My only problem with this article is when the author considers the antagonists to be animals. It encourages thinking of the bullies as sub-human, and beyond red

My only problem with this article is when the author considers the antagonists to be animals. It encourages thinking of the bullies as sub-human, and beyond redemption, and treating them like that encourages them to keep acting like that. People are complicated, life is complicated, and completely dismissing someone as an "animal" and ignoring anything else about them is an arrogant effort to make yourself feel morally superior for taking what is an essentially pragmatic option. Like I said, that's the only issue I have, and I condone the advice to fight back. I do think that bullies, or at least some individuals who are bullies, have the potential to be talked to. However, I think it's unlikely that they can be talked to by the person they're antagonizing, while they're in the process of antagonizing them. If you're being picked on, you have neither the responsibility, nor the ability, to redeem your tormentor. Concern yourself with your well-being, defend yourself, and leave the redemption to a professional counselor. No one has the obligation to act in the interest of someone who is acting against theirs (although I have deep respect for those who volunteer to do so). The difference between fighting back as a deterrent, and fighting back as moral superiority, is rather fine, and in the moment of fighting back, probably indistinguishable. But there are downstream effects of thinking of others (and especially of treating them) as less than human, or even as inferior to you. Thinking that the current situation will never change blinds you to ways to change it, and in the long-term, that results in things failing to change.