OK, now I have time to respond to you Barry. Let's see what I might be able to clarify here, it if is not beating a dying (not quite dead) horse. Actually, I hate that image so let's call it reheating the old lasagna or something...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > How about instead of relying on definitions and the never- > > > > ending post after post of point and counterpoint we do > > > > something easier. How about considering if something someone > > > > writes to you or about you makes you feel bad, makes you feel > > > > small and hurt - like you want to crawl away and lick your > > > > wounds for awhile - that maybe you were the target of a bully. > > > > > > Either that, or maybe you're an overly-sensitive drama > > > queen. :-) > > > > > > Seriously. That's another way of seeing the situation you > > > describe above. Remember the article I posted here recently > > > about the guy who attacked the guy in the parade dressed as > > > "zombie Mohammed." I'm sure he felt absolutely justified in > > > doing so (and in this case some dumb-ass judge agree with > > > him). But it was just a guy walking by in a silly costume. > > > > > > > How about feelings? Do they count or do we consider them too > > > > subjectively unreliable? > > > > > > They are ALWAYS too subjectively unreliable. The more "hurt" > > > you feel, the more out of balance you are, almost by definition. > > > And you want being *that* attached to things to become the > > > definition of bullying? > > > > But feelings are all we, ultimately, have to go on. Nobody, > > upon being on the receiving end of some cruel or malicious > > action is going to first run to the dictionary to see if > > they have, indeed, been bullied according to their Funk > > and Wagnalls. > > Hold on a second. Back up. WHO SAID that they had > "been on the receiving end of some cruel or malicious > action" *in the first place*? Couldn't that just be > improper perception on their part, caused by either > being too sensitive or because their "feelings" were > inappropriate? Are you asking if I am referring to someone specific here? Or is this a general, theoretical question you are posing? To clarify, I am not referring to anyone or any specific incident, I am speaking in generalities. Perception is always subjective. Is there any true objectivity anywhere? I don't believe so, therefore I would have to ask what qualifies as "improper perception"? If a thing is true to the perceiver then that is their "true" reality. Others can label it as being "too sensitive" or "inappropriate" but it does not necessarily make it so. > > > All of us are reacting all over the place all of the time. > > Actually, NOT all of us are. THAT is why I don't agree > with your logic here. A LOT of us got over all of that > drama queen overreaction stuff long ago, and just don't > go there any more. Barry, I did not say "overreacting" I said "reacting". The term overreacting is a higher, more intense degree of responding to something. One might even say inappropriately so if you add that word "over". Reaction is defined as: "noun - an action performed or a feeling experienced in response to a situation or event" That is how I was using the word. > > > Reacting doesn't necessarily mean in some negative way either. > > Agreed. Reacting means reacting. IF you react, you're > still bound by the thing or event you're reacting to. > > > So yes, feelings can be notoriously "unreliable" but they are > > what make us human. > > I completely disagree. I would tend to say that *for most > people*, being a victim to their feelings is what *keeps* > them from being human. I said I believe feelings make us human. If I understand you, you believe that feelings can victimize us and consequently make us inhuman. You need to clarify this before I can adequately address this idea. But for now I will give it a shot. If I read this correctly you believe that feelings can victimize us. This implies, by the dictionary definition: "verb [ trans. ] single (someone) out for cruel or unjust treatment." So, if we substitute feelings for a person in this context, then you believe that our feelings can sabotage, control, hurt us in some way to cause us to presumably act in a way that ultimately will let us down. And you believe this makes us less human. I think I need help here because I haven't made any sense of your statement, and I don't agree with it even slightly, so it is up to you to clarify. > > > I have ultimately been let down less often by my own feelings > > than by the actions of, the intentions of other people. > > Feelings are not just what comes from the gut and heart but > > also from the head or a combination of all of these. This > > makes up who we are, what we are. So I'm voting for a validity > > of an experience being determined by what my gut, heart and > > mind say over my dictionary. > > I'd say that this is fine, *as long as the general feedback > you get from the world supports your actions*. If it does > not, both your "feelings" and your "gut" may well be mis- > leading you. Take Robin for example. He went ballistic over > me joking that his posts to Curtis felt to me as if he were > writing them while dressed in women's clothing. He -- possibly > dealing with long-seated homophobia issues -- decided that I > was calling him gay. When I later mentioned that the image of > him posting in drag came from a joke Curtis had once made, > Robin went even *more* ballistic, both at me and at Curtis. > He started screaming about some "photo" we'd gotten ahold of > showing him in drag and basically acting crazier than a loon. > > ALL over something that was a joke in the first place. > > ALL of it based -- probably -- on his "feelings" and his "gut." > BOTH of which were *completely* unreliable in this situation. I can't really comment on this as I would need to read the interactions between all of you to determine if Robin was out to lunch on this one. However, I do know a little about your feelings about Robin and I would say that chances are, since you don't really respect him or his opinions (boring among other things) then I could believe that you are not above trying to sock it to him, just a teeny weeny bit Barry. I place no value judgement on this, maybe it was a really funny joke and you meant no harm but I know you to be a bit more astute than to be completely oblivious to how a dig here and a dig there might play out. And you probably know how to really annoy an enlightened guy if you felt like it, since you spent so much time around Rama.