4 ms·

Don’t you see that you’re doing what the article describes, right now? Your shallow analysis and careless invective, somehow pointing the finger at school syste

Don’t you see that you’re doing what the article describes, right now? Your shallow analysis and careless invective, somehow pointing the finger at school systems for something that is largely a result of human nature, is bullying. You’re throwing school systems under the bus for internet points. Could schools handle bullying better? Probably. But your call for “questioning” is not at all constructive or actionable. To me you demonstrate only that what the article describes works just as well on hn as it does in schools. Dunking on easy targets for social standing.

avesi 6y ago
Can an individual bully a nationwide organization?
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
First, "human nature" is a logical fallacy straight away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy Second, in many existing societies outside of the US school bullying is extremely uncommon.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  How exactly would you prove that school bullying is uncommon in schools? I highly doubt your second point is true. If you have some research it would be much appreciated.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  The Naturalistic fallacy is if something is 'natural' it must be good/desirable I don't see that op said or implied that this was the case; They said something was 'human nature' (i.e. natural) ass opposed to the result of the school system. This doesn't imply that it is therefore desirable, but rather, that it is undesirable but not the result of the school system.
dmingod666 6y ago
TBH, almost all internet discourse is: Post strategies: '<statement to grab internet points from like minded folk>' Reply Strategies: '<Agree collaborate to get basked glory points>' or '<take down, by proving status difference between op and self - either by lowering op(insult /humiliate/mock/intimidate) / raising own status (showoff based on anything)>'
zepto 6y ago
> Don’t you see that you’re doing what the article describes, right now? Clearly they are not doing what the article describes. No individuals were hurt by the writing of that comment. > Your shallow analysis and careless invective, Seems like you are trying to hurt the poster with this insulting dismissal. The poster is an individual who can be hurt. > somehow pointing the finger at school systems for something that is largely a result of human nature, is bullying. This is a false dichotomy. Bullying is clearly a result of human nature. However an individual’s exposure to bullying is clearly a result of the social systems they are exposed to. If there are differences in incidence of bullying in different social systems, we can certainly say that systems are also a cause. > You’re throwing school systems under the bus for internet points. You are throwing an individual peer on HN under the bus for internet points. This is against HN guidelines, unlike critiquing a system. > Could schools handle bullying better? Probably. Seems like you think the current level of bullying may be the best we can do?. > But your call for “questioning” is not at all constructive or actionable. This is obviously totally false. 1. There are many alternative schooling systems, and many alternatives to schooling. 2. Many comments on this post are doing the exact questioning the commenter is calling for. It’s certainly constructive to question the school system which results from government policy, and certainly actionable. > To me you demonstrate only that what the article describes works just as well on hn as it does in schools. Dunking on easy targets for social standing. The OP is critiquing an abstract system. You are attacking an individual. Which behavior fit the description in the above paragraph better?
- telchar 6y ago
  Admittedly I came at the GP harder than I could have, but it's so easy to write off large diverse institutions as "fucking bullshit" and poison a discussion before it even starts that I think it was warranted (that was the top comment at the time). One of the things about bullying is it's so easy to walk around tossing bombs (metaphorically) that sometimes people don't realize what they're doing until one of those bombs explodes a little closer than usual. The OP didn't critique anything. Simply decrying an entire institution isn't a critique, it's a denouncement. A critique involves analysis. Also, if I violated HN guidelines, so have you, by calling me out in turn.

avesi 6y ago

Can an individual bully a nationwide organization?

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

First, "human nature" is a logical fallacy straight away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy Second, in many existing societies outside of the US school bullying is extremely uncommon.

endisneigh 6y ago
How exactly would you prove that school bullying is uncommon in schools? I highly doubt your second point is true. If you have some research it would be much appreciated.
Chris2048 6y ago
The Naturalistic fallacy is if something is 'natural' it must be good/desirable I don't see that op said or implied that this was the case; They said something was 'human nature' (i.e. natural) ass opposed to the result of the school system. This doesn't imply that it is therefore desirable, but rather, that it is undesirable but not the result of the school system.

dmingod666 6y ago

TBH, almost all internet discourse is: Post strategies: '<statement to grab internet points from like minded folk>' Reply Strategies: '<Agree collaborate to get basked glory points>' or '<take down, by proving status difference between op and self - either by lowering op(insult /humiliate/mock/intimidate) / raising own status (showoff based on anything)>'

zepto 6y ago

> Don’t you see that you’re doing what the article describes, right now? Clearly they are not doing what the article describes. No individuals were hurt by the writing of that comment. > Your shallow analysis and careless invective, Seems like you are trying to hurt the poster with this insulting dismissal. The poster is an individual who can be hurt. > somehow pointing the finger at school systems for something that is largely a result of human nature, is bullying. This is a false dichotomy. Bullying is clearly a result of human nature. However an individual’s exposure to bullying is clearly a result of the social systems they are exposed to. If there are differences in incidence of bullying in different social systems, we can certainly say that systems are also a cause. > You’re throwing school systems under the bus for internet points. You are throwing an individual peer on HN under the bus for internet points. This is against HN guidelines, unlike critiquing a system. > Could schools handle bullying better? Probably. Seems like you think the current level of bullying may be the best we can do?. > But your call for “questioning” is not at all constructive or actionable. This is obviously totally false. 1. There are many alternative schooling systems, and many alternatives to schooling. 2. Many comments on this post are doing the exact questioning the commenter is calling for. It’s certainly constructive to question the school system which results from government policy, and certainly actionable. > To me you demonstrate only that what the article describes works just as well on hn as it does in schools. Dunking on easy targets for social standing. The OP is critiquing an abstract system. You are attacking an individual. Which behavior fit the description in the above paragraph better?

telchar 6y ago
Admittedly I came at the GP harder than I could have, but it's so easy to write off large diverse institutions as "fucking bullshit" and poison a discussion before it even starts that I think it was warranted (that was the top comment at the time). One of the things about bullying is it's so easy to walk around tossing bombs (metaphorically) that sometimes people don't realize what they're doing until one of those bombs explodes a little closer than usual. The OP didn't critique anything. Simply decrying an entire institution isn't a critique, it's a denouncement. A critique involves analysis. Also, if I violated HN guidelines, so have you, by calling me out in turn.