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse." Not true. Bullies tend to pick on people who won't fight back* because they're easy prey. If you demonstrate, even by losing, that you're not willing to take it from them anymore and that you will resist, you are no longer easy prey. *Obviously this isn't true 100% of the time, but more often than not.
- lotharbot 16y ago
  Bullies pick on you as long as the benefit is greater than the cost. If you don't fight back and the school/parents don't provide effective punishment, the cost is zero, so the bully will pick on you whenever it's worth slightly more than nothing to him. If you make the cost "getting kicked in the junk", the bully is only going to pick on you if he thinks it's worth getting kicked in the junk, which is not very often. You don't need to be stronger, or a better fighter, you just need to make fighting you painful enough that the pain outweighs the gain. This is one of the key principles of deterrence (even on an international scale) -- you don't need to be strong enough to win the fight, you just have to be strong/vicious enough to inflict enough pain that "not fighting" becomes a better option for your opponent.
  - nollidge 16y ago
    > the bully is only going to pick on you if he thinks it's worth getting kicked in the junk Or he'll "pick on you" with a huge stick out of kicking range, or he'll guard his nuts next time he's got you in a headlock.
    - potatolicious 16y ago
      Only true if there is no one easier left to pick on. This is never the case.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > he'll guard his nuts next time he's got you in a headlock. Which weakens the headlock and leaves something else vulnerable (unless he's got three arms).
joe_the_user 16y ago
I'd agree. I was a violent person in elementary school and Jr. High. I was made fun of constantly and things occasionally came to blows. I usually won. But it didn't help much, really, even if it satisfied me at the time to literally pound-in the heads of kids who'd been making me miserable. Teasing and bullying only seem like they are about someone seeming weak. They're about a mob mentality. That is what needs to be addressed. I'd say a social atmosphere where non-conformists are fair game is mostly what stimulates bullies. Individual kids fighting back is not really going to be the solution.
- gte910h 16y ago
  While I wouldn't call myself a violent person (even then), several bullying issues came to a quite physical conclusion in my youngest years. And yes, while the bullying stopped against me, it didn't stop the kid from doing it to others. Do you think it was just non-conformity? The meanness of children in general? Is this something that all humans have? Or some american dysfunction? Some western dysfunction?
weego 16y ago
The smart solution to taking drugs is to make it socially unacceptable. The smart solution to smoking is to make it socially unacceptable. The smart solution to binge drinking is to make it socially unacceptable. The smart solution to football violence is to make it socially unacceptable. etc etc. The real smart thing is for every corner of society, from education to prosecution, to realise that there is no blanket golden solution to every problem.
- klbarry 16y ago
  Example where it did work: Mustafa Ataturk was trying to modernize Turkey and make it more secular. One part of that was banning hijabs, Muslim head coverings. He knew that banning headscarves on women outright could lead to rebellion, or at the very least severe social unrest. His solution was to make hijabs mandatory for prostitutes at all time. It was one of the most successful mass persuasion tactics he ever used, and if you visit modern day Turkey almost no one wears hijabs. Edit: Scratch what I said above about modern day turkey, my data is old and unsourced.
  - iuguy 16y ago
    When was the last time you went to Turkey and where? I'm interested. I spend a fair bit of time in Istanbul, and I can categorically tell you the hijab made a comeback some time ago. There are two main ways it's worn - one is a classical cultural style and the other is more of a political statement. It's the latter that's coming back in fashion, mainly due to the actions of the current political party in power.
gaius 16y ago
I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems Well, you're wrong. I don't want to get all Heinlein on you. But this is the way of the world. If you're cold, you put on a jumper or turn up the heating. If you're hot, you have cold drink or you sit in the shade. If you don't do one of these, the situation remains the same. And if you're threatened, you fight or you run. If you can't run, you fight. And if you have to fight - trust me on this - you have to go all in. The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable If you have a way for an 8-year-old fat kid to do that, let's hear it. Hell if you have a way for "society" to do that, let's hear it.
- achompas 16y ago
  And if you have to fight - trust me on this - you have to go all in. Truer words have never been spoken. Fighting isn't a first option--it's a last option. But if you were teased in school (like I was), the last thing a bully expects is a kid that will rage on him. Making bullying "unacceptable" isn't a reality.
- extension 16y ago
