-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote:
> >
> > Judy won something (paraphrased)
> >
> >
> > So what exactly do you imagine she won?
> >
>
> Judy won the debate that you started and lost.
>
> > I don't think she was justified in calling Sal a bully. Both you and Judy
> > do.
> >
>
> According to Merriam Webster's definition of bully, she was justified.
MW: "a blustering
blus·teredblus·ter·ing
Definition of BLUSTER
intransitive verb
1
: to talk or act with noisy swaggering threats
2
a : to blow in stormy noisy gusts b : to be windy and boisterous
transitive verb
1
: to utter with noisy self-assertiveness
2
: to drive or force by blustering
blus·ter·er noun
blus·ter·ing·ly adverb
See bluster defined for English-language learners »
See bluster defined for kids »
Examples of BLUSTER
He brags and blusters, but he never really does what he says he'll do.
"I don't want to hear it!" he blustered.
The wind blustered through the valley.
It is the threat aspect of this term that applies to a bully. All people who
speak with nosy self absurdness are not bullies, but when the threat aspect
comes in due to some power differential it applies.
browbeating
Definition of BROWBEAT
transitive verb
: to intimidate or disconcert by a stern manner or arrogant speech : bully
See browbeat defined for English-language learners »
See browbeat defined for kids »
Examples of BROWBEAT
His father likes to browbeat waiters and waitresses.
<they would often browbeat the younger child until he cried>
ME:
This defining term makes the contingency of a power imbalance more clear.
(notice the examples) The aspect of intimidation is invoked because weaker
people don't intimidate stronger ones. It is another clue to how to apply the
term bullying.
And to make sure we understand the contingency of the power imbalance they make
it clear by using the word "especially" which means this is how to use the
word correctly:
person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker"
I listened to the Judy dance about how to interpret this definition and didn't
buy it. So you think she made a compelling case and I don't. The word is
defined in relationship to power imbalance, it is a key aspect of the proper
use of the word. But beyond this definition, this is how the term is actually
applied in real life as you will prove below. In all the books that go more
deeply into the meaning of bullying behavior, the power differential is key.
If you lose site of that you have a bunch of people using it as an enhanced
pejorative power word as you and Judy are attempting to do. Both you and Judy
deny the need for a power imbalance for using the word, and then try to make a
case that there really was a power inbalance between posters here on FFL.
>
> Example: "Sal gratuitously, bullied Mark Landeau, kicked him when he was down
> just trying to make a buck.>
She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals. Mark was not
browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying which is that a
power differential is what makes it bullying. Mark was "down" and she "kicked
him". It makes her look like a worse person than just someone expressing her
opinion about his yogi relic huckstering. (which I supported)
<When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal heartlessly,
gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her.>
Here you are not being truthful, here is the post:
#296961
on Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:
>>> Hello everyone:
>>>
>>> We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see
>>> Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday
>>> night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached.
>>>
>>> We will provide cookies and milk.
>>
SAL:
>> Presumably along with lollipops, balloons,
>> and a game of duck-duck-goose as well.
>> Unbelievable.
>>
>> Sal
>>
>
ALEX:
> That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that just burned
to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some money after
experiencing a loss like that?
SAL:
Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's
not what I meant. Jesus! Clearly I didn't know that~~
it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies and milk
bit. Well, I hope she raises some.
Sal
I object to your dishonest presentation of what went down. She made a flip
comment about life in Fairfield sometimes resembling a kiddy party at events,
when she found out the true context she said:"Well, I hope she raises some."
So you not only took it out of context, you completely misrepresented
everything about what she said.
To make Sal look bad. Unfairly. Like Judy did when she called her a bully.
< When Judy justifiably gives Sal a "taste of her own medicine" she never does
so gratuitously."
I get it, you two don't like her so you feel justified in doing whatever you
can to make her look bad including your misleading example above. I get that.
>
> > I don't believe we are in a position to bully each other here. You both do.
> >
>
> Why? Because in your opinion there isn't a "power differential?" >
That is the key aspect of when the word applies.
<According to MW a power differential does not need to exist between Sal and
anyone for her to bully a person she believes to be a weaker target. If there's
any power differential at all, it exists in Sal's head, whereby she bullies in
an attempt to increase her power differential by weakening her target.>
Actually in your examples you were trying to make a case for real power
differentials because you know how the word is actually used and what its
definition means beyond your show of Judy loyalty.
