3 ms·

> I've never understood why schools seem so reticent to enforce zero-tolerance policies against bullying. It's pretty simple, this has a political answer: peop

by jokoon 7y ago

> I've never understood why schools seem so reticent to enforce zero-tolerance policies against bullying. It's pretty simple, this has a political answer: people believe that life is hard and that "it's tough out there", hence it's important for school to "toughen up" kids. It's as simple as that. Social darwinism is a creeping ideology that nobody really questions or talk about, but it's there, despite the presence of social programs. If you ask people "should we protect the weak?", at the end of the day, people will answer "no, it's too difficult to protect the weak, if they can't survive or toughen up, they deserve to die or suffer, they cannot pull other people down". Everybody knows that sending their kids to school generates a lot of anxiety for parents, because parents cannot protect their kids anymore, since bullying and "justice in the classroom" are difficult to do, but also hard for kids to talk about. School is an excellent description of its society. Kids never lie, and their behavior naively precedes and envision the real spine of society. It's also where values and beliefs are taught. Bullying exists because society not only tolerates it, but doesn't want to fight it. The "school of hard knocks" meme proves this perfectly.

zozbot234 7y ago
> If you ask people "should we protect the weak?", at the end of the day, people will answer "no, it's too difficult to protect the weak" Isn't "protecting the weak" the whole point of civilized society over barbarism? Life is hard enough already, why make it even harder by tolerating aggressive and violent behavior from others? It's not "toughening up" anyone, it's creating an environment where the worst offenders are precisely those who perceive themselves as "winners" and as "stronger" than others. Surely that has to be totally misguided - the only people who would support this are those who are themselves inclined towards bullying, and towards developing contempt and hate for their perceived outgroups.
- jokoon 7y ago
  Not until individualism and anti-government sentiments kick in I'm not saying that those things I described are good, I'm just saying they make sense in our current time. > why make it even harder by tolerating aggressive and violent behavior from others? > Isn't "protecting the weak" the whole point of civilized society over barbarism? You're right, civilization matters more, but it doesn't change the fact that human nature will always easily re-surface. Free markets, competition, individualism, money, those values sound very dangerous because to me, because they contradicts and almost negate the entire concept of civilized society. The fall of the soviet union and acute capitalistic dogmas have exacerbated the sentiment that it's "everyone for himself".
- Der_Einzige 7y ago
  har har Godwins law and all that, but this comparison is pertinent The Nazi's didn't seek to destroy Civilization (at least not in the sense that a Primitivist would), but they absolutely affirmed the ideology of "we should not protect the weak" [1] while attempting to preserve some form of "Civilized Society". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
gwd 7y ago
> It's pretty simple, this has a political answer: people believe that life is hard and that "it's tough out there", hence it's important for school to "toughen up" kids. I wouldn't necessarily put it that way; but there is 1) a sense from adults that kids should learn to "sort out their own problems", 2) a sense from kids that you shouldn't "tell" ("snitches get stitches"). But the question is, how would you "sort out" a similar situation as an adult? Well if you were regularly physically threatened by someone as an adult you would call the police, and or you would stop going there. And if someone was an emotional bully at your workplace, they would be fired or you would find another job. But most of these options aren't really there for kids. Nobody is kicked out of school or demoted for being jerks, and often they're not kicked out of school even for regular physical intimidation. Kids have very little opportunity to change their environment. And often the authorities who are supposed to be protecting them look the other way. I don't have kids yet, but if my kid experienced physical intimidation, and the principal / teachers in the school had the "kids need to sort it out" attitude, I would be severely tempted to say in response: "From now on, everything that is done by bullies to my child, I will do to you. If my child finds bullies waiting for him as he leaves the school, you will find me waiting by your car. If my child has their head put in a toilet, I will put your head in the toilet. We'll see how you manage to 'sort it out for yourself'." (Obviously that may not actually turn out to be practical -- the point is to highlight what we expect kids to put up with vs what we expect adults to put up with.)
- magduf 7y ago
  >I would be severely tempted to say in response: "From now on, everything that is done by bullies to my child, I will do to you. >Obviously that may not actually turn out to be practical I like this idea. For it to work, you probably need an accomplice, and to make sure there's no witnesses. Have an accomplice provide an alibi ("no, he was at home with me at that time"), and make sure there's no witnesses when you beat the crap out of the principal late at night. Honestly, since schools are simply not willing to do anything about the problem, I don't see how this is a bad solution at all.
  - folkhack 7y ago

