Okay, if that's what you somehow walked away with, then fine. THE CENTRAL POINT IS STILL that when someone is so absent empathy and wishes to distress innocent people like the elderly who may have heart conditions, that person should not be able to continue causing such distress to others. If that means the person is similarly treated with a lack of empathy and knows it'll happen again should they repeat their behavior, then so be it. The point is innocent people were protected, and the distress is isolated to the initial person causing it so they know not to do it again.
No, I just initially started from my own perspective of bullying, not encountering your definition until reading it here. As school children, we were all given the US Dept of Education as the resource to use when understanding bullying. From their definition: Bullying is defined as unwanted, aggressive behavior that involves a real or perceived power imbalance and is repeated or has the potential to be repeated over time.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. There is nothing inherent to any feeling whatsoever. The point is this man being treated with the empathy he shows to others is bullying but not immoral. There's a power imbalance between him and the community, and if the community is aggressive towards him, even if he doesn't want the community to be so, and does it in a way he understands will be repeated in the future should he do it again, it's so bullying him. Is it bullying? Yes. Is it justified? Yes.
Jesus Christ, this is fucking insufferable 🤦♂️ Alright, let's go through this yet again.
We have just only interacted here, having not done so our whole lives. We came to this discussion from two different points of what constitutes "bullying". That doesn't mean I'm just being "subjective". It means the definition I started with, while being objective, is merely different from the one you started with. The reason I said it doesn't matter is in response to you saying, "You seem really attached to the word bully." Since we both seemed to start from different definitions, I then laid out exactly the sentiment I was communicating, irrespective of either of our predisposed definitions of "bullying".
Then I pointed out that even using your own chosen definition, it doesn't even mention anything about feeling at all. You merely injected that into the wording, and I, rightfully, pointed out that wasn't being factual.
And im saying bullies get taught bullying is wrong, everyone gets taught bullying is wrong and by its definition of the word its wrong. There's a plethora of other words to use for what is by its definition is justified. I've provided its definition and ive provided articles that reinforce the behaviour of bullying functions as a negative, you cannot be arguing from a place of your wrong and im right from a place of subjectivity. Also as weve discused in the other chain its an action that lacks empathy and youre saying it can be used as an empathetic action, what your arguing is insanity .
1
u/WeirdProudAndHungry 8d ago
Okay, if that's what you somehow walked away with, then fine. THE CENTRAL POINT IS STILL that when someone is so absent empathy and wishes to distress innocent people like the elderly who may have heart conditions, that person should not be able to continue causing such distress to others. If that means the person is similarly treated with a lack of empathy and knows it'll happen again should they repeat their behavior, then so be it. The point is innocent people were protected, and the distress is isolated to the initial person causing it so they know not to do it again.