The right to bully (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

It's funny how team-freedom talk about rights so much and never responsibilities. You admit no responsibility to anything, no duty to things greater than yourself - not to your community, your environment, even your own mental and physical health. You probably dont realise it, but you deluded bastards actually see yourselves as gods

 

[loquasagacious]

It's funny how team-freedom talk about rights so much and never responsibilities. You admit no responsibility to anything, no duty to things greater than yourself - not to your community, your environment, even your own mental and physical health. You probably dont realise it, but you deluded bastards actually see yourselves as gods

God is dead; Man is God

Seriously though you misunderstand the point. We don't oppose responsibilities - what we oppose is regulation. And if 'responsibilities' need to be regulated to exist then clearly people are rejecting them anyway and you are fighting a losing battle...

 

[loquasagacious]

Oh and I'm also concerned if you conceptualise God as someone with power but no responsibility...

 

[Iron]

My God and I dont care for your "concern". Your notion that responsibilities should only be accepted by, and not imposed on, the individual is totally, laughably unworkable. It is the same cowardly, selfish justification for every wicked deed committed by man since the Fall.
Wake up Locky, before it's too late
before you wake up for the first time
in hell locky
that's where youll wake up m8

 

[loquasagacious]

Imposition takes away choice. Without choice we aren't even human anymore.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Children spend a great deal of their lives in their school environment, and feeling unsafe and ostracised is bound to affect a child considerably. Teachers are caregivers as well as educators, and if they were to ignore a child who is highly emotionally distressed they would be failing to give that child any sense of security in an environment that, along with the home, dominates how their world is shaped.

Yes, children do spend a lot of time at school, which is why schools should take action against bullying that happens at school.
Such action is not needed for internet bullying because the victim is not trapped in a fixed location with the bully. The solution is as simply as blocking the bully, or their webpage.

As above, it is not about authorities punishing people or saying who is good and bad; it is about the caregiving figures in a child's life making an effort to ensure a child's sense of safety and security.

In some cases, the fact of simply acknowledging that a child is being bullied and dealing with an immense amount of pain, and doing something to make their life at school a little easier (a life which they cannot avoid because, legally, children must attend school) could be all that is needed to ease the situation.

Agreed. I'm all for acknowledging bullying and providing the victim with assistance. All we are saying is that schools don't have a right to impose sanctions against online bullies.

Being overly extreme and saying that we should give everyone carte blanche to say what they want, whenever they want, is a lazy solution that doesn't resolve anything.

No, imposing reactionary legislation against everything that upsets someone is lazy. Having the courage to defend free speech, even when we despise what is being said is not lazy at all, its brave.

Of course being emotionally hurt is subjective; physical pain is, too. However, it's a very basic level compassion to respect that others have different pain thresholds (emotionally and physically). Just as we wouldn't go around cutting people just because we, personally, can bear that particular pain, we should understand that not everyone has the exact same emotional thresholds as we do.

(Not that people should be constantly wrapped in cotton wool or anything, but you certainly don't need to bring about pain unprovoked just because you know you can.)

We can measure physical harm quite accurately, although it is difficult to measure the amount of pain it causes. So we can say that attacking someone with a knife is physically harmful.

With emotional harm its often impossible to tell. For instance, calling someone at "fat slut" may be a light hearted joke between friends in one context, while it could be extremely hurtful in another.

If the victim feels hurt, as you say, provide them support. But to punish the alleged offender, we must at least determine that they knew they were being deliberately hurtful and that it could reasonably considered as such (since the victim may be hypersensitive). Do we really want to invest resources in interpreting this?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

God you're an idiot. If it happens outside of school but concerns a student at a school being bullied by another student at a school in front of other students from a school, THEN HEY MAYBE IT'S THE SCHOOL'S DUTY TO INTERVENE.

Suck a chode. Furthermore, your argument about the difficulty in quantifying emotional harm is utterly unconvincing; you're just creating a false dilemma. If you think a teacher (or anyone for that matter) can't tell the difference between "lol fat slut" and "you're a fat slut" then you're completely deluded. This problem you suggest is unrealistic.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

God you're an idiot. If it happens outside of school but concerns a student at a school being bullied by another student at a school in front of other students from a school, THEN HEY MAYBE IT'S THE SCHOOL'S DUTY TO INTERVENE.

If something is happening within the school, the school can intervene. But its not the schools place to take action about something that has happened online.

Suck a chode. Furthermore, your argument about the difficulty in quantifying emotional harm is utterly unconvincing; you're just creating a false dilemma. If you think a teacher (or anyone for that matter) can't tell the difference between "lol fat slut" and "you're a fat slut" then you're completely deluded. This problem you suggest is unrealistic.