by jokoon 7y ago

zozbot234 7y ago

> If you ask people "should we protect the weak?", at the end of the day, people will answer "no, it's too difficult to protect the weak" Isn't "protecting the weak" the whole point of civilized society over barbarism? Life is hard enough already, why make it even harder by tolerating aggressive and violent behavior from others? It's not "toughening up" anyone, it's creating an environment where the worst offenders are precisely those who perceive themselves as "winners" and as "stronger" than others. Surely that has to be totally misguided - the only people who would support this are those who are themselves inclined towards bullying, and towards developing contempt and hate for their perceived outgroups.

jokoon 7y ago
Not until individualism and anti-government sentiments kick in I'm not saying that those things I described are good, I'm just saying they make sense in our current time. > why make it even harder by tolerating aggressive and violent behavior from others? > Isn't "protecting the weak" the whole point of civilized society over barbarism? You're right, civilization matters more, but it doesn't change the fact that human nature will always easily re-surface. Free markets, competition, individualism, money, those values sound very dangerous because to me, because they contradicts and almost negate the entire concept of civilized society. The fall of the soviet union and acute capitalistic dogmas have exacerbated the sentiment that it's "everyone for himself".
Der_Einzige 7y ago
har har Godwins law and all that, but this comparison is pertinent The Nazi's didn't seek to destroy Civilization (at least not in the sense that a Primitivist would), but they absolutely affirmed the ideology of "we should not protect the weak" [1] while attempting to preserve some form of "Civilized Society". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

gwd 7y ago

> It's pretty simple, this has a political answer: people believe that life is hard and that "it's tough out there", hence it's important for school to "toughen up" kids. I wouldn't necessarily put it that way; but there is 1) a sense from adults that kids should learn to "sort out their own problems", 2) a sense from kids that you shouldn't "tell" ("snitches get stitches"). But the question is, how would you "sort out" a similar situation as an adult? Well if you were regularly physically threatened by someone as an adult you would call the police, and or you would stop going there. And if someone was an emotional bully at your workplace, they would be fired or you would find another job. But most of these options aren't really there for kids. Nobody is kicked out of school or demoted for being jerks, and often they're not kicked out of school even for regular physical intimidation. Kids have very little opportunity to change their environment. And often the authorities who are supposed to be protecting them look the other way. I don't have kids yet, but if my kid experienced physical intimidation, and the principal / teachers in the school had the "kids need to sort it out" attitude, I would be severely tempted to say in response: "From now on, everything that is done by bullies to my child, I will do to you. If my child finds bullies waiting for him as he leaves the school, you will find me waiting by your car. If my child has their head put in a toilet, I will put your head in the toilet. We'll see how you manage to 'sort it out for yourself'." (Obviously that may not actually turn out to be practical -- the point is to highlight what we expect kids to put up with vs what we expect adults to put up with.)

magduf 7y ago
>I would be severely tempted to say in response: "From now on, everything that is done by bullies to my child, I will do to you. >Obviously that may not actually turn out to be practical I like this idea. For it to work, you probably need an accomplice, and to make sure there's no witnesses. Have an accomplice provide an alibi ("no, he was at home with me at that time"), and make sure there's no witnesses when you beat the crap out of the principal late at night. Honestly, since schools are simply not willing to do anything about the problem, I don't see how this is a bad solution at all.
- folkhack 7y ago