3 ms·

> Your anecdote is what popular attempts at curbing bullying have been trying to address. Popular where? At least the popular anti-bullying attempts in Finland

> Your anecdote is what popular attempts at curbing bullying have been trying to address. Popular where? At least the popular anti-bullying attempts in Finland assume that there's "2 sides to the story" and seek to find fault in the bullied party. Maybe you live in a country with different anti-bullying programs? > Nobody is saying to excuse it or free adults from responsibility. Let's just say we strongly disagree on that point.

vmception 6y ago
So did you go further than the title of the article because you made it seem like you actually read it? It is entertaining to give people a venue to explain themselves and they reveal the weakness of their own arguments.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > So did you go further than the title of the article because you made it seem like you actually read it? It is entertaining to give people a venue to explain themselves and they reveal the weakness of their own arguments. Oh yeah? Why don't you care to explain the "weakness of my own arguments"? You made the claim that popular anti-bullying programs specifically address high-to-low bullying. I disputed this claim, asked which region you are referring to, and explained that in Finland the popular anti-bullying programs don't work like this - instead they assume bullying mostly occurs "among peers" like this article suggests. Instead of answering which region / anti-bullying programs you are referring to, or perhaps disputing my description of Finnish anti-bullying programs, you simply imply I didn't read the article [which is false & against HN rules & not relevant to this question since the article does not address it] and just laugh at me. Sure.
  - vmception 6y ago
    I wasn't laughing before but I'm laughing now, because you skipped the part where you pull something from the article and dispute the claim, instead giving supreme weight to the title of the article. Where have you been for the last two decades to think that the title of the article is relevant, even in Finland people know the titles of the article have little to do with the content, which can have more depth or none at all. And then, not even noticing that, you then think I'm supposed to give the counterarguments. hard pass. let me know when you disagree with a part of the actual article, or actual study, that has nothing to do with how the title doesn't fit with your life experience. then I, or maybe someone else, will be willing to entertain the discussion about your valid experience with bullying. man, that was harsh, I don't even know if I'm invested enough in this conversation to deal with this.
    - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      > I wasn't laughing before but I'm laughing now, because you skipped the part where you pull something from the article and dispute the claim ... let me know when you disagree with a part of the actual article The claim that most bullying occurs "among peers" is the central claim in the article. That's the claim I'm disputing. I'm not sure why you somehow think this claim isn't made in the article. For example, the second paragraph in the article states: "“To the extent that this is true, we should expect them to target not vulnerable wallflowers, but their own friends, and friends-of-friends, who are more likely to be their rivals for higher rungs on the social ladder,” said Robert Faris, a UC Davis researcher on bullying and author of the paper “With Friends Like These: Aggression From Amity and Equivalence.”" The claim is reinforced in the third paragraph of the article: "Faris, a professor of sociology, said friends and associates with close ties to one another likely compete for positions within the same clubs, classrooms, sports and dating subgroups, which heightens the risk of conflict and aggression. This paper is the first known to show that those rivals are often their own friends." Then the fourth paragraph of the article continues explaining the claim: "This differs from some common theories and definitions of bullying, in which the behavior stems from an imbalance of power and is mainly directed at youths in the lower social strata in school or community environments who possibly have physical, social or psychological vulnerabilities." ...you want me to continue? You want me to literally copypaste the entire article in the comment field and say "this part right here is the where the claim is repeated for the 11th time, and I disagree with this"?
      - vmception 6y ago
        so they're saying the form of bullying in this article needs to be addressed with prevention measures. they aren't saying your form of bullying doesn't exist. whether one happens more or less isn't really the point. Its about identifying an underserved need and addressing it.
        baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > so they're saying the form of bullying in this article needs to be addressed with prevention measures. they aren't saying your form of bullying doesn't exist. Well, now you're just strawmanning. This article is claiming that "most" (not all) bullying is among peers. You're taking down a hypothetical strawman argument where "most" has been replaced by "all". Why did you feel the need to invent this strawman? Literally no-one in this thread has misinterpreted the article to mean that "all" (not "most") bullying is among peers. > whether one happens more or less isn't really the point. Yes it is, it's literally the whole point of this article. This article would never have been written if its point was "some undetermined amount of bullying occurs among peers". This article was written specifically to claim that most bullying is of this kind. > Its about identifying an underserved need and addressing it. Sure, I agree this is also in the article. And I'm arguing they're wrong. They're saying that most bullying is of kind A, whereas existing programs are largely treating bullying of kind B. I'm saying that the opposite is true: that most bullying is of kind B, whereas existing programs are largely treating bullying of kind A.

vmception 6y ago

So did you go further than the title of the article because you made it seem like you actually read it? It is entertaining to give people a venue to explain themselves and they reveal the weakness of their own arguments.

