Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was wrong. The anti-bullying alarmists aren't seeking to pass laws against it. They have already done so: http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws

And given the rule no self-righteous zealot is ever satisfied, we can expect a whole lot more where that came from... Clogging already understaffed police departments and courts with ridiculous technical claims.

I don't see "kids will be kids" as macho bullshit. The worst bullying doesn't involve men at all. In almost every horror story about bullied kids killing themselves, the culprits are female. Guys will physically attack each other, or talk shit to one another, but the conflict has an end. They ague, fight, and it's over. Girls never forget. They never let go. The torture persists indefinitely, passive-aggressively, and corrosively over weeks, months, and even years. The real face of bullying is a female between 9 and 18.

Your sex should be better than that.

Understaffed police departments? What are you talking about? End the ridiculous marijuana prohibition and they are way over staffed. Which is why they are so against it.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Newsflash: Bullying wasn't "tolerated" in our generation or any other — it's just that they years before reached the conclusion we'll soon reach again: neither the police, nor expulsion, nor peer counseling, nor duking it out makes any difference toward prevention. The only cure is the passage of time, and some cases will always be incurable.

I am genuinely surprised by your vehemence on this issue. The idea that something like bullying was tolerated in the past and that maybe we should try to address that issue does not seem that crazily paternalistic to me. Is it that unfathomable to you that, perhaps in our generation, there was a notion that "what they call bullying is just the way social orders are established; it toughens kids up and prepares them for the real world"; and that, perhaps these days, some people think, "you know, this behavior is cruel and possibly preventable and often operates to turn some kids into angry and maladjusted adults, or alternately crushes them completely." Put more specifically in the context in which the word "bullying" is usually used, which is horrific victimization of gays, how can you seriously argue that this is not something that was "tolerated" 30 years ago. It was and, in many ways, still is. And if you believe that this type of behavior is incurable and that policing and counseling and whatever else is futile and vain, well then what's the harm if you shut the fuck up and let people who are not so jaded actually try to see if there is some way to prevent students from beating the crap out of and/or murdering their gay schoolmates.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not advocating for laws to address it. But it seems clear that teacher and admin intervention does little to nothing, especially when so much of it springs from online activity.

I'm sure you understand that this type of labeling doesn't just occur when a girl hooks up with a guy "too early." The causes are many, including refusing to hook up on demand, not being interested at all, or just being unliked. Labeling a girl a slut is about a boy exerting power over her.

Again, I haven't said shit about laws. But I don't think you understand the extent of how this problem has grown. It just isn't like anything you or I experienced growing up. And, although it doesn't always end in suicide, it is a huge problem.

TM

Is it just me or does Sebby read like a parody if 20 years ago on some of this?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I am genuinely surprised by your vehemence on this issue. The idea that something like bullying was tolerated in the past and that maybe we should try to address that issue does not seem that crazily paternalistic to me. Is it that unfathomable to you that, perhaps in our generation, there was a notion that "what they call bullying is just the way social orders are established; it toughens kids up and prepares them for the real world"; and that, perhaps these days, some people think, "you know, this behavior is cruel and possibly preventable and often operates to turn some kids into angry and maladjusted adults, or alternately crushes them completely." Put more specifically in the context in which the word "bullying" is usually used, which is horrific victimization of gays, how can you seriously argue that this is not something that was "tolerated" 30 years ago. It was and, in many ways, still is. And if you believe that this type of behavior is incurable and that policing and counseling and whatever else is futile and vain, well then what's the harm if you shut the fuck up and let people who are not so jaded actually try to see if there is some way to prevent students from beating the crap out of and/or murdering their gay schoolmates.

It's born of frustration with having to deal with these issues when "educate him" is the answer but no one really agrees on what that means. I live in a part of the world where gay acceptance has been methodically preached in schools since before the current students were born, so the bullying is perhaps slightly less directional than elsewhere, but it exists because people everywhere lust for power over other people and kids are no exception. But what to do in any given conflict is only clear to a smug outsider. Maybe the perp is a victim in another dynamic; maybe he's economically on the edge; maybe what we see this week really is payback for last. Hell, we've still got people saying anti-gay bullying measures are stifling religious expression in school. (We all can agree that they aren't but we, unlike the schools, have the luxury of choosing our friends. Imagine having to continue to engage with people who have horribly mistaken but unshakeable worldviews.)