  Adult society is way ahead of kid society at making injustice socially unacceptable. Kid society can become civilized in the same way as adult society: law and order (doink doink). Children need a justice system that they can respect, which will only happen if the system respects them back -- treats them like first class citizens with a voice and control over their world. The adult system can't do that, so they probably need one of their own. As their educators, adults need to help them build it. Children want civility as much as adults do, but as long as they have no control over their world, they will not feel any responsibility for it.
  - sausagefeet 16y ago
    I think this is new-age-feel-good bologna. Children do not have a voice and control over the world, to pretend they do would be disingenuous and I'm not sure what value there is in pretend they do or giving them control. Most adults don't even have a voice and control over the world. I'm not a strong supporter of violence but I think it is unreasonable to think you can "Hey buddy, let's be friends" your way out of every situation.
colbyolson 16y ago
> I'm not a violent person. I never have been and never will be. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems. Reverting to our animal nature is rejecting the progress we have made in our brains overriding unproductive basic survival impulses in favour of smarter solutions. Sometimes the only way an animal will listen is if you speak their language.
prawn 16y ago
Were you bullied at school?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
travisjeffery 16y ago
They're both solutions, violence is more often an option rather than relying on the intelligence of both parties. If you think otherwise then I think you're naive and would benefit by gaining experiences other than your own. "But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them." It's easily arguable that this is case when strength is measured in intelligence rather than physically. The correct way is by intelligence but by being prudent in a Machiavellian sense and knowing when you need to be physical and when you can and should use a civilized argument. But just painting every situation as one of white or black for all time is nice abstractly but it's not practical.
bena 16y ago
What you need to do is demonstrate that you are willing to escalate things beyond a reasonable level. It's not about strength, but about willingness to go the distance. Someone shoves you: throw a chair through a window, flip a few desks, go completely ape-shit. Make it known that you are willing to cause lasting and permanent damage for the slightest offense. Pretty soon no one will want to cause that slightest offense. This is an intelligent tactic. And will preemptively stop a lot of aggression. Kids don't take dumps in hallways because it can negatively impact them. They will take dumps in hallways they don't frequent just for kicks.
- uxp 16y ago
  > throw a chair through a window. I think every party involved would prefer if personal conflicts between two high school kids didn't result in unnecessary property damage. Otherwise, I agree. Going "ape-shit", all in, is what will prove the point that you shouldn't be fucked with.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    Property damage can serve one purpose: getting the school administrators to care about the situation. The school administrators I've met have never given a damn about bullying, but they care quite a lot about not being inconvenienced. Property damage is inconvenient. I'm not sure how getting the administration involved would help the situation, but I suppose it might.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Actually it seems to me that is exactly what would let the bullies win: see how crazy that kid is? Let's tease him some more and see how crazy he can get.
  - bena 16y ago
    Not if they're the targets. Do you really want to see how homicidal someone else can get towards you?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gursikh 16y ago
1. The world is full of idiots who ruin the lives of others, both at the micro level of domestic abuse and the macro level of dictatorships, because of this principle. Self-defense isn't the same as aggression, it's an act of self-preservation which is still very much a principle of civilized society. The author of the article failed to make this distinction clear. When you stand up for yourself or a friend you're sending a clear message that says "I'm not going to take this laying down." "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." -Barrack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech 2. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems. The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable. When you're in a confrontational situation where the other party is about to beat you to a bloody pulp you can't take a time-out to establish a social stigma. Furthermore that wouldn't work. Most bullies are deviant by nature so making something socially unacceptable would just make it more alluring. 3. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength. But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. By the former statement it appears that you exclude violence categorically from the realm of "intelligent things to do." Violence, just like any other human interaction, is a language with its own inflections and subtleties. Without training and practice how do you expect to be fluent or successful in getting your point across?