( Just kidding!) > > > > Bottom line is that no one can "bully" you without your cooper- > > > ation. If you choose to feel "small and hurt" instead of just > > > shrugging it off and getting on with your life, then you're > > > not only cooperating with the supposed bully, you're in a > > > co-dependent relationship with them. > > > > I think you are mistaken. There is the doer in everything. > > If the doer, the instigator, chooses to retaliate toward, > > hurt, undermine and terrify someone that is not because > > the recipient of those actions is cooperating. That is like > > arguing that someone was able to shoot you because you > > allowed them to. > > Let's bring it down to a more concrete example, shall we? > > Let's take something that *most* people would see as a > classic instance of bullying -- yelling at someone in a > public place (possibly even up on a stage in front of > their peers) and telling them that they were possessed > by demons. You've heard of this happening, right? It absolutely could be construed as bullying, given a certain kind of confrontation, they were all different. Not only have I heard of it, smart guy, I was there (surprise!) > > If that had, say, happened to you, do you think that you > shared NO co-dependent responsibility for the obvious > bullying? Let's see co-dependent, we'll check our handy dictionary here just to make sure we are on the same page: "noun - excessive emotional or psychological reliance on a partner, typically a partner who requires support due to an illness or addiction." OK, we can both agree we will eliminate the addiction part. I know you will want to keep in the "illness" part but let's, for the sake of simplicity eliminate that too. So we are left with, "emotional or psychological reliance." No, upon reflection, I wouldn't define myself as codependent but I would agree to take full responsibility for being in the room, walking to the mic and staying there to let Robin have his say. > > MOST people on the planet would never have allowed the > bully to get that far in the first place. They would have > laughed at them the first time this happened to someone > else in their presence, and walked away. Barry, you have already defined Robin as a bully. I haven't established that yet as being true nor have you made a convincing case for it. You just wrote it and assume it is true. I am not saying it is not but you can't just say it and make it so. Give me a little more evidence here. > > > On some level you were in the wrong place at the wrong time > > but I don't think "allowing" (other than in some cosmic, > > unknowable sense) enters into that. The shooter probably > > had an intention but usually the victim didn't knowingly > > cooperate to get into the direct line of the bullet. > > But YOU *did* knowingly cooperate with Robin as he did > this, right? Does that make his actions any less bullying, > or more so? I very knowingly and willingly stood on the stage and let Robin do anything he wanted to. But because you haven't made a case for how and in what form his bullying took place I can't answer the rest of your question. I will take a crack at giving you an answer and would say that since I was a willing participant, knew what a confrontation was, what it likely entailed and what was generally expected of me then I would have to say Robin was not a bully. I was asking for him to do what he did. > > > It works the same with words. Bullying comes with an intention > > by the doer. The receiver gets hit. > > Now you're sounding like Judy. The problem with what you're > saying, Ann, is that *you NEVER KNOW the doer's intention*. > EVER. You just think you do. I don't have to know the doers intention because there is an end result. The result lies in the realm of my experience and feeling. If I end up feeling lousy, beaten, undermined and worth a pinch of coon shit then chances are I might have been bullied. At least abused. Can a bully and an abuser be the same thing? I think so. > > The more you act AS IF you "know" what someone's intention > is in saying or doing something, the less likely you have > a clue. IMO, of course. How many of us really care what the doer's intention was as we limp away and crawl into a hole for a while? It is irrelevant in that moment. What the doer's intention was is their responsibility and they will reap the results of that. It is not that one wouldn't try and evaluate in those moments when the shit starts to hit the fan where that person is coming from but ultimately, what really matters for the "victim" is that they feel bad. You can't control what others decide to do and say, You can only determine what you are going to do about with regard to your own actions and reactions. I don't think the more you think you know something the less you know it, by the way. (Your last statement.) > > > Now how you FEEL about that bullying is another matter. Here > > I agree with you. You can choose, to some greater or lesser > > degree, to let it affect you. You can try and laugh it off, > > ignore it, argue that the bullier is a jerk but that doesn't > > change the fact that someone acted in some reprehensible, > > power playing way in order to belittle and damage the other > > person. Of course, that is not the bullied person's karmic > > problem, the bullier will ultimately pay. But that is a > > subject for another time. >
