3 ms·

actually no, the author cited example after example of helpful, positive, team-building, playful teasing, but never actually said what separates that from abusi

actually no, the author cited example after example of helpful, positive, team-building, playful teasing, but never actually said what separates that from abusive teasing. The closest he gets to doing so is to imply with "age" it doesn't hurt anymore because we are able to perceive the playfulness and not the hurt. Which we all know is not true.

scott_s 18y ago
Fifth paragraph: The reason teasing is viewed as inherently damaging is that it is too often confused with bullying. But bullying is something different; it’s aggression, pure and simple. Bullies steal, punch, kick, harass and humiliate. Sexual harassers grope, leer and make crude, often threatening passes. They’re pretty ineffectual flirts. By contrast, teasing is a mode of play, no doubt with a sharp edge, in which we provoke to negotiate life’s ambiguities and conflicts. And it is essential to making us fully human.
- Chocobean 18y ago
  nononononono he defined bullying as we understood it, and then defined "teasing" in the narrow context of "a mode of play, ... with a sharp edge". Nowhere in the article does he explicate when teasing is done with intention to humiliate or embarrass, or teasing is done to someone whose social standing or physical attributes make it difficult for them to "play back", or when real harm is done despite best intentions. He seem to think that teasing is wholly a subjective game, where it's what you think it means that determines whether it is in seriousness or in jest, whether the joke is on your or with you. In other words he either intentionally ignored the defining line between good and bad teasing to make his "defense of teasing" point, or he actually believes that they are one and the same, that it's all in how you look at it, and how old you are. In the first case he is hiding evidence that counters his thesis intentionally, in the latter, he is disconnected with actual experiences of life.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    He provides no examples of "this is bullying" and "this is teasing." But I'm able to figure out for myself which is which from the distinction he makes in the beginning. The point of his article is to explore the good kinds of teasing, why it exists, and the benefits it has. I think you're faulting him for not doing something he never set out to do.

scott_s 18y ago

Fifth paragraph: The reason teasing is viewed as inherently damaging is that it is too often confused with bullying. But bullying is something different; it’s aggression, pure and simple. Bullies steal, punch, kick, harass and humiliate. Sexual harassers grope, leer and make crude, often threatening passes. They’re pretty ineffectual flirts. By contrast, teasing is a mode of play, no doubt with a sharp edge, in which we provoke to negotiate life’s ambiguities and conflicts. And it is essential to making us fully human.

Chocobean 18y ago
nononononono he defined bullying as we understood it, and then defined "teasing" in the narrow context of "a mode of play, ... with a sharp edge". Nowhere in the article does he explicate when teasing is done with intention to humiliate or embarrass, or teasing is done to someone whose social standing or physical attributes make it difficult for them to "play back", or when real harm is done despite best intentions. He seem to think that teasing is wholly a subjective game, where it's what you think it means that determines whether it is in seriousness or in jest, whether the joke is on your or with you. In other words he either intentionally ignored the defining line between good and bad teasing to make his "defense of teasing" point, or he actually believes that they are one and the same, that it's all in how you look at it, and how old you are. In the first case he is hiding evidence that counters his thesis intentionally, in the latter, he is disconnected with actual experiences of life.
- scott_s 18y ago
  He provides no examples of "this is bullying" and "this is teasing." But I'm able to figure out for myself which is which from the distinction he makes in the beginning. The point of his article is to explore the good kinds of teasing, why it exists, and the benefits it has. I think you're faulting him for not doing something he never set out to do.