4 ms·

This is very dangerous advice. You will most likely lose that fight, badly, because you are in the minority. YOU will most likely end up being suspended and arr

by brazzy 13y ago

This is very dangerous advice. You will most likely lose that fight, badly, because you are in the minority. YOU will most likely end up being suspended and arrested, because the bullies have friends who will testify against you, and they're the popular, trustworthy ones. And escalating violence can quickly get to a point where consequences are completely out of proportion especially when you're up against people who "follow animalic instinct" - anything you do that makes them look bad compels them to retalitate in kind. What you need is allies and/or support from authorities.

onli 13y ago
> YOU will most likely end up being suspended and arrested Note that I'm not in the USA. That consequence doesn't exist in my country, not if you are provoked. And note that I agree. Allies and Authorities are a good mean of fighting back.
- brazzy 13y ago
  > That consequence doesn't exist in my country, not if you are provoked. Oh, but there are 5 well-respected pupils who all say that you started that fight without provocation.
  - herokusaki 13y ago
    Valid point. It make me think that perhaps sousveillance isn't a bad idea.
  - hga 13y ago
    Per my above comment, you're missing the point. What's the problem if you started "the fight" (which should be a carefully arranged beat down of your target, nothing resembling a fight)? Your objective is to stop the bullying, not be perceived as an angel (well, except for possibly those terrible Old Testament smiting types).
    - DanBC 13y ago
      The problem is that you get removed from school and given a label of "potentially violent" which will follow you around for a while. Some countries will prosecute youths involved in violence. Even if prosecution is avoided there might be something like the English "caution" where the person accepts their guilt and accepts a caution (which is kept on record) in order to avoid prosecution. This could also follow you around. Being arrested could make travel to another country tricky. Finally, beating one or two bullies might not be sufficient. If there is a group of people around you could end up very badly beaten, perhaps hospitalised, and potentially even dead.
hga 13y ago
As long as one of the bullies is sufficiently bloody, maimed, or dead, you'll have accomplished your purpose. Plus you can chose when to retaliate, every member of a group bullying you can't be with overwhelming numbers all the time, especially at their home and the like. I too was "different", brilliant, and bullied to more than a small degree early on into junior high (8th grade) ... but I had over the years, starting in elementary school, established a reputation that while I was a generally very nice and good guy, if you crossed various lines there was absolutely no limit to what I'd do to retaliate (note, with a continuum of force, just no upper limit to it). Oh, yeah, I started learning how to shoot in 1st grade, and was very good at it, although I'm not sure if that was clear to others until high school when I was on the rifle team (I certainly never made threats, especially of that nature). The key, of course, is deterrence. Perhaps it's a Southern (USA) thing; I grew up in a culturally Southern area, one parent raised in it, another from the Deep South, although a skewed version of it, Louisiana and Cajun (French settlers who were forced to leave "Arcadia", a formerly French part of Canada). So unlike this victim, once a line was crossed, I did care about getting my adversaries hurt, that was the objective after all. Let it be cost free and you can see what happens. Strange anecdote: one day when I was a senior it did come very very close to serious violence, the closest ever, but the adversary ran into a closed off for that period area where teachers were. His complaints that I was armed with a dog choker chain around my right fist fell on deaf ears as I silently and casually put it in my pocket. I was later told by a school authority that the school would have done nothing to me if I'd beaten him up (!). Back then, at least (1979), I guess it made a difference having a perfect record of good behavior and being college track etc., vs. being a notorious trouble maker and not so bright (come to think of it, pretty much all the other bullies had given up by then). If you can't bring yourself to retaliate, and it's clear to your adversaries ... don't know what to say or advise. But that you'll lose big time, as this victim did.
- afarrell 13y ago
  "As long as one of the bullies is sufficiently bloody, maimed, or dead, you'll have accomplished your purpose." Life is not Ender's Game. If you kill another kid, you might get taken out of your current environment, but it will be to prison: full of many more aggressive people, callous power figures, and an inability to be safe even in the shower. Actually, that sounds exactly like Ender's Game.
rwallace 13y ago
You and onli are talking about different situations. At the low end of the spectrum, onli's advice is correct. At that end, trying to call in authorities is useless and fighting back is highly effective; even if you lose the fight, it'll probably convince the bully that picking on you is more trouble than it's worth. Further up the spectrum where the power disparity is too extreme or the level of violence is life-threatening, yes, fighting back becomes less of a good strategy - it's still better than just sitting there and taking it, but better still is, as you say, seeking backup - and if that fails, leave the situation permanently.