amalcon 16y ago
I agree with you that this is not necessarily the ideal approach. Whether or not it's a valid way to solve problems, fighting back is only effective against individual bullies, which are hardly the larger problem. I disagree that "The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable." A solution is not a smart solution if it cannot be put into practice, and it's not as though there's any real control over what's socially acceptable among children. If there's a real solution, it's to be found among adults. Children are basically small adults. While there's a bit of a gap in reasoning capacity, the gap is much smaller than people give it credit for: children are smart. So, why do adults not "bully" each other all the time? There's a strong argument to be made that this is because we've cordoned adults who are likely to instigate violence off into their own social environments (criminal). That's a strong possibility, but it probably doesn't hide a solution to the problem: we don't give children the power to do this, and doing it for them would be a ground ripe for abuse of power. As much as I don't like it, there may be no good solution. There's also a strong argument to be made that adults don't get into fights simply because they have better things to do. That might be a good place to start: give children more and better choices about what to do. Probably the strongest argument is that adults have a perfectly good nonviolent way to signal status: money. Children don't have any such thing, so they come up with their own. Counter-intuitive though it seems, giving children a strong status-signaling mechanism other than bullying might be effective.
anamax 16y ago
> But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse. I rarely assume that someone who threatens me with violence cares about my well-being. You're assuming that if you comply, you won't get your ass kicked. Sometimes, you're going to get your ass kicked regardless so the only question is whether they're going to pay a price for doing so. Curiously enough, bullies don't like the risk of damage, even if they "win" the fight. > where intelligence can triumph over brute strength. "can" is often by the grace of folks who have brute strength.
- Jach 16y ago
  > "can" is often by the grace of folks who have brute strength. As if guns grew on trees.
bmelton 16y ago
When I was a kid in Hawaii (note, young Hawaiians at the time were very racist against 'haoles/foreigners', I got into a fight literally every Wednesday. At the time, I was a 6' tall, thin, awkward kid, too thin for my height, so every Wednesday, I got my ass kicked. It didn't help that I was a smart ass, and content to talk smack WHILE I was getting pummelled. Summer break came around, and I enrolled in Judo, Boxing and Muay Thai classes. I took an under the table job in construction to pay for the classes. I stole a kayak to get to work. Every single activity in my entire life was focussed on getting better, so I wouldn't get my ass kicked. I jogged, lifted weights, exercised, trained, etc. I was Rocky. I was the Karate Kid. When school resumed the next year, the first Wednesday, I got into a fight. I didn't lose. I wouldn't say I "kicked the other guy's ass", but I didn't lose. After that, i didn't get into nearly as many fights. I was no longer the easy target. And there weren't any other white kids in the class, so much of the violence stopped altogether. I'm sure you could potentially attribute it to the bullies being a year wiser, or any other number of factors, but from my experience, this argument holds water.
- roel_v 16y ago
  All right I have to ask: why on Wednesday's?
  - bmelton 16y ago
    Oh, that's a part of the longer story, which I tried to condense down for the benefit of all. I was getting my ass kicked more frequently in public schools, so my parents moved me to a Christian private school. The school board mandates x hours of physical education per week, but the school was smallish, and didn't have a gym. Every Wednesday we would hike down to the nearest public rec center. The rec center was a fairly good size, so we had the option of multiple things to do -- volleyball, kickball, whatever, all spread out on separate fields. This meant that the teacher(s) would rotate from one field to the other to keep an eye on things, which invariably meant that any given field was only monitored about a third of the time. I never believed in team sports, because of this - if we were playing volleyball, for example, and I made a good serve, somebody on the other team wanted to kick my ass. If I made a bad serve, somebody on my team wanted to kick my ass. I later moved from Hawaii to Tennessee, for my junior and senior years of high school, where, due to my athletic build and coordination, I was sought after by all the coaches for all the sports teams, but I hated sports. I'm over it now.
JabavuAdams 16y ago
That's great. Throw your kids under the bus for your ideals. We first have to understand the world we do live in, before we can reasonably change it to the world we'd like to live in.
Tamerlin 16y ago
We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength. Are you sure about that? I'm not at all convinced -- especially in the US.

