3 ms·

You’re assuming it’s an issue of attraction, and not what happens after you get the partner (maybe bullies keep their partners more often, or are more prone to

You’re assuming it’s an issue of attraction, and not what happens after you get the partner (maybe bullies keep their partners more often, or are more prone to having kids). I’ve got an alternative theory that somewhat agrees and somewhat disagrees. Bullies are, if anything, people who conform to the unspoken desires of the group over the spoken ones. Groups have things that they say that they want, and a normal person conforms to those vocalized things. The bully, in an attempt to get the group’s approval, detects a deeper, unspoken set of wants and conforms to those instead. I think that someone naturally talented at that is more likely to be rewarded in our economic system. Isn’t the most successful businessman the guy who can detect those things people don’t know that they want and meet that demand? So maybe bullies end up richer, so more able to support kids and attract partners as a consequence.

wakawaka28 2y ago
You might be on to something in that bully-like "aggressive" qualities help people get ahead in certain endeavors (not least of which is dating). But if you're not an attractive person, I think most people will not tolerate you being a bully (you will be bullied back or otherwise dealt with, unless you're a formidible-looking individual or something). People who are bullied are usually attacked for their looks or unappealing personality features. If nothing else, bullies usually need to be more physically capable than their victims. That is a generally attractive characteristic. It might not apply to girls as much, but I think we can at least say that ugly girls are usually turn shy rather than turning bully.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I think it’s something a lot more interesting than aggression. Aggression happens to be one trait that runs counter to surface level social norms while simultaneously enabling conformity with the deeper ones. Consider a popular bully that picks on a racial minority. On the surface, many kids may have been told to be nice to those of other races, to never exercise violence, etc. At a deeper level, though, they may have internalized their culture’s disdain for that minority. The bully comes along to benefit from the group’s deeper desire to hurt and exclude the minority because he/she, for whatever reason, possesses characteristics that allow him/her to violate the surface level norms with less concern. Aggression is just the trait that allows one to violate the norm against violence.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    I don't think all people who are racist have such a deep desire to hurt anyone else. It's a complex phenomenon, like religion or other cultural factions. Some people who are called racists are really reacting to specific perceived negative traits or cultural tropes. Sometimes (dare I say USUALLY), reacting to traits that are correlated with race (such as style of speaking, taste in music, etc.) is a definite way to end up called racist, even if you're not. I think the left (or a major segment of it) has consistently called for blurring the lines between matters of taste and legitimate criticism, and actual spite. Shirking urban gibberish and seeking out a relationship partner of your own race and cultural background isn't usually rooted in spite. >Consider a popular bully that picks on a racial minority. I've never seen a bully that picks on minorities as a whole. They pick on peculiar individuals with unpopular traits. The kind of people who normal people might find fault with, but not TOO much fault or else they would reject the bully as mean. There's all kinds of people though. If you think only racial minorities can be victims of racism, you're very wrong. I would argue that minorities are often meaner to majority-aligned victims than the other way around. The penalties are somehow more lenient against such perpetrators too. I think bullies are often unhappy people themselves, or else they have a social dysfunction that makes them apathetic toward how their behavior affects others. But what do I know. >Aggression is just the trait that allows one to violate the norm against violence. So, I would argue that thinking mean thoughts on occasion does not make a person a bully. You have to have the impetus to do something, whether that is making mean jokes or punching someone else in the nose. I would be surprised if non-bullies didn't think awful thoughts, perhaps far worse than what bullies think. The victim is just a passerby to a bully, and the bully often has many friends. The victim has less friends in general and spends a lot more time thinking about the bully than the other way around. You can see this if you ever run into one of your old bullies. They might not even remember what they did to you or how it affected you.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      Okay look I feel like you really took the wrong stuff away from my comment. Race was just an easy example to draw on, it wasn’t my point. > I think the left (or a major segment of it) has consistently called for blurring the lines between matters of taste and legitimate criticism, and actual spite. Shirking urban gibberish and seeking out a relationship partner of your own race and cultural background isn't usually rooted in spite. Like man look I wasn’t really trying to get into a discussion about racism or call you racist or something. I could just as easily have talked about bullying of disabled people or something. Anyone who the cultural subterfuge identifies as an outgroup. That being said, “urban gibberish?” Maybe the race thing tripped a nerve or something. > I've never seen a bully that picks on minorities as a whole. They pick on peculiar individuals with unpopular traits. The way I was intending to use the word minority was to refer to those deemed “peculiar” by the group; i.e., I agree with you. The way that the bully chooses their target is often by finding the individual isolated from the group. We should then ask why that person was excluded, to which my general answer is that they had traits disliked/alienated in that cultural subterfuge I mentioned. > If you think only racial minorities can be victims of racism, you're very wrong. I would argue that minorities are often meaner to majority-aligned victims than the other way around. If you want to have a discussion about race, we can do that instead, but I wasn’t talking about this in any way. The thing that matters for bullying is usually being a statistical minority. A white kid in a largely black school may also get bullied. >I think bullies are often unhappy people themselves, or else they have a social dysfunction that makes them apathetic toward how their behavior affects others. But what do I know. I don’t know why you can’t see that you’re literally agreeing with me. That unhappiness or apathy is precisely why many bullies are able to violate norms that would ordinarily prevent them from being cruel or violent. >I would be surprised if non-bullies didn't think awful thoughts, perhaps far worse than what bullies think. Yes, that’s the deeper layer of social values manifesting is my point. The bully is the avatar of the group that is often quite cruel, but unwilling to actualize that cruelty. The bully is like a pressure relief valve for all that disdain.

