--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Sal thought about it, and realized that she didn't need to take > > > this kind of abuse. Again, I'm not saying she didn't fling > > > plenty of sh*t herself. > > > > Sal, IMHO, is a bully, an exceptionally nasty one, > > I had an interesting discussion with the principle
Principal. of a > Middle School last week after presenting the school with > an assembly concerning bullying and creating a culture of > respect in a school. She told me that because of the > focus on bullying today, students are misusing the term, > as you have here, I don't know whether students are "misusing the term," but I wasn't. Check Mr. Dictionary, please. I suspect the principal has adopted the "power differential" sense of the term because it serves her purposes in educating the children. But we can easily fix my use so it's in accord with hers by simply adding the words "trying to." as a way of getting leverage over other students using what has become a magic word. (Happily my show met her expectations of focus.) > > Sal is not in a position to "bully" people here because she > has no power differential with any other adult who chooses > to post here. Actually she does; see below. But that's not a requirement for the characterization. > What you are mischaracterizing as bullying is your judgement > that Sal was being unfriendly to others maybe. No, I meant "bullying" in the more general sense of the term. > (In the context of your use of the term "stupid, stupid Sal" > exactly one kajillion times that seems a bit hypocritical.) You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping the "taste of one's own medicine" concept. > I might characterize her as being bitingly sarcastic, and you > are welcome to say that she was some other version of poopy > pants, but she was not a bully here. > > It is interesting that the one person who actually did try to > gain some technological leverage over others here, and got > bounced for it, never earned your use of the term. "Technological leverage"? No idea what you're talking about. As to "bullying" in the standard sense, I refer you back to my metaphor of Nabby's toy gun with the flag that says "Bang," Ravi's gun that shot spitballs, and Barry's gun that shoots real bullets. Sal's gun also shot real bullets, but her aim was even worse than Barry's. > You didn't like Sal and she didn't like you. Neither of you > were in a position to bully anyone by being mean or bitingly > sarcastic, depending on your slant on it. I disagree. > But bullying is a different thing, Can be. Not "is." and the distinction is important. The Principle described to me how students use it whenever someone is being mean to them or doing something they consider not nice. This is a breakdown in our social relationships to hand over our power to others like this. It stunts their emotional intelligence growth to pull this rip cord in discussions that could be handled better without resorting to this inappropriate inflammatory label. Plus it dilutes a term which in its proper context is serious. > > Since you know the distinctions that define this term, I can > only conclude that you are unfairly loading your language to > make it seem as if she was actually capable of violating > someone in a lower power position. Actually, you are pretending an optional distinction is mandatory in an attempt to make me wrong. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "cyberbullying." There aren't many instances of "power differentials" in cyberspace, but the term is commonly used to refer to peer-to-peer interaction. One might, however, make a case for the creation on forums like FFL of ad hoc power differentials via a person's alliance with a clique of the more forceful, prominent posters. In that sense, Sal's alliance with Barry's clique could be said to create a power differential between her and many of the folks she habitually beat up on who are not so allied. > This would be much worse than just letting someone have it > here. It adds an element of drama to a fairly common > situation in an attempt to spin it as more than that. As usual, Curtis, the spinning is all yours. Nice try, no cigar. > > But you aren't bullying her by your inflated misuse of language. We don't > have that ability with each other. > > > > > > and a > > dishonest one at that (as you yourself have reason to know, > > Steve). If she couldn't deal with getting a taste of her > > own medicine from me, maybe she'll have learned something > > from that. Hopefully her hypothetical therapist will help > > her recognize it's not OK for her to gratuitously take out > > her own private hurts, whatever they may be, on other > > people. > > >