by seldo 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

masklinn 16y ago

> The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable. Sure, the bullied kid — which generally has low sociability, either from the start or following the ostracization coming along with the bullying, and few if any friends — is going to make bullying "socially unacceptable". That's a very nice feel-good declaration, but it's about as helpful as "smack yourself in the mouth to help them so the beating is shorter"

jimbokun 16y ago

"The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable." And until then?

zacharycohn 16y ago
I'd like to see a roadmap to making bullying socially unacceptable. Especially one that creates a sustainable solution as opposed to one that has to be re-implemented every year when you get new 6th graders..
- gaius 16y ago
  To do that you'd first need to be in a situation where teachers earned the kids respect instead of demanding it by fiat.
- moshezadka 16y ago
  Here is a sustainable approach: make sure that teachers are legally obligated to report bullying instances they are aware of to the police. (This law can be passed in the municipal, state or federal levels -- it doesn't matter.) Bullying is assault. The first time the police gets involved, it will be unpleasant for the bully. The second time, he gets arrested. The next bully to come along might realize he doesn't want a criminal record, and if he doesn't, his parents might. And if they don't stop, they get sent away to juvie. Why do we assume highschool/middleschool kids are somehow untouchable by the law?
  - neworbit 16y ago
    ...because in some circumstances, they are. Cavanagh has vandals on film and admitting their guilt on facebook - cops don't follow up. More important things to do, I guess. Ever had to actually get the police to follow up on something like that? They'll take your report... but if no one is injured, it often ends there.
  - zacharycohn 16y ago
    They're not untouchable, but every year you're going to have a whole new group of kids "becoming" bullies. So any "sustainable" approach has to be made with parents, not the school system, because it's parents who are ultimately responsible.

zavulon 16y ago

> But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse. I can't even begin to list how many things are wrong with this. So fighting is only worth it when you know you're going to win? The author's point is if you stand up for yourself against a much bigger and stronger bully, you WILL get your ass kicked. But that's fine. Everybody gets their ass kicked once in a while. But the fact that you were not afraid to stand up for yourself gets you respect. The bullies will likely move on onto the easier targets that don't fight back. I agree with 99% of this article. Except this: > I’ve got some sets of names I’d name my sons as they’re born. They’re unconventional names – Cosimo Marshall or Aurelius Marshall if the boy’s mother was Italian, Zhuge Marshall if he was Chinese. The boy will likely get teased. Ya think?? And even though you realize it, you're still planning to do it? I'm sure the kid will be VERY grateful when he grows up.

chc 16y ago
Naming a kid something that will get him teased makes about as much sense as picking a fight with someone you know will beat you. In fact, Sebastian actually says the weird names are a way of picking a fight with the bullies of the world, just like you approved of earlier.
- nailer 16y ago
  If you hurt someone, they wont want to attack you again, regardless of who wins.
  - maxawaytoolong 16y ago
    Yeah right, this is exactly what they want to do. It's bizarre this is even considered, because this whole thread is filled with revenge fantasies about bullies. Why would you think the bully is just going to think "oh yes, zhuge omarion lionhearted is the superior fighter, I concede" like in some corny kung-fu movie? If you hurt a bully, they are just going to plot out how they are going to hurt you worse the next chance they get... Finally, if violence is truly the answer, why not just go all-out Columbine from the beginning? There's no more bullying when the bully is dead. Then the problem is truly "solved," right?

zacharycohn 16y ago

"But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse." Not true. Bullies tend to pick on people who won't fight back* because they're easy prey. If you demonstrate, even by losing, that you're not willing to take it from them anymore and that you will resist, you are no longer easy prey. *Obviously this isn't true 100% of the time, but more often than not.