by brazzy 13y ago

onli 13y ago

> YOU will most likely end up being suspended and arrested Note that I'm not in the USA. That consequence doesn't exist in my country, not if you are provoked. And note that I agree. Allies and Authorities are a good mean of fighting back.

brazzy 13y ago
> That consequence doesn't exist in my country, not if you are provoked. Oh, but there are 5 well-respected pupils who all say that you started that fight without provocation.
- herokusaki 13y ago
  Valid point. It make me think that perhaps sousveillance isn't a bad idea.
- hga 13y ago
  Per my above comment, you're missing the point. What's the problem if you started "the fight" (which should be a carefully arranged beat down of your target, nothing resembling a fight)? Your objective is to stop the bullying, not be perceived as an angel (well, except for possibly those terrible Old Testament smiting types).
  - DanBC 13y ago
    The problem is that you get removed from school and given a label of "potentially violent" which will follow you around for a while. Some countries will prosecute youths involved in violence. Even if prosecution is avoided there might be something like the English "caution" where the person accepts their guilt and accepts a caution (which is kept on record) in order to avoid prosecution. This could also follow you around. Being arrested could make travel to another country tricky. Finally, beating one or two bullies might not be sufficient. If there is a group of people around you could end up very badly beaten, perhaps hospitalised, and potentially even dead.

hga 13y ago

As long as one of the bullies is sufficiently bloody, maimed, or dead, you'll have accomplished your purpose. Plus you can chose when to retaliate, every member of a group bullying you can't be with overwhelming numbers all the time, especially at their home and the like. I too was "different", brilliant, and bullied to more than a small degree early on into junior high (8th grade) ... but I had over the years, starting in elementary school, established a reputation that while I was a generally very nice and good guy, if you crossed various lines there was absolutely no limit to what I'd do to retaliate (note, with a continuum of force, just no upper limit to it). Oh, yeah, I started learning how to shoot in 1st grade, and was very good at it, although I'm not sure if that was clear to others until high school when I was on the rifle team (I certainly never made threats, especially of that nature). The key, of course, is deterrence. Perhaps it's a Southern (USA) thing; I grew up in a culturally Southern area, one parent raised in it, another from the Deep South, although a skewed version of it, Louisiana and Cajun (French settlers who were forced to leave "Arcadia", a formerly French part of Canada). So unlike this victim, once a line was crossed, I did care about getting my adversaries hurt, that was the objective after all. Let it be cost free and you can see what happens. Strange anecdote: one day when I was a senior it did come very very close to serious violence, the closest ever, but the adversary ran into a closed off for that period area where teachers were. His complaints that I was armed with a dog choker chain around my right fist fell on deaf ears as I silently and casually put it in my pocket. I was later told by a school authority that the school would have done nothing to me if I'd beaten him up (!). Back then, at least (1979), I guess it made a difference having a perfect record of good behavior and being college track etc., vs. being a notorious trouble maker and not so bright (come to think of it, pretty much all the other bullies had given up by then). If you can't bring yourself to retaliate, and it's clear to your adversaries ... don't know what to say or advise. But that you'll lose big time, as this victim did.

afarrell 13y ago
"As long as one of the bullies is sufficiently bloody, maimed, or dead, you'll have accomplished your purpose." Life is not Ender's Game. If you kill another kid, you might get taken out of your current environment, but it will be to prison: full of many more aggressive people, callous power figures, and an inability to be safe even in the shower. Actually, that sounds exactly like Ender's Game.

rwallace 13y ago

You and onli are talking about different situations. At the low end of the spectrum, onli's advice is correct. At that end, trying to call in authorities is useless and fighting back is highly effective; even if you lose the fight, it'll probably convince the bully that picking on you is more trouble than it's worth. Further up the spectrum where the power disparity is too extreme or the level of violence is life-threatening, yes, fighting back becomes less of a good strategy - it's still better than just sitting there and taking it, but better still is, as you say, seeking backup - and if that fails, leave the situation permanently.