It is very realistic. How does a teacher know the complexities of the relationship and whether that sort of thing is considered acceptable?

What if two people had a friendship where they jokingly call each other sluts and whores, but then they stopped being friends. One student could use the records of the use of the words slut and whore online to cause problems for the other student at school.

What if someone calls someone a nigger? Perfectly harmless in some contexts, extremely offensive in others.

What is too offensive? Would something like "you're smelly" be considered cruel enough to act upon, or at some point with very minor insults would we say that people just have to deal with it?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

If something is happening within the school, the school can intervene. But its not the schools place to take action about something that has happened online.

banging your head on the wall isn't making your position any more convincing. on either account.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

banging your head on the wall isn't making your position any more convincing. on either account.

Cool bro, so just ignore the bit where I explained my position in more detail.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

you didn't explain it in more detail, you just continued to spout utter rubbish.

*Why shouldn't the school intervene if it concerns the school in every respect except geographically? So what if it occurs on the internet ? it's still a problem born from relationships inside the school which can be solved (perhaps exclusively) inside the school. the effects on the victim of letting this problem continue are far worse than any problems to 'free speech' or whatever you're harping on about that might occur, for all the reasons chelsea girl and others made.

*There's no convincing you if you honestly think a teacher - who spends 5 days a week with these students - can't tell the difference between playfulness and bullying. you've created a false dilemma and it's utterly unconvincing. fuck, i work with kids who i've seen for five minutes and i can tell what's serious and what's not, if only by the tone, facial expressions, and the fact that one kid is isolated and probably crying. you prefer to er on the side of caution? ok that's cool, but in this case of cyber bullying (and almost all other cases) THE FACT THAT IT WAS BULLYING WAS COMPLETELY CLEAR.

you
are
an
idiot

can you tell im being serious?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

*Why shouldn't the school intervene if it concerns the school in every respect except geographically? So what if it occurs on the internet ? it's still a problem born from relationships inside the school which can be solved (perhaps exclusively) inside the school. the effects on the victim of letting this problem continue are far worse than any problems to 'free speech' or whatever you're harping on about that might occur, for all the reasons chelsea girl and others made.

So what if the relationship is born inside the school? By that logic, should schools continue to take action against bullying by students even after they have left school?

You're also naively assuming that action by the school will solve the problem. In fact, it may exacerbate it. Schools and governments have to accept that they can't control the internet. Students with fairly basic internet knowledge can easily create online content that is designed to bully others which is not traceable to them, and which cannot be removed even if the law became involved because it is hosted overseas. Attempting to punish students may only strengthen their resolve to continue bullying using more covert means.

Teaching the victims that the authorities can always help them is also a mistake, because as outlined, it is often impossible. We should not be teaching children to complain every time someone says something mean, this is what leads to our culture of censorship. Instead we should teach people that if you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen to it.

*There's no convincing you if you honestly think a teacher - who spends 5 days a week with these students - can't tell the difference between playfulness and bullying. you've created a false dilemma and it's utterly unconvincing. fuck, i work with kids who i've seen for five minutes and i can tell what's serious and what's not, if only by the tone, facial expressions, and the fact that one kid is isolated and probably crying. you prefer to er on the side of caution? ok that's cool, but in this case of cyber bullying (and almost all other cases) THE FACT THAT IT WAS BULLYING WAS COMPLETELY CLEAR.

Don't underestimate the incompetence of many teachers. But granted they have a reasonable chance of being able to interpret it correctly if they can see what is happening at school, WHICH IS WHY I SUPPORT SCHOOLS TAKING ACTION AGAINST BULLYING IN SCHOOLS.

However, it is much more difficult to interpret things posted online, often it may be difficult to even gain access to the full online conversation to put particular remarks in context as the exchange will have taken place through multiple websites and/or online mediums. As you mention, tears, tone and facial expressions are often very good indicator. However, since you cannot see the student's reaction to the content because it has occurred outside of school, you cannot use these things.

I offered some specific examples of situations which are difficult to interpret. I see you are still ignoring them.

 

[chelsea girl]

If something is happening within the school, the school can intervene. But its not the schools place to take action about something that has happened online.



It is very realistic. How does a teacher know the complexities of the relationship and whether that sort of thing is considered acceptable?

What if two people had a friendship where they jokingly call each other sluts and whores, but then they stopped being friends. One student could use the records of the use of the words slut and whore online to cause problems for the other student at school.