lotharbot 16y ago
Bullies pick on you as long as the benefit is greater than the cost. If you don't fight back and the school/parents don't provide effective punishment, the cost is zero, so the bully will pick on you whenever it's worth slightly more than nothing to him. If you make the cost "getting kicked in the junk", the bully is only going to pick on you if he thinks it's worth getting kicked in the junk, which is not very often. You don't need to be stronger, or a better fighter, you just need to make fighting you painful enough that the pain outweighs the gain. This is one of the key principles of deterrence (even on an international scale) -- you don't need to be strong enough to win the fight, you just have to be strong/vicious enough to inflict enough pain that "not fighting" becomes a better option for your opponent.
- nollidge 16y ago
  > the bully is only going to pick on you if he thinks it's worth getting kicked in the junk Or he'll "pick on you" with a huge stick out of kicking range, or he'll guard his nuts next time he's got you in a headlock.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    Only true if there is no one easier left to pick on. This is never the case.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > he'll guard his nuts next time he's got you in a headlock. Which weakens the headlock and leaves something else vulnerable (unless he's got three arms).

joe_the_user 16y ago

I'd agree. I was a violent person in elementary school and Jr. High. I was made fun of constantly and things occasionally came to blows. I usually won. But it didn't help much, really, even if it satisfied me at the time to literally pound-in the heads of kids who'd been making me miserable. Teasing and bullying only seem like they are about someone seeming weak. They're about a mob mentality. That is what needs to be addressed. I'd say a social atmosphere where non-conformists are fair game is mostly what stimulates bullies. Individual kids fighting back is not really going to be the solution.

gte910h 16y ago
While I wouldn't call myself a violent person (even then), several bullying issues came to a quite physical conclusion in my youngest years. And yes, while the bullying stopped against me, it didn't stop the kid from doing it to others. Do you think it was just non-conformity? The meanness of children in general? Is this something that all humans have? Or some american dysfunction? Some western dysfunction?

weego 16y ago

The smart solution to taking drugs is to make it socially unacceptable. The smart solution to smoking is to make it socially unacceptable. The smart solution to binge drinking is to make it socially unacceptable. The smart solution to football violence is to make it socially unacceptable. etc etc. The real smart thing is for every corner of society, from education to prosecution, to realise that there is no blanket golden solution to every problem.

klbarry 16y ago
Example where it did work: Mustafa Ataturk was trying to modernize Turkey and make it more secular. One part of that was banning hijabs, Muslim head coverings. He knew that banning headscarves on women outright could lead to rebellion, or at the very least severe social unrest. His solution was to make hijabs mandatory for prostitutes at all time. It was one of the most successful mass persuasion tactics he ever used, and if you visit modern day Turkey almost no one wears hijabs. Edit: Scratch what I said above about modern day turkey, my data is old and unsourced.
- iuguy 16y ago
  When was the last time you went to Turkey and where? I'm interested. I spend a fair bit of time in Istanbul, and I can categorically tell you the hijab made a comeback some time ago. There are two main ways it's worn - one is a classical cultural style and the other is more of a political statement. It's the latter that's coming back in fashion, mainly due to the actions of the current political party in power.

gaius 16y ago

I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems Well, you're wrong. I don't want to get all Heinlein on you. But this is the way of the world. If you're cold, you put on a jumper or turn up the heating. If you're hot, you have cold drink or you sit in the shade. If you don't do one of these, the situation remains the same. And if you're threatened, you fight or you run. If you can't run, you fight. And if you have to fight - trust me on this - you have to go all in. The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable If you have a way for an 8-year-old fat kid to do that, let's hear it. Hell if you have a way for "society" to do that, let's hear it.