wakawaka28 2y ago

You might be on to something in that bully-like "aggressive" qualities help people get ahead in certain endeavors (not least of which is dating). But if you're not an attractive person, I think most people will not tolerate you being a bully (you will be bullied back or otherwise dealt with, unless you're a formidible-looking individual or something). People who are bullied are usually attacked for their looks or unappealing personality features. If nothing else, bullies usually need to be more physically capable than their victims. That is a generally attractive characteristic. It might not apply to girls as much, but I think we can at least say that ugly girls are usually turn shy rather than turning bully.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I think it’s something a lot more interesting than aggression. Aggression happens to be one trait that runs counter to surface level social norms while simultaneously enabling conformity with the deeper ones. Consider a popular bully that picks on a racial minority. On the surface, many kids may have been told to be nice to those of other races, to never exercise violence, etc. At a deeper level, though, they may have internalized their culture’s disdain for that minority. The bully comes along to benefit from the group’s deeper desire to hurt and exclude the minority because he/she, for whatever reason, possesses characteristics that allow him/her to violate the surface level norms with less concern. Aggression is just the trait that allows one to violate the norm against violence.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  I don't think all people who are racist have such a deep desire to hurt anyone else. It's a complex phenomenon, like religion or other cultural factions. Some people who are called racists are really reacting to specific perceived negative traits or cultural tropes. Sometimes (dare I say USUALLY), reacting to traits that are correlated with race (such as style of speaking, taste in music, etc.) is a definite way to end up called racist, even if you're not. I think the left (or a major segment of it) has consistently called for blurring the lines between matters of taste and legitimate criticism, and actual spite. Shirking urban gibberish and seeking out a relationship partner of your own race and cultural background isn't usually rooted in spite. >Consider a popular bully that picks on a racial minority. I've never seen a bully that picks on minorities as a whole. They pick on peculiar individuals with unpopular traits. The kind of people who normal people might find fault with, but not TOO much fault or else they would reject the bully as mean. There's all kinds of people though. If you think only racial minorities can be victims of racism, you're very wrong. I would argue that minorities are often meaner to majority-aligned victims than the other way around. The penalties are somehow more lenient against such perpetrators too. I think bullies are often unhappy people themselves, or else they have a social dysfunction that makes them apathetic toward how their behavior affects others. But what do I know. >Aggression is just the trait that allows one to violate the norm against violence. So, I would argue that thinking mean thoughts on occasion does not make a person a bully. You have to have the impetus to do something, whether that is making mean jokes or punching someone else in the nose. I would be surprised if non-bullies didn't think awful thoughts, perhaps far worse than what bullies think. The victim is just a passerby to a bully, and the bully often has many friends. The victim has less friends in general and spends a lot more time thinking about the bully than the other way around. You can see this if you ever run into one of your old bullies. They might not even remember what they did to you or how it affected you.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Okay look I feel like you really took the wrong stuff away from my comment. Race was just an easy example to draw on, it wasn’t my point. > I think the left (or a major segment of it) has consistently called for blurring the lines between matters of taste and legitimate criticism, and actual spite. Shirking urban gibberish and seeking out a relationship partner of your own race and cultural background isn't usually rooted in spite. Like man look I wasn’t really trying to get into a discussion about racism or call you racist or something. I could just as easily have talked about bullying of disabled people or something. Anyone who the cultural subterfuge identifies as an outgroup. That being said, “urban gibberish?” Maybe the race thing tripped a nerve or something. > I've never seen a bully that picks on minorities as a whole. They pick on peculiar individuals with unpopular traits. The way I was intending to use the word minority was to refer to those deemed “peculiar” by the group; i.e., I agree with you. The way that the bully chooses their target is often by finding the individual isolated from the group. We should then ask why that person was excluded, to which my general answer is that they had traits disliked/alienated in that cultural subterfuge I mentioned. > If you think only racial minorities can be victims of racism, you're very wrong. I would argue that minorities are often meaner to majority-aligned victims than the other way around. If you want to have a discussion about race, we can do that instead, but I wasn’t talking about this in any way. The thing that matters for bullying is usually being a statistical minority. A white kid in a largely black school may also get bullied. >I think bullies are often unhappy people themselves, or else they have a social dysfunction that makes them apathetic toward how their behavior affects others. But what do I know. I don’t know why you can’t see that you’re literally agreeing with me. That unhappiness or apathy is precisely why many bullies are able to violate norms that would ordinarily prevent them from being cruel or violent. >I would be surprised if non-bullies didn't think awful thoughts, perhaps far worse than what bullies think. Yes, that’s the deeper layer of social values manifesting is my point. The bully is the avatar of the group that is often quite cruel, but unwilling to actualize that cruelty. The bully is like a pressure relief valve for all that disdain.