WTF Article claims Positive Effects of Bullying Autistics

Post Reply New Topic

Criticize the author all you want, but realize the ideology she represents is actually the majority. The hierarchy actually encourages bullying. If you're a bully that means you're strong and strength is valued by the hierarchy, likewise, if you're easy to bully then you're easy to control as a low level drone. This is why a person that retaliates generally gets punished more than the aggressor-- retaliation is an attack on power, which is an attack on the hierarchy itself.

I agree with you. I haven't learned anything from bullying. It only helped me grow up with a general dislike and distrust towards people, and a feeling that I have to protect myself and my loved ones whenever someone else is around - even if they are friendly. In a sense, I expect danger to be lurking around every corner. I can see how it helps me in having an awareness in case something bad is really happening, but how does it help me live a full life?


I don't get what "bad bullying" means. Is there good bullying as well?

Actually, I've never understood teasing at all. People calling each other names, and pulling pranks on each other for fun... what's the point in that? Where's the fun? I know people do it out of being friends, but I could never. Doing bad things to others is not nice. Pulling pranks is not fun. It's demeaning.

Last edited by AusWolf on 17 Oct 2015, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, what I am teaching is for them to take back the power they lost, and to discover that they are much stronger than they realize. This strength never left them. It was always there. They just didn't know it or forgot it. It may sound like semantics, but it is a difference in mind set. To say a trauma makes me stronger is to give the credit for my strength to an abuser. It sounds like they did me a favor somehow. To say that I found my strength, I healed myself, I found my courage, with the help of my friends and loved ones' encouragement, is to put the focus on me and my allies. It makes me the hero of my own story.

I also believe in using the word "survivor" instead of "victim." It symbolizes the transition from passive (victim) to active (survivor) participant in my life.

Jkrane, what exactly does a bully 'look like', and how can you 'tell by her face'? Does she have certain prominent features that clearly, and unerringly, mark her out as such? So she doesn't 'look like she would be anywhere on the spectrum'! What is 'someone on the spectrum' supposed to look like? Do you have any idea how silly all of this sounds?

The 'ideology' is objectively wrong though, and the fact that the majority support it, if in fact they actually do, is completely irrelevant. If this is what the 'hierarchy' supports, then we need to destroy it, not cave in to it.

Resistance is futile.

Given your philosophical bent, allow me to adopt a scholarly stance for a second or two in relation to some of your points:

Evidence?

You'll surely be aware of the syllogistic fallacy you're committing here.

In formal logical terms, you're stating all A are B.

Again, could you provide evidence of this, and could you define what your B term actually means (i.e. what sense of 'strength' are you referring to).

The rest of your quote is more quasi-conspiracy theorist than it is of logical atomism.

Given your stance, I'd be curious on your views regarding a teleological/deontological interpretation of the issue of bullying.

How?

If you tell me I can't bully someone, you're limiting me.

In theory, you're exerting a force over my right to bully.

I could say you're bullying me by telling me I can't bully.

Where does it say you have a right to bully? By this line of reasoning, all laws that limit another's actions are bullying. Even in the most democratic of societies, we do not have absolute freedom. A collection of people got together and decided that some actions are forbidden, and have particular consequences for the transgressor. "Bullying" is a moral judgement on a criminal act, unless the bullying in question is purely verbal (and even then, I'm not sure). The criminal act is assault and battery, extortion, threats, theft, or slander. The "bullying" label comes from our moral judgement: a strong person is hurting a weak one, and this is considered wrong. You would have to prove that you are weaker than the people preventing your bullying, and that you are hurt by your inability to bully others.

Where does it say I don't?
What is 'it'?


Yes.
By that line of reasoning.
That's my point - that interpretation will determine moral perception of a thing-in-itself.

The point here being?

Therefore 'verbal bullying' violates no law, as long as it does not commit a form of slander?

Considered wrong by whom?

What is strength, and what is weakness?


Why?

And of what benefit is it in terms of the burden of proof for someone to have a position of alleged inferiority?

How is a position of weakness defined in an issue that - if verbal - is based, by your own definition, solely on morality?


Hurt in what sense?


(GodzillaWoman - please think before 'jumping on the bandwagon' - I'm adopting a stance for the sake of debate, as opposed to promulgating a view I hold as my own.)

I can't tell whether you're joking, but maybe?

If you bully me, I'll bully you, that's my logic. That's my syllogism.

Yep.....bullies must be stamped out. They have no right to physically bully....that's at least harassment, if not assault/battery.

If you bully me, I will do anything to deny you your rights. And I won't be philosophical about it.

There are a lot of fallacies here.

Force isn't always necessary in order to limit someone. Some people self-limit. Some people have something explained to them, and decide they need to limit what they had been doing. Telling someone not to bully is telling someone. It isn't forcing. It's speaking. "Stamping out" bullying may be seen as force by some bullies who refuse to listen to reason and refuse to learn empathy, to other bullies "stamping out" bullying by taking a stance that it is never acceptable will make them see the light, everyone is different and your assumption that "stamping out" as used by Kraftie meant force of some specific kind is just that, your assumption. Many people speak of stamping out or eradicating bullying. That could mean anything, from drastic measures such as punishment, to simply spreading knowledge and having schools, workplaces, etc. adopt 100% no-tolerance policies against bullying, which may be enough for some would-be bullies just not bully...their choice.

Bullying doesn't have to include limiting. It can but it doesn't have to. Calling someone a name doesn't limit him or her in the immediate sense. For example, it's possible to be called a name but not pursued in any way by the name-caller, in which the victim can leave, stay, call a name back, do whatever s/he decides to do and therefore is not limited. Your assumption is that limiting must be bullying. But since bullying doesn't have to include limiting, no, limitation does not have to be bullying.

Not all limitation is bullying. As GW pointed out, there are many limits put in place upon us by law. They are not by definition bullying.

It's illogical that keeping someone from hurting me would be bullying simply because that means I'm limiting the person. Where's your reasoning here?

Just forcing in and of itself does not define bullying (even though bullying can include force). Rather, forcing with the intent to abuse, injure, intimidate, frighten, cause distress, etc. defines bullying. We have many laws in place that intend to limit but do not intend to injure, abuse or frighten the person. We also have many social mores in place that intend to limit but do not intend to injure, abuse of frighten. I am not saying every one of those laws is infallible nor that social mores are always infallible or even, over time, appropriate, just giving the dividing line between "force" or limitation overall, and force or intimidation when it comes to bullying.

This should all be pretty obvious and I'm pretty sure you already know this, as nearly everyone does, especially based on your telling GW that you are adopting a stance for the sake of debate, I'm just commenting based on the questions you posted, from my POV.

Last edited by NowhereWoman on 17 Oct 2015, 10:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Something to ponder:

Bullying was a factor in 2/3 of the 37 school shootings reviewed by the US Secret Service

Your logic, yes - but not your syllogism.

We'd first then have to define 'bullying' to know what we're actually talking about.

Ergo they have a right to verbally 'bully'?
At which point does a verbal exchange become bullying?

Not necessarily - each case will be different.

Which rights? My right to access drinking water?


Is this an indirect threat of violence?! !

Yeah.....to the bully. If you think it's towards you, you're nuttier than I thought.