achompas 16y ago
And if you have to fight - trust me on this - you have to go all in. Truer words have never been spoken. Fighting isn't a first option--it's a last option. But if you were teased in school (like I was), the last thing a bully expects is a kid that will rage on him. Making bullying "unacceptable" isn't a reality.
extension 16y ago
Adult society is way ahead of kid society at making injustice socially unacceptable. Kid society can become civilized in the same way as adult society: law and order (doink doink). Children need a justice system that they can respect, which will only happen if the system respects them back -- treats them like first class citizens with a voice and control over their world. The adult system can't do that, so they probably need one of their own. As their educators, adults need to help them build it. Children want civility as much as adults do, but as long as they have no control over their world, they will not feel any responsibility for it.
- sausagefeet 16y ago
  I think this is new-age-feel-good bologna. Children do not have a voice and control over the world, to pretend they do would be disingenuous and I'm not sure what value there is in pretend they do or giving them control. Most adults don't even have a voice and control over the world. I'm not a strong supporter of violence but I think it is unreasonable to think you can "Hey buddy, let's be friends" your way out of every situation.

colbyolson 16y ago

> I'm not a violent person. I never have been and never will be. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems. Reverting to our animal nature is rejecting the progress we have made in our brains overriding unproductive basic survival impulses in favour of smarter solutions. Sometimes the only way an animal will listen is if you speak their language.

prawn 16y ago

Were you bullied at school?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

travisjeffery 16y ago

They're both solutions, violence is more often an option rather than relying on the intelligence of both parties. If you think otherwise then I think you're naive and would benefit by gaining experiences other than your own. "But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them." It's easily arguable that this is case when strength is measured in intelligence rather than physically. The correct way is by intelligence but by being prudent in a Machiavellian sense and knowing when you need to be physical and when you can and should use a civilized argument. But just painting every situation as one of white or black for all time is nice abstractly but it's not practical.

bena 16y ago

What you need to do is demonstrate that you are willing to escalate things beyond a reasonable level. It's not about strength, but about willingness to go the distance. Someone shoves you: throw a chair through a window, flip a few desks, go completely ape-shit. Make it known that you are willing to cause lasting and permanent damage for the slightest offense. Pretty soon no one will want to cause that slightest offense. This is an intelligent tactic. And will preemptively stop a lot of aggression. Kids don't take dumps in hallways because it can negatively impact them. They will take dumps in hallways they don't frequent just for kicks.

uxp 16y ago
> throw a chair through a window. I think every party involved would prefer if personal conflicts between two high school kids didn't result in unnecessary property damage. Otherwise, I agree. Going "ape-shit", all in, is what will prove the point that you shouldn't be fucked with.
- pjscott 16y ago
  Property damage can serve one purpose: getting the school administrators to care about the situation. The school administrators I've met have never given a damn about bullying, but they care quite a lot about not being inconvenienced. Property damage is inconvenient. I'm not sure how getting the administration involved would help the situation, but I suppose it might.
Tichy 16y ago
Actually it seems to me that is exactly what would let the bullies win: see how crazy that kid is? Let's tease him some more and see how crazy he can get.
- bena 16y ago
  Not if they're the targets. Do you really want to see how homicidal someone else can get towards you?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gursikh 16y ago

1. The world is full of idiots who ruin the lives of others, both at the micro level of domestic abuse and the macro level of dictatorships, because of this principle. Self-defense isn't the same as aggression, it's an act of self-preservation which is still very much a principle of civilized society. The author of the article failed to make this distinction clear. When you stand up for yourself or a friend you're sending a clear message that says "I'm not going to take this laying down." "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." -Barrack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech 2. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems. The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable. When you're in a confrontational situation where the other party is about to beat you to a bloody pulp you can't take a time-out to establish a social stigma. Furthermore that wouldn't work. Most bullies are deviant by nature so making something socially unacceptable would just make it more alluring. 3. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength. But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. By the former statement it appears that you exclude violence categorically from the realm of "intelligent things to do." Violence, just like any other human interaction, is a language with its own inflections and subtleties. Without training and practice how do you expect to be fluent or successful in getting your point across?

