4 ms·

One might also say that it is similar to the phenomenon of people joining the police or aligning themselves with religions to abuse others under the color of “j

One might also say that it is similar to the phenomenon of people joining the police or aligning themselves with religions to abuse others under the color of “justice” or “god”. That does not invalidate police or religions. Rather than finger pointing at one particular group or another, it might be more useful to just say that bullies will use any excuse they can to get away with bullying people. And organizations should have mechanisms for identifying and ostracizing those types - which sometimes may be abused by the bullies themselves.

icare_1er 4y ago
The two are indeed very similar but I don't agree with the idea that there should be no "finger pointing". Of course there should be finger pointing and problems should be identified, no issue is solved without being diagnosed first. Otherwise, avoiding to name and appropriately describe is very usually a way to sweep it under the carpet.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Agree. And "victimization" is Step 4. in Vi Hart's remarkable video: https://youtu.be/deg1wmYjwtk https://youtu.be/deg1wmYjwtk
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
except the word bully is using the vernacular people are arguing against. It's power.
- pfisherman 4y ago
  Bully in the sense in someone who gets off on hurting other people; and preferentially targets those who can’t or won’t fight back. I’d say that is pretty spot on here, no? Hiding behind some group or cause is a means of achieving this. There is of course some sort of power differential involved in the target not being able to respond in kind; however it need only be a tactical advantage — as opposed to a strategic advantage.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    Power is different, people are using these movements to wield power, not necessarily to harm others. Someone with power is going to harm others (for some definition of harm) because wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else. But it's often inadvertent, what you're describing is someone who does it on purpose. This is why it's important to differentiate, if I pay tuition for my children and it takes up slots such that other kids cannot go to that school, I'm wielding some form of monetary power, but my intent is not to harm the ones who end up not being able to go to that school. Many of these people are after power itself rather than trying to harm others.
    - pfisherman 4y ago
      > wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else. I don’t know if I would describe this as power as opposed to Economics? And when we talk about something like economics (the systems by which resources are allocated) I think we are at a level of organization that transcends individuals in the way that bulk materials transcend individual atoms or electrons. Using your example, you can pay your child’s tuition, but you simply operating with a system you have no real control over. You as an individual are powerless to determine tuition rates, or that there is a financial component in the allocation of seats in the school in the first place. What I am talking about is individuals who abuse systems to hurt other people. Like the person who willfully misinterprets something you said, or makes up a rumor about you to turn others against you or justify beating you up.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        rather than worry about the specific example, try to understand the overarching point. If I have three cats and 2 hands, 1 of them is naturally not going to get pets. I'm wielding power in the form of that decision, not because I'm egomaniacal and love leaving the 3rd cat out of pets, but because I've chosen to employ both hands to pet two cats. People chase power. The woke movement is 1 mechanism for doing so (there are others). It doesn't mean all those chasing power using the woke movement are specifically doing it to bully others. And while YOU may want to limit to bullies, you responded to a post talking about the woke movement in general, my point stays within that context even if you've chosen to go outside that context.

icare_1er 4y ago

The two are indeed very similar but I don't agree with the idea that there should be no "finger pointing". Of course there should be finger pointing and problems should be identified, no issue is solved without being diagnosed first. Otherwise, avoiding to name and appropriately describe is very usually a way to sweep it under the carpet.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Agree. And "victimization" is Step 4. in Vi Hart's remarkable video: https://youtu.be/deg1wmYjwtk https://youtu.be/deg1wmYjwtk

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

except the word bully is using the vernacular people are arguing against. It's power.

pfisherman 4y ago
Bully in the sense in someone who gets off on hurting other people; and preferentially targets those who can’t or won’t fight back. I’d say that is pretty spot on here, no? Hiding behind some group or cause is a means of achieving this. There is of course some sort of power differential involved in the target not being able to respond in kind; however it need only be a tactical advantage — as opposed to a strategic advantage.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  Power is different, people are using these movements to wield power, not necessarily to harm others. Someone with power is going to harm others (for some definition of harm) because wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else. But it's often inadvertent, what you're describing is someone who does it on purpose. This is why it's important to differentiate, if I pay tuition for my children and it takes up slots such that other kids cannot go to that school, I'm wielding some form of monetary power, but my intent is not to harm the ones who end up not being able to go to that school. Many of these people are after power itself rather than trying to harm others.
  - pfisherman 4y ago
    > wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else. I don’t know if I would describe this as power as opposed to Economics? And when we talk about something like economics (the systems by which resources are allocated) I think we are at a level of organization that transcends individuals in the way that bulk materials transcend individual atoms or electrons. Using your example, you can pay your child’s tuition, but you simply operating with a system you have no real control over. You as an individual are powerless to determine tuition rates, or that there is a financial component in the allocation of seats in the school in the first place. What I am talking about is individuals who abuse systems to hurt other people. Like the person who willfully misinterprets something you said, or makes up a rumor about you to turn others against you or justify beating you up.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      rather than worry about the specific example, try to understand the overarching point. If I have three cats and 2 hands, 1 of them is naturally not going to get pets. I'm wielding power in the form of that decision, not because I'm egomaniacal and love leaving the 3rd cat out of pets, but because I've chosen to employ both hands to pet two cats. People chase power. The woke movement is 1 mechanism for doing so (there are others). It doesn't mean all those chasing power using the woke movement are specifically doing it to bully others. And while YOU may want to limit to bullies, you responded to a post talking about the woke movement in general, my point stays within that context even if you've chosen to go outside that context.