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> So did you go further than the title of the article because you made it seem like you actually read it? It is entertaining to give people a venue to explain themselves and they reveal the weakness of their own arguments. Oh yeah? Why don't you care to explain the "weakness of my own arguments"? You made the claim that popular anti-bullying programs specifically address high-to-low bullying. I disputed this claim, asked which region you are referring to, and explained that in Finland the popular anti-bullying programs don't work like this - instead they assume bullying mostly occurs "among peers" like this article suggests. Instead of answering which region / anti-bullying programs you are referring to, or perhaps disputing my description of Finnish anti-bullying programs, you simply imply I didn't read the article [which is false & against HN rules & not relevant to this question since the article does not address it] and just laugh at me. Sure.
- vmception 6y ago
  I wasn't laughing before but I'm laughing now, because you skipped the part where you pull something from the article and dispute the claim, instead giving supreme weight to the title of the article. Where have you been for the last two decades to think that the title of the article is relevant, even in Finland people know the titles of the article have little to do with the content, which can have more depth or none at all. And then, not even noticing that, you then think I'm supposed to give the counterarguments. hard pass. let me know when you disagree with a part of the actual article, or actual study, that has nothing to do with how the title doesn't fit with your life experience. then I, or maybe someone else, will be willing to entertain the discussion about your valid experience with bullying. man, that was harsh, I don't even know if I'm invested enough in this conversation to deal with this.
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    > I wasn't laughing before but I'm laughing now, because you skipped the part where you pull something from the article and dispute the claim ... let me know when you disagree with a part of the actual article The claim that most bullying occurs "among peers" is the central claim in the article. That's the claim I'm disputing. I'm not sure why you somehow think this claim isn't made in the article. For example, the second paragraph in the article states: "“To the extent that this is true, we should expect them to target not vulnerable wallflowers, but their own friends, and friends-of-friends, who are more likely to be their rivals for higher rungs on the social ladder,” said Robert Faris, a UC Davis researcher on bullying and author of the paper “With Friends Like These: Aggression From Amity and Equivalence.”" The claim is reinforced in the third paragraph of the article: "Faris, a professor of sociology, said friends and associates with close ties to one another likely compete for positions within the same clubs, classrooms, sports and dating subgroups, which heightens the risk of conflict and aggression. This paper is the first known to show that those rivals are often their own friends." Then the fourth paragraph of the article continues explaining the claim: "This differs from some common theories and definitions of bullying, in which the behavior stems from an imbalance of power and is mainly directed at youths in the lower social strata in school or community environments who possibly have physical, social or psychological vulnerabilities." ...you want me to continue? You want me to literally copypaste the entire article in the comment field and say "this part right here is the where the claim is repeated for the 11th time, and I disagree with this"?
    - vmception 6y ago
      so they're saying the form of bullying in this article needs to be addressed with prevention measures. they aren't saying your form of bullying doesn't exist. whether one happens more or less isn't really the point. Its about identifying an underserved need and addressing it.
      - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > so they're saying the form of bullying in this article needs to be addressed with prevention measures. they aren't saying your form of bullying doesn't exist. Well, now you're just strawmanning. This article is claiming that "most" (not all) bullying is among peers. You're taking down a hypothetical strawman argument where "most" has been replaced by "all". Why did you feel the need to invent this strawman? Literally no-one in this thread has misinterpreted the article to mean that "all" (not "most") bullying is among peers. > whether one happens more or less isn't really the point. Yes it is, it's literally the whole point of this article. This article would never have been written if its point was "some undetermined amount of bullying occurs among peers". This article was written specifically to claim that most bullying is of this kind. > Its about identifying an underserved need and addressing it. Sure, I agree this is also in the article. And I'm arguing they're wrong. They're saying that most bullying is of kind A, whereas existing programs are largely treating bullying of kind B. I'm saying that the opposite is true: that most bullying is of kind B, whereas existing programs are largely treating bullying of kind A.