--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: <snip> > > > 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. > > No, it is a part of all the definitions I read, Websters' > for example. Do you think we can't look things up too?
I can't decide whether this is a tactic--pretending that I didn't just get done saying "Check Mr. Dictionary, please" five lines above and hoping nobody else will notice--or whether you're losing the ability to keep track of what you read. "Webster's," by the way, has long since become a generic term; any publisher can use it for their dictionary. It no longer carries any special authority. The Merriam Webster Collegiate* Dictionary, 11th edition, has this definition: "a blustering browbeating person; especially: one habitually cruel to others who are weaker." "Especially" does not mean "limited to." The verb "to bully" is defined thus: "1: to treat abusively; 2: to affect by means of force or coercion; intransitive verb: to use browbeating language or behavior: BLUSTER" ----- * To save you time and embarrassment, I'll point out that "Collegiate" in the title does not mean "dumbed down." The M-W Collegiate is the one used by most book publishers and is considered among the most authoritative. ----- Of course the "power differential" notion is *part of* most definitions, but it's usually in the "especially" sense, i.e., the term "bully" does not *require* that a power differential exist. > But more importantly, there is a whole body of knowledge about > bullying behavior that I am referencing. There is no use of > the term in a social situations that doesn't include this > important piece. You know this, which is why you chose the > term as adding more inappropriate drama to your charge. Well, actually, I know to the contrary. And "inappropriate drama" is not the best way to make one's case, so it's not an approach I'd be likely to take. <snip> > > > 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. > > All the definitions I have read contain the power differential > as a part of what defines it as bullying. You have to go to > uncommon usage to find examples of it being used any other way. Quite possibly in the social sciences or psychology context, but in common parlance the term frequently does not involve the power differential component. > > > (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 understand how you are using it. When you do it, it is a > taste of ..., when others do it is hypocrisy. Um, no, it isn't. You do not, in fact, understand how I'm using it. Or rather, you've decided you'll impose your own context even though you know it's not the same as mine. That's just what you *do*, attempt to erase all other contexts and substitute your own, as if the others never existed. > > > 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. > > Flooding search engines and outing people oneline. Still don't get it, sorry. You mean because he used technology to make posts here? Since we all do that, what's the distinction you're trying to make? <snip> > > > 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. > > Cyberbullying would be another mischaracterization of Sal's > behavior if you used it for her. The power differential in > this case is flooding social interaction groups with negative > material about someone. That's one kind of cyberbullying. And to call "flooding" a matter of "power differential" is just really empty spin. > It is not a term properly used in the kind of interactions > we have here. Of course, that wasn't my point. Nice sidestep. > > 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 is not a term used for adults for good reason. We > don't have to be a part of this social group, we can just > leave. Our income is not dependent on it and we are under > no obligation to stay as kids are in schools where this > behavior occurs. Now you are attempting to ruin the > important distinctions of another term to avoid just > copping to your misuse. Now you've spun your way into outer space, Curtis. What you've done is to create your own definition narrowly tailored so it doesn't apply to Sal, and then accused *me* of misusing it. Sorry, doesn't fly. > > > 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. > > Sal never bullied anyone here. Your use of the term has > been called out. Sal has consistently been a bully here, and the numerous flaws in your exceedingly lame attempt to attack me have been called out. > The fact that you would double down could have been predicted. Yes, I usually double down when I'm right and someone maliciously tries to pretend otherwise.
