--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:

All he can do now (and has been doing for several rounds
of this exchange) is bluster and browbeat, i.e., try to
bully me. He had hoped to weaken me initially but has
achieved the opposite.


Do tell, what other hopes did I harbor in our conversation? 

I hoped to "weaken" you? WTF?  Tell me more about my internal mental state, I 
am fascinated. 

Here is your way of looking at how to judge bullying in your response to Ann:

The defining characteristics of bullying, IMHO, are the
intention of the person doing it and what it looks like
(e.g., gratuitous, repeated), not whether it's successful.


In other words, you imagine what their intentions are (how convenient) and then 
can apply the term bully freely based on your own internal state. (spoiler 
alert, it applies to people whose opinions she doesn't like!)

This is why schools are going to have such a problem with this issue as soon as 
the lawyers get involved and is probably why it will not reach corporate 
America.  There are plenty of people like you who will misuse the term in a bid 
to make it seem as if they are doing more than putting someone down they don't 
agree with.  It is used to impune the person further than saying that their 
britches have tested positive for ecoli and fecal material is suspected. 

 




>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> 
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Judy is an editor. Curtis is a working musician. Judy is
> > using the book, and Curtis is using living language, and
> > possibly experience, in his use of the word.
> 
> You're missing a few things. First, I was using the term
> "based on how [I] learned the word in relation to other
> words that [I] have heard." When Curtis attempted to
> claim I was misusing the term, I checked the dictionary
> and found I was not.
> 
> Second, Curtis was defining the term, as he's explained,
> not using "living language" but based on studying books
> in preparation for a presentation to students on bullying
> in schools:
> 
> "I checked many definitions of the term when I designed my
> course including over a dozen books on the subject."
> 
> It seems those books were using the "power differential"
> definition, which makes sense in the context of schools.
> But that the books don't use the more general sense I was
> using doesn't somehow *negate* that more general sense.
> As you note, descriptive dictionaries like M-W simply list
> the senses in which people use a term. So his claim that
> I was "misusing" it is simply wrong.
> 
> He *added* to that error the even more absurd claim that I
> *knew* I was misusing it and was doing so deliberately and
> accused me of lying when I told him otherwise. That 
> constitutes bullying on *his* part.
> 
> As I thought about the power differentials issue, I 
> realized that my use of the term was perfectly compatible
> with that definition in any case.
> 
> At this point, the disagreements between us are:
> 
> 1. Whether I misused the term deliberately.
> 
> 2. Whether the dictionary permits the more general use of
> the term that doesn't involve power differentials
> 
> 3. Whether power differentials are a factor on an Internet
> forum like FFL
> 
> A positive answer to (1) would involve mindreading, which
> Curtis claims to disdain, so he's a hypocrite to make that
> claim. And it isn't true in any case, because (see 2) I
> didn't misuse it in the first place.
> 
> (2) is a matter of fact. The dictionary does permit such
> use, and Curtis is simply wrong. He doesn't understand
> how dictionaries indicate usage.
> 
> (3) is a matter of opinion. I've made a strong case that
> power differentials are a factor. Curtis hasn't addressed
> this case; he's simply denied that contention.
> 
> And he's still insisting I misused the term deliberately,
> even given (2), and even given my advocacy of (3). Only
> by somehow refuting my position that power differentials
> are very much a factor on FFL can he hope to establish
> that I could only have been using the term in the general
> sense that doesn't involve such differentials but merely
> "blustering or browbeating."
> 
> But since that general sense is allowed by the dictionary,
> and he can't refute the dictionary, his claim that I was
> misusing the term, deliberately or otherwise, is
> definitively defeated. He can't read minds, he doesn't
> understand how dictionaries indicate usage, and he hasn't
> been able to make a case that power differentials are not
> a factor in discourse on FFL.
> 
> All he can do now (and has been doing for several rounds
> of this exchange) is bluster and browbeat, i.e., try to
> bully me. He had hoped to weaken me initially but has
> achieved the opposite.
> 
> <snip>
> > This does not really exist here on the forum, it is all
> > mental on the forum, even though we read physical words
> > on a screen, the interactions are not physical like even
> > a simple face-to-face conversation. An audio chat would
> > be something closer, and a video chat might be closer
> > still, but the sense of physical threat is what really
> > delineates a bully.
> 
> I suspect Curtis would disagree with you on this last.
> Wikipedia certainly does.
> 
> <snip>
> > These online debates are so long and line-by-line complex that
> > it is difficult to not leave out something, almost nobody has
> > a memory good enough to recall all the details, so castigating
> > each other about leaving out some detail seems mostly pointless.
> 
> First, it doesn't require a good memory to ensure attention
> to details, since the words expressing those details are right
> there on the page.
> 
> Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
> He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
> point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
> them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
> and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
> makes.
>


Reply via email to