Bullying as a manifestation of discriminatory animus against personal characteristics was not illegal and now is, at least in my state and, I think, yours, but the way this is done is by deeming it an effective denial of access and therefore a form of discriminatory denial BY THE AGENCY, which then becomes liable for the damages. In other words, there is no real legal remedy against the bully, only against the institution, which meanwhile is under an unqualified legal duty to educate BOTH victim and perpetrator. Not to mention the fact that federal courts are split on whether schools even have jurisdiction to impose discipline of any kind for off-campus (i.e. online) speech acts.*

*I'm curious: will everyone here concede that they do? Or will these boards, like the country itself, prefer not to state anything of any real substance on the issue of disciplining a verbal bully until AFTER they know whether their child is the victim or the perpetrator? We're stuck in a Rawlsian hell of everyone saying "do something," particularly after a death.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I am genuinely surprised by your vehemence on this issue. The idea that something like bullying was tolerated in the past and that maybe we should try to address that issue does not seem that crazily paternalistic to me. Is it that unfathomable to you that, perhaps in our generation, there was a notion that "what they call bullying is just the way social orders are established; it toughens kids up and prepares them for the real world"; and that, perhaps these days, some people think, "you know, this behavior is cruel and possibly preventable and often operates to turn some kids into angry and maladjusted adults, or alternately crushes them completely." Put more specifically in the context in which the word "bullying" is usually used, which is horrific victimization of gays, how can you seriously argue that this is not something that was "tolerated" 30 years ago. It was and, in many ways, still is. And if you believe that this type of behavior is incurable and that policing and counseling and whatever else is futile and vain, well then what's the harm if you shut the fuck up and let people who are not so jaded actually try to see if there is some way to prevent students from beating the crap out of and/or murdering their gay schoolmates.

isn't beating someone because they're gay already a hate crime? I don't think he's arguing against that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Understaffed police departments? What are you talking about? End the ridiculous marijuana prohibition and they are way over staffed. Which is why they are so against it.

2. But... Most cops aren't against marijuana legalization. They'd love to stop wasting time on enforcement of that mindless prohibition. And replacing the wasted time spent enforcing pot laws with investigations of bullying incidents is, in terms of efficiency and economics, no improvement.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is it just me or does Sebby read like a parody if 20 years ago on some of this?

It's you. (It's always you.)

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It's born of frustration with having to deal with these issues when "educate him" is the answer but no one really agrees on what that means. I live in a part of the world where gay acceptance has been methodically preached in schools since before the current students were born, so the bullying is perhaps slightly less directional than elsewhere, but it exists because people everywhere lust for power over other people and kids are no exception. But what to do in any given conflict is only clear to a smug outsider. Maybe the perp is a victim in another dynamic; maybe he's economically on the edge; maybe what we see this week really is payback for last. Hell, we've still got people saying anti-gay bullying measures are stifling religious expression in school. (We all can agree that they aren't but we, unlike the schools, have the luxury of choosing our friends. Imagine having to continue to engage with people who have horribly mistaken but unshakeable worldviews.)

Bullying as a manifestation of discriminatory animus against personal characteristics was not illegal and now is, at least in my state and, I think, yours, but the way this is done is by deeming it an effective denial of access and therefore a form of discriminatory denial BY THE AGENCY, which then becomes liable for the damages. In other words, there is no real legal remedy against the bully, only against the institution, which meanwhile is under an unqualified legal duty to educate BOTH victim and perpetrator. Not to mention the fact that federal courts are split on whether schools even have jurisdiction to impose discipline of any kind for off-campus (i.e. online) speech acts.*

*I'm curious: will everyone here concede that they do? Or will these boards, like the country itself, prefer not to state anything of any real substance on the issue of disciplining a verbal bully until AFTER they know whether their child is the victim or the perpetrator? We're stuck in a Rawlsian hell of everyone saying "do something," particularly after a death.

