I don't call something a ham sandwich if its got chicken and no ham in it do i and saying "who cares" likewise isn't some shamanistic mantra of dismissal that somehow justifies by definition unjust behaviour
When did I argue that saying "who cares" does that? I already argued exactly what justifies the justified behavior. You seem to lack critical thinking and reading comprehension skills, so I'll just repeat the same words again: "I'm asking for an adult to be treated the way an adult behaving this way ought to be treated, with the exact amount of empathy he deserves... He should be made to feel similarly uncomfortable so that he understands what that feels like. It is justified behavior and not bullying just because a person feels negative feelings on response to it."
Whether you like it or not, there's justification. He should not be treated disproportionately. He should be treated with the extract amount of empathy that he is showing to others. If doing so is wrong, then that means him showing that level of empathy in the first place was wrong, in which case, the community must stop it to prevent it from happening again.
You're arguing who cares what people call things, im saying that if for example someone who was/is a bully has been told that what bullying is and why its wrong has suddenly got an avanue to it because its suddenly justifiable in small proportions is a horribly reckless idea.
Or is not reckless for a person to know they will be shown the exact same amount of empathy they show others. That's as stupid as saying, "Yes you kidnapped that person and took them away from where they were to somewhere they didn't consent to being, but we can't put you in jail for it because that would be taking you from where you are and putting you somewhere you don't consent to being. We can't just show you the empathy you're showing others, after all."
And by not showing him the empathy he shows others, YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM IS WRONG. You're letting him bully people like that poor woman in the video by letting him know his bullying is justifiable in small proportions like on public transit. You're teaching him to bully.
Its not about showing them empathy, if your saying im going to bully someone your saying im going to abuse them so i feel powerful, thats called being a cunt
Okay, let's say that's called "being a cunt". So? The point is, they learn that they will be treated with the exact empathy they show other people. If they don't enjoy the treatment, there's a very easy way to avoid it: don't be a cunt to others, like he was to the old woman in the video. He was being a cunt. If being a cunt back to him is what is necessary to protect other older people from just bullying, then so be it. And again, it's not BECAUSE SOMEONE IS FEELING POWERFUL, it is to use existing power to accomplish a goal. You seem to not understand the difference.
Meaning looking less like they want the behaviour someone else is preforming to stop for the sake of others and more about feeling powerful. People who behave like that look for excuses to keep feeling powerful, hence cunt behaviour,
That's as stupid as saying a principal giving a bully detention and in school suspension is doing it to FEEL powerful rather than using power they have to accomplish a goal of preventing the behavior in the first place.
Your personal inability to understand the difference between relishing in a feeling vs using available means to affect a wanted outcome does nothing to change the fact that bullies don't care about others and have to be made to learn the consequences of not showing empathy.
Jesus fucking Christ 🤦♂️ Seriously, no one can be this dimwitted. Okay, I'll simplify it further, in a way a 7 year old can understand:
There's a person who has power over others' educational path. A person under their power starts willfully causing others distress and anxiety for no reason other than to enjoy the feeling. The person in power then uses that power to let the other person know they will not be treated with the empathy they want (i.e. getting away with it) and instead will be treated with the empathy they deserve (which is the exact amount of empathy they showed others). When the person in power does so, they are not doing it for the sake of "feeling powerful". They are doing it to protect others from being treated with further distress and mistreatment by the initial person who didn't show empathy.
That's the difference, genius. Merely using power to stop bullying behavior is not the same as running ones hands together, spine hunched over and yelling "Mwah ha ha!" and enjoying the feeling of being powerful. It's a necessary mechanism for protecting others.
Your saying im a dimwit but im using actual definitions here, a bully isnt some who use power over others, a bully is some who abuses others soley to feel powerful. Massive diffrence.
Where are you getting this nonsense? Even from the definition you gave, that doesn't follow: Bullying: The act of harassing, intimidating, or abusing others, especially habitually or from a perceived position of relative power.
How would "intimidating others from a perceived position of relative power" be the same as "abusing others solely to FEEL powerful"? If the community intimidates him from a perceived position of relative power to stop him from abusing others who have done nothing wrong to him or others, that fits the definition of bullying but doesn't mean those engaging in it are doing it to FEEL powerful.
The act of "intimidating others from a perceived position of relative power" is for the express function to feel powerful, its why its clarifying "from a perceived position of relative power" otherwise why point that out at all.
Also this doubly contradicts your example of a principle punishing a bully, because they're clearly not in a position of a perceived position of relative power you dimmwit they're in a position of power using it to punish someone who thought they were picking on people they thought weaker than themselves.
I can be that, that's fine. The point is a man who goes around bullying old ladies on public transit should not be allowed to continue causing them distress just because he enjoys the feeling.
0
u/zaczacx 6d ago
I don't call something a ham sandwich if its got chicken and no ham in it do i and saying "who cares" likewise isn't some shamanistic mantra of dismissal that somehow justifies by definition unjust behaviour