amalcon 16y ago

I agree with you that this is not necessarily the ideal approach. Whether or not it's a valid way to solve problems, fighting back is only effective against individual bullies, which are hardly the larger problem. I disagree that "The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable." A solution is not a smart solution if it cannot be put into practice, and it's not as though there's any real control over what's socially acceptable among children. If there's a real solution, it's to be found among adults. Children are basically small adults. While there's a bit of a gap in reasoning capacity, the gap is much smaller than people give it credit for: children are smart. So, why do adults not "bully" each other all the time? There's a strong argument to be made that this is because we've cordoned adults who are likely to instigate violence off into their own social environments (criminal). That's a strong possibility, but it probably doesn't hide a solution to the problem: we don't give children the power to do this, and doing it for them would be a ground ripe for abuse of power. As much as I don't like it, there may be no good solution. There's also a strong argument to be made that adults don't get into fights simply because they have better things to do. That might be a good place to start: give children more and better choices about what to do. Probably the strongest argument is that adults have a perfectly good nonviolent way to signal status: money. Children don't have any such thing, so they come up with their own. Counter-intuitive though it seems, giving children a strong status-signaling mechanism other than bullying might be effective.

anamax 16y ago

> But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse. I rarely assume that someone who threatens me with violence cares about my well-being. You're assuming that if you comply, you won't get your ass kicked. Sometimes, you're going to get your ass kicked regardless so the only question is whether they're going to pay a price for doing so. Curiously enough, bullies don't like the risk of damage, even if they "win" the fight. > where intelligence can triumph over brute strength. "can" is often by the grace of folks who have brute strength.

Jach 16y ago
> "can" is often by the grace of folks who have brute strength. As if guns grew on trees.

bmelton 16y ago

When I was a kid in Hawaii (note, young Hawaiians at the time were very racist against 'haoles/foreigners', I got into a fight literally every Wednesday. At the time, I was a 6' tall, thin, awkward kid, too thin for my height, so every Wednesday, I got my ass kicked. It didn't help that I was a smart ass, and content to talk smack WHILE I was getting pummelled. Summer break came around, and I enrolled in Judo, Boxing and Muay Thai classes. I took an under the table job in construction to pay for the classes. I stole a kayak to get to work. Every single activity in my entire life was focussed on getting better, so I wouldn't get my ass kicked. I jogged, lifted weights, exercised, trained, etc. I was Rocky. I was the Karate Kid. When school resumed the next year, the first Wednesday, I got into a fight. I didn't lose. I wouldn't say I "kicked the other guy's ass", but I didn't lose. After that, i didn't get into nearly as many fights. I was no longer the easy target. And there weren't any other white kids in the class, so much of the violence stopped altogether. I'm sure you could potentially attribute it to the bullies being a year wiser, or any other number of factors, but from my experience, this argument holds water.

roel_v 16y ago
All right I have to ask: why on Wednesday's?
- bmelton 16y ago
  Oh, that's a part of the longer story, which I tried to condense down for the benefit of all. I was getting my ass kicked more frequently in public schools, so my parents moved me to a Christian private school. The school board mandates x hours of physical education per week, but the school was smallish, and didn't have a gym. Every Wednesday we would hike down to the nearest public rec center. The rec center was a fairly good size, so we had the option of multiple things to do -- volleyball, kickball, whatever, all spread out on separate fields. This meant that the teacher(s) would rotate from one field to the other to keep an eye on things, which invariably meant that any given field was only monitored about a third of the time. I never believed in team sports, because of this - if we were playing volleyball, for example, and I made a good serve, somebody on the other team wanted to kick my ass. If I made a bad serve, somebody on my team wanted to kick my ass. I later moved from Hawaii to Tennessee, for my junior and senior years of high school, where, due to my athletic build and coordination, I was sought after by all the coaches for all the sports teams, but I hated sports. I'm over it now.

JabavuAdams 16y ago

That's great. Throw your kids under the bus for your ideals. We first have to understand the world we do live in, before we can reasonably change it to the world we'd like to live in.

Tamerlin 16y ago

We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength. Are you sure about that? I'm not at all convinced -- especially in the US.