What if someone calls someone a nigger? Perfectly harmless in some contexts, extremely offensive in others.

What is too offensive? Would something like "you're smelly" be considered cruel enough to act upon, or at some point with very minor insults would we say that people just have to deal with it?

I would hazard a guess that, if there is bullying occurring online it is probably happening at school, too (albeit in a more hidden manner).

Also, you make it sound like everyone is a total aspie who cannot discern the difference between a joke and continued, hurtful harassment.

Bullying is generally characterised by being ongoing and unprovoked.

Furthermore, most kids aren't going to make a big deal of it and draw attention to themselves unless the bullying has reached a point where it is significantly impacting on their school life. Kids are not stupid, and they are perfectly capable of knowing when teasing is something they can deal with quietly or if it has escalated and they need outside help.

 

[David Spade]

everyone has the power to bully someone else less powerful than themselves

 

[David Spade]

so if you are bullied, just bully someone less powerful than yourself to make yourself feel better

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Jenny,

Yes I suppose my logic does mean that if two students are bullying each other after they leave school (who attended the same school), then that's the responcibility of the school. It's not really feasable for them to do anything, and in any case that's a story for another day. What is certain is that when it concerns two students online who currently go to school then it's the schools responcibility to do something about it. In addition, it's more than feasable for the school to act on it. You're a fool - stop creating false dilemmas.

I'm naively assuming that telling a teacher is going to make it worse? Rubbish. If a hardass teacher comes down on the bully for something that happened outside of school then that will make it damn clear that it ought not continue. If that fails then expel the student. What do you advocate, letting it continue? Christ you're retarded. I struggle to respond to the stuff you post because it's completely counter intuitive. The domain of the internet is off limits to schools for some reason! Let bullying continue! Teach students that they cannot contact authorities whose job it is to protect them!

You can't tell the difference between playful insults and bullying on the internet? Allow me to help: If it's continued, unprovoked, excessively nasty and unwanted then it's bullying. If I posted a video of people from your class all calling you an ugly bitch, that would be bullying. If I was your friend and posted a message on your wall saying "u ugly bitch looool" that would probably not be bullying. It might warrant monitoring. Heaven forbid we use our precious resources for that!!!

My position: Bullying causes significant harm to victims. Online bullying is just as harmful. Teachers can identify it and stop it. They should do so.

It's a completely reasonable position

 

[incentivation]

Why waste resources attempting to educate people who have no desire to be there, and who are not learning anything that is useful for their future career anyway.

What a defeatist attitude. The requirement for a safety net is absolutely fundamental. As Robert Menzies once said, "We have realised that men and women are not just ciphers in a calculation, but are individual human beings whose individual welfare and development must be the main concern of government".

Liberty and individual choice blah blah blah are important assets. However so too is the willingness of society to assist those find themselves, through no fault of their own, in a more precarious social position.

There is a portion of the population for whom education is a waste of time. You won't get an argument there. However, this does not mean that we should remove the opportunity for a vast number of other individuals to pursue self-betterment and social mobility. It is about creating the conditions so that the potential of the individual can be maximised. Whether this potential is realised is irrelevant; it is the opportunity which is important.

It won't have an effect or result for everyone. However, that shouldn't form the basis for removing access. Even if as little as 10% of those individuals who would have pursued careers in areas with no requirement for a school education make the most of the opportunity provided to them, then I see it as beneficial to society.

 

[incentivation]

Why waste resources attempting to educate people who have no desire to be there, and who are not learning anything that is useful for their future career anyway.

What a defeatist attitude. The requirement for a safety net is absolutely fundamental. As Robert Menzies once said, "We have realised that men and women are not just ciphers in a calculation, but are individual human beings whose individual welfare and development must be the main concern of government".

Liberty and individual choice are important assets. However so too is the willingness of society to assist those find themselves, through no fault of their own, in a more precarious social position.

There is a portion of the population for whom education is a waste of time. You won't get an argument there. However, this does not mean that we should remove the opportunity for a vast number of other individuals to pursue self-betterment and social mobility. It is about creating the conditions so that the potential of the individual can be maximised. Whether this potential is realised is irrelevant; it is the opportunity which is important.

It won't have an effect or result for everyone. However, that shouldn't form the basis for removing access. Even if as little as 10% of those individuals who would have pursued careers in areas with no requirement for a school education make the most of the opportunity provided to them, then I see it as beneficial to society.

Although important, society should aim to achieve more than the efficient allocation of resources.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Jenny,

Yes I suppose my logic does mean that if two students are bullying each other after they leave school (who attended the same school), then that's the responcibility of the school. It's not really feasable for them to do anything, and in any case that's a story for another day. What is certain is that when it concerns two students online who currently go to school then it's the schools responcibility to do something about it. In addition, it's more than feasable for the school to act on it. You're a fool - stop creating false dilemmas.