But imagined bullying doesn't count. You are trying to make a case that if
someone imagines the person is weaker, then if they say something mean it is
bullying. Bullying is at least a two person dance. The other person needs to
feel intimidated by the power differential for it to be meaningful. But
whatever power differentials exist in real life,here on this board they are
neutralized by the delete key. We can't bully each other because we can't
create a power differential.
>
> > I believe that the definitions of bully are contingent on a power
> > differential and that this is the aspect that is most important when
> > applying it in the real world. You both don't share that view.
> >
>
> Bullying is not contingent on a power differential. It may be an aspect but
> it is not contingent. >
Not only is it, that is exactly how you used it in your real world examples.
>
> > Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had been doing was a
> > form of bullying her, and I don't want any part of that kind of weird
> > judgement on my discussion so I let it drop. You feel that this means she
> > won something.
> >
>
> Judy believes you arbitrarily declared your POV as the only POV possible and
> dismissed her factual argument, supported by MW, and ignored MW as if your
> POV had supremacy over MW or any other definition.>
I have made my case for how I interpret the definition as did Judy. Your spin
mirroring hers that I was somehow doing something bad by asserting my POV just
as she did is just personal attack spin. It is what Judy can't stop doing in
any discussion which is what makes it tiresome and not worth it in the end.
You don't need to go that road. We both made our cases and both belief we are
right.
< I call it chutzpah, to say the least. Judy didn't win the debate because you
dropped out. You simply lost the debate. Nice try, no cigar.>
Hey if that kind of scorekeeping gets you off, go for it. I was satisfied that
I had made my case. Do you really think more needed to be said?
>
> > You guys view this more as a team sport than I do. I was enjoying the
> > conversation of each of our views until she started pulling the B word on
> > me and turning it into what Judy always turns a discussion into. Her
> > winning something. I wouldn't have pegged you as buying into that Raunchy.
> > But here you are.
> >
>
> I believe this is the first time I've jumped into one of your debates with
> Judy. Barry supports you. I support Judy. I usually read your long threads
> with her and enjoy watching you wriggle, and weave, dodge and dance around
> her points and counterpoints. >
Kinda condescending, but OK.
<Both of you love the challenge of matching wits and I love how you both go at
it with such gusto. I admire you and Judy for the fine level of intelligence
and liveliness you bring to the conversation at FFLife.>
I think I do my worst writing with her. The constant barrage of personal
attacks clips my imaginative wings. So do you think I was bullying her in the
discussion?
< I'm not on Judy's debate team. I'm just the scorekeeper.>
Actually you are an advocate for her, you are not nearly impartial enough to be
a scorekeeper.
>
> > So you both won something. Bully for you.
> >
>
> Oh Curtis, lighten up. I like you. I really do.>
Hey, back atchya.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > > <anartaxius@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
> > > > > > > > the attempt to bolster your position on this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
> > > > > > > talking about something quite different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was
> > > > > > expecting to feel some kind of antagonism, but it just did
> > > > > > not arise. I don't feel antagonism in reading Curtis either.
> > > > > > That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I don't
> > > > > > know what it is, but the argument now seems even more
> > > > > > pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment,
> > > > > > perhaps. Any antagonism one has with life is what you get to
> > > > > > lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we lose, if we
> > > > > > feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we
> > > > > > don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win
> > > > > > the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the
> > > > > > 'me', justification goes out the window.
> > > > >
> > > > > But this is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's descriptive of my experience this morning. As far as the
> > > > argument went I did not see Curtis as bullying, and I think you just
> > > > drew it out interminably, and if he backs out of this pointlessness, a
> > > > good move. You do not win. Your POV on this has no practical value that
> > > > I can see. I cannot read your mind, but your passion seems an
> > > > obsession. Have you ever tried, in an argument, to just stop, and even
> > > > against your better judgment, simply surrender, and see what happens?
> > > > It can be a really interesting experience to capitulate, even if in the
> > > > fact of the case, one is right. I am saying this because these are the
> > > > kinds of attachments that keep us locked down in ignorance. No point of
> > > > view is worth losing the wholeness of life.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Judy has addressed all the points that Curtis raised. He hasn't addressed
> > > the points she has raised, which leads one to conclude that he chooses to
> > > ignore the points she raises or changes the context to fit his own POV
> > > because he cannot rebut her argument. Until he addresses the points she
> > > raised, Judy wins the debate. The winner of a debate does not capitulate,
> > > the loser does. Jeez, Xeno, you're sounding awfully pompous tonight.
> > >
> >
>