O.K., I get that you think that addressing the problem, legislatively or otherwise, presents thorny practical and intellectual issues. But that does not mean that attitudes about the issue are not changing. As I mentioned, it seems to me that, whereas there was once an attitude that bullying, or a certain amount of it, was fine and even healthy, there is now a recognition of the types of long term damage it can do and corresponding efforts, however imperfect, to address the issue and even to try to "prevent" the problem. Similarly, in the domestic violence realm, there was once a prevailing attitude that it was a family problem to be addressed behind closed doors. Attitudes on that issue changed, and resulted in legislation that many consider paternalistic, that undoubtedly had unintended negative consequences, and that failed to capture the nuances of mutual wrongdoing in many domestic violence situations. But I don't think we want to go back to a place where police refused to intervene in household violence situations because it is a "family matter." And if there has been a similar shift in attitudes about bullying, and if people are no longer content with a "kids will be kids" attitude, and if, as Thurgreed notes, cyberbullying has made the problem more acute, then I don't think it makes sense to throw up our hands and say "This is too hard, and it really sucks for school districts caught in the middle, and the tricky jurisdictional issues make my head hurt, so we'll soon realize what we learned the hard way before, which is that there is nothing to be done but allow the passage of time."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

my cheeseburger ain't putting out fumes.

What about after you eat it?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is it just me or does Sebby read like a parody if 20 years ago on some of this?

It's not just you. And Atticus wants to marry him over this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Bullying as a manifestation of discriminatory animus against personal characteristics was not illegal and now is, at least in my state and, I think, yours, but the way this is done is by deeming it an effective denial of access and therefore a form of discriminatory denial BY THE AGENCY, which then becomes liable for the damages. In other words, there is no real legal remedy against the bully, only against the institution, which meanwhile is under an unqualified legal duty to educate BOTH victim and perpetrator. Not to mention the fact that federal courts are split on whether schools even have jurisdiction to impose discipline of any kind for off-campus (i.e. online) speech acts.*

In the first sentence you note that bullying (as a yada yada) now is illegal. Then you say there is no real legal remedy against the bully. I am accustomed to seeing logical arguments flow if A then B rather than if A then not A, but perhaps your world works differently?

From what I can see, many schools* are actually getting pretty good at handling bullying issues. Whether they do so because it's the right thing to do or because they're worried about the liablity is not an interesting question; the interesting question is how do they continue to get better and how do we get the ones who aren't good at it to get good at it. Absolving them of liability doesn't seem to help with that question, does it?





* There are exceptions, like the local school here where the principal's twenty something son was molesting pre-teens and principal covered for him. The principal consistently blamed all girls whatever befell them, because, well, boys will be boys. He wasn't good at handling bullying issues at all.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

But what to do in any given conflict is only clear to a smug outsider.

Why is the attitude of "there is nothing we can (or should) do" any less smug?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

And if you believe that this type of behavior is incurable and that policing and counseling and whatever else is futile and vain, well then what's the harm if you shut the fuck up and let people who are not so jaded actually try to see if there is some way to prevent students from beating the crap out of and/or murdering their gay schoolmates.

The harm is that we've already got more than enough idiotic interference on the part of law enforcement and government. We're just getting to the point where govt is realizing it has no business telling people they can't smoke pot, and should not be deciding who can and cannot marry. And so given these strides in paring down its officious interactions with the public regarding these matters, it should now start regulating other private behaviors?

The red tape created by endless do-gooder laws is endless. It hampers our economy. It creates needless bureaucratic work. And it's all counterproductive. The more you teach people to ask the govt for intervention, the more they'll lose the ability to handle the problem on their own.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Why is the attitude of "there is nothing we can (or should) do" any less smug?

No. But it's realistic. I understand that this seems smug when compared to more idealistic ambitions of those who think regulations and prohibitions can cure all. But the word that really fits is "pragmatic." There is only so much that can be done to stop humans from acting shitty toward one another. Barring them from engaging in physical violence upon one another is realistic. Barring them from saying horrible things about one another, or expanding laws to make general (non-employment related) verbal and psychological abuse illegal, are things we cannot do. If those things become illegal, you'll know society has completely collapsed. It'll be a recognition we can't self police anything... And that we're being governed by the most clueless of Utopians.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The harm is that we've already got more than enough idiotic interference on the part of law enforcement and government. We're just getting to the point where govt is realizing it has no business telling people they can't smoke pot, and should not be deciding who can and cannot marry. And so given these strides in paring down its officious interactions with the public regarding these matters, it should now start regulating other private behaviors?

I don't think this is like banning big gulps, but rather goes to the core of the Government's police functions. And really, didn't Hobbes answer this question for once and all time a couple hundred years ago.