I'm naively assuming that telling a teacher is going to make it worse? Rubbish. If a hardass teacher comes down on the bully for something that happened outside of school then that will make it damn clear that it ought not continue. If that fails then expel the student. What do you advocate, letting it continue? Christ you're retarded. I struggle to respond to the stuff you post because it's completely counter intuitive. The domain of the internet is off limits to schools for some reason! Let bullying continue! Teach students that they cannot contact authorities whose job it is to protect them!

You can't tell the difference between playful insults and bullying on the internet? Allow me to help: If it's continued, unprovoked, excessively nasty and unwanted then it's bullying. If I posted a video of people from your class all calling you an ugly bitch, that would be bullying. If I was your friend and posted a message on your wall saying "u ugly bitch looool" that would probably not be bullying. It might warrant monitoring. Heaven forbid we use our precious resources for that!!!

My position: Bullying causes significant harm to victims. Online bullying is just as harmful. Teachers can identify it and stop it. They should do so.

It's a completely reasonable position

You're just ignoring what I post and repeating yourself more emphatically.

It will not work because you cannot control the internet.

If I wanted to create a webpage to bully you, all I have to do is upload it through a proxy server and host it overseas.

No one can prove I made the content, nor can I be made to take it down.

This can be done with great ease, in fact a certain BOS member has created a blog hosted in the US which has made a complete mockery of Australia's defamation laws.

Attempting to control what is posted on the internet is an exercise in futility. It is cruel to give the victim the false impression that it can be controlled. It is far better to be realistic about the problem and give the victim real support to deal with their problems rather than feeding this obsessive desire to punish someone.

Also, you make it sound like everyone is a total aspie who cannot discern the difference between a joke and continued, hurtful harassment.

You and Neb are both assuming that the person claiming to be the victim is always actually a victim. The reality is that when schools or the legal system are dishing out punishments, spiteful people make spurious allegations. Here's an example of such a situation I provided which you both ignored (modified slightly):

*What if two people had a friendship where Miss A jokingly called Miss B a slut and a whore and this was accepted by both as a joke, but then they stopped being friends. Miss B could use the records of the use of the words slut and whore online to cause problems for Miss A at school. It would appear to be repeated bullying to a teacher who would only see the records of these apparent insults saying Miss B was a slut. If Miss A protested she was only joking, this would sound like to the teacher like the oldest excuse in the book.

Would you concede that its reasonably possible that the school could unfairly punish one of the people in this situation?


EDIT: Come to think of it, proxies are not even needed. Unless the school has access to forensic computer equipment and the right to get personal information from your ISP it can't prove a god damned thing. Anything posted on the internet is plausibly deniable, and students will quickly figure this out. For instance, a school doesn't even have the resources to determine who owns an email address. Pretty much the only circumstances a school could do anything is if videos are posted where the bully's face is visible.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

What a defeatist attitude. The requirement for a safety net is absolutely fundamental. As Robert Menzies once said, "We have realised that men and women are not just ciphers in a calculation, but are individual human beings whose individual welfare and development must be the main concern of government".

Liberty and individual choice are important assets. However so too is the willingness of society to assist those find themselves, through no fault of their own, in a more precarious social position.

I am all for people assisting the genuinely disadvantaged. All I oppose is forcing everyone to support the disadvantaged at gunpoint in a very specific way which is often ineffective.

My point was not so much about the disadvantaged (as in the poor) but about less intelligent students. I am questioning the conventional wisdom that it is a good idea to force them to stay in a traditional school environment. I believe many of these students would benefit from a more hands on approach to learning, be it through the workplace, apprenticeships or technical colleges. This applies to rich and poor students alike.

There is a portion of the population for whom education is a waste of time. You won't get an argument there.

Wrong! Although I see what you mean. Sadly, the dominant view seems to be that education means highly formalized education.

Education just means learning, and this can be done in many ways. Often the best way to learn is not in a classroom but on the job.

It won't have an effect or result for everyone. However, that shouldn't form the basis for removing access. Even if as little as 10% of those individuals who would have pursued careers in areas with no requirement for a school education make the most of the opportunity provided to them, then I see it as beneficial to society.

Although important, society should aim to achieve more than the efficient allocation of resources.

Still give people the opportunity. I'm just opposed to forcing students to go to schools, and more importantly to schools that teach a very narrow curriculum that is useless to many students.