Psychopathy as "Bullying"
- Thread starter Yossarian
- Start date
atreides said:
Yes, its the law of the jungle. Might means right. Youve learned your lesson there.
atreides said:
Yeah, people should be allowed to act like demons without being seen as demons.
atreides said:
So we cant even blame people for the pain that they purposly try to cause? Bullying is designed to cause pain. If i try to cause you pain, and you blame me for causing that pain, that´s scapegoating?
Hello gvc37,
As a new member here, we recommend you post an introduction to the forum in the Newbies section. I have also posted replies to your comments below
It seems you have misunderstood the main crux of what atreides was attempting to explain. Your two replies above come across as sarcastic and, as such, really don't add anything of value to the discussion of bullying. Their are better ways to communicate your position without it. What, IMO, atreides was trying to explain above is that, even for the person who is bullied, it is beneficial to try to understand the underlying reasons for why people bully others. In the context of this forum and its stated goals/guidelines (which you should have read before joining), looking for alternate ways to understand bullying apart from demonizing is beneficial to coming to a better view on human psychology and stops the victim from focusing so strongly on their experience that it stops them from doing anything other than casting aspersions on their bully without trying to see why a bully does what he does. Bullies aren't, generally, demons who should be cast to the fire-y gates of hell but also people with issues that need to be understood.
That is an entirely too simplistic way of looking at it. Atreides is talking about understanding the bully, in order to help himself and others understand why it happens. Scapegoating, in this context, is focused on the self. By merely blaming, hating, and having unresolved anger about an experience is not going to help the self heal from such an experience. If one does not come to a more objective understanding of the causes and motivations behind bullying then one is perpetually stuck in a negative loop of emotions which provides no healing and merely provides an outlet for the individual to express their negative emotions. This is how the person who is bullied becomes the bully. What atreides was suggesting was an alternate way to deal with bullying in order to stop that transformation. It certainly makes sense why someone would feel righteous in their anger and scapegoating, but it is not beneficial to anyone to actually be that way, even if it feels totally right. This, IMHO, is what atreides was trying to communicate in his post that you, IMO, found so offensive.
As a new member here, we recommend you post an introduction to the forum in the Newbies section. I have also posted replies to your comments below
gvc37 said:
It seems you have misunderstood the main crux of what atreides was attempting to explain. Your two replies above come across as sarcastic and, as such, really don't add anything of value to the discussion of bullying. Their are better ways to communicate your position without it. What, IMO, atreides was trying to explain above is that, even for the person who is bullied, it is beneficial to try to understand the underlying reasons for why people bully others. In the context of this forum and its stated goals/guidelines (which you should have read before joining), looking for alternate ways to understand bullying apart from demonizing is beneficial to coming to a better view on human psychology and stops the victim from focusing so strongly on their experience that it stops them from doing anything other than casting aspersions on their bully without trying to see why a bully does what he does. Bullies aren't, generally, demons who should be cast to the fire-y gates of hell but also people with issues that need to be understood.
gvc37 said:
That is an entirely too simplistic way of looking at it. Atreides is talking about understanding the bully, in order to help himself and others understand why it happens. Scapegoating, in this context, is focused on the self. By merely blaming, hating, and having unresolved anger about an experience is not going to help the self heal from such an experience. If one does not come to a more objective understanding of the causes and motivations behind bullying then one is perpetually stuck in a negative loop of emotions which provides no healing and merely provides an outlet for the individual to express their negative emotions. This is how the person who is bullied becomes the bully. What atreides was suggesting was an alternate way to deal with bullying in order to stop that transformation. It certainly makes sense why someone would feel righteous in their anger and scapegoating, but it is not beneficial to anyone to actually be that way, even if it feels totally right. This, IMHO, is what atreides was trying to communicate in his post that you, IMO, found so offensive.
Buddy
The Living Force
Hi gvc37. You may want to consider if this is the center of gravity of your thoughts:
Not always. Remember there is always a point of view and missing information. For example, I happened to have been observing a group of playing kids when one of the kids jumped up and started yelling and threatening another while the one who was being threatened 'cowered' at the affront. The playground attendant stepped in and made the vocal child go into the house.
What I had observed included the fact that the other child had been calling the "bully" names, slapping the "bully's" hand away from every toy he tried to reach for while occasionally glancing toward the attendant as if to keep from being caught.
Who might have been the real bully here, and does it even seem to matter?
Not always. Remember there is always a point of view and missing information. For example, I happened to have been observing a group of playing kids when one of the kids jumped up and started yelling and threatening another while the one who was being threatened 'cowered' at the affront. The playground attendant stepped in and made the vocal child go into the house.
What I had observed included the fact that the other child had been calling the "bully" names, slapping the "bully's" hand away from every toy he tried to reach for while occasionally glancing toward the attendant as if to keep from being caught.
Who might have been the real bully here, and does it even seem to matter?
Buddy
The Living Force
Brunauld said:
It seems to be a matter of perspective and definition, however, I would say no as far as the question would relate to me, because my intent would be to "defend or stop" rather than to hurt or assert a dominating control over someone.
Saying it in martial arts terms, I would use Aikido rather than Bruce Lee's death punch (although "Wing Chun" is my favorite). :D
It might be interesting to note that almost everywhere anti-bullying programs have been institutionalized, the bullying problem has gotten worse or hasn't improved in proportion to the investment. Few people seem to objectively understand how to define the issue, let alone how to investigate it; probably because it would require them to see a bit of themselves in that mirror.
Side note FWIW: the toys were property of the daycare center and in the conventional social paradigm, children are required to share.
---------------------------------------------
Edit: sentence structure and addition
I think the way to look at the Martial Arts training/discipline and techniques is that it's a street weapon, pure and simple, and the discipline is learning how to always keep a cool head and develop control over oneself, being able to properly read someones intent (along with objective self knowledge and reading one's own) and learn how to not use it unless absolutely necessary and only unless someone comes at you with intent to do serious harm. At that point you defend yourself fully, with no doubts, and then the martial arts training/discipline is simply 'unleashed' into the opponent to win and prevail in the fight. In some circumstances, if at all possible, the martial artist will signal his intent to the attacker that he does not want trouble and will jump back into a fighting stance and yell with a very piercing battle cry, warning the opponent that although he does not want a fight he will fight vigorously to the very end to defend himself and that he will win and for the opponent to come no closer or there's going to be hell to pay. If one is jumped then there won't be time to do that of course, one must simply move fiercely into immediate action with one's training to defend oneself.
