The right way to stop a bully
I doubt that little prick will be bullying anyone for a long time. I also don't think anyone is going to pick on the big kid again. Unfortunately he got suspended from school, but hopefully he'll wear that as a badge of honor.
[LIVELEAK]6d6_1300111637[/LIVELEAK]
[YOUTUBE]B_FQ_SYFXgY[/YOUTUBE]And the fanboy music remix.
This has been all over the news here. It's a private school in Sydney. I've been interested in the reactions of the teenagers I know. Most of them seem pretty impressed with the big guy.
I hope it's a lesson to bullies.
It is unfortunate the skinny prick's leg is broken but maybe just maybe he'll think twice before picking on someone else. The big kid did the right thing.
Both of them should have been suspended ,
Little prick got a broke leg ??
GOOD he deserved it !!
Ive been in the big guys place a few times ,
generally all it takes is 1 GOOD show of force ,
Got sent Home ,
Next day a Meeting with My Mom and the Principle ,
With My Mom "YELLING So He cant DEFEND HIS SELF ???!!!
Im going to Press charges !!!"
It was a Bluff ,
But the small packs of smaller kids Learned to leave me ALONE !
Unfortunately, a lot of time it's the big kid picking on the little kid. Not as easy to fight back, then.
Unfortunately, a lot of time it's the big kid picking on the little kid. Not as easy to fight back, then.
I don't see that so much ...now or then. I see/saw fat kids being picked on. And they don't usually fight back -for a plethora of reasons. It's the little smart guys who feel they have something to prove. I eventually "karate-kicked" my bully in the stomach and bruised her badly. I avoided suspension because I had a broken arm at the time and pointed out that there's no way someone my size with an arm in a plaster cast and sling could have done that. Sometimes being flexible and a fat, bullied nerd works in your favor ;)
Unfortunately, a lot of time it's the big kid picking on the little kid. Not as easy to fight back, then.
In my experience, it's usually the weedy little kids that do the bullying. Small man syndrome or whatever you want to call it, but they just seem like they're over compensating for their lack of height.
Of course, there are some big boys that like to do a bit of bullying too, and their come-uppance usually doesn't happen till the other kids catch up.
It wont happen over night, but it will happen.
I think little Napoleon syndrome says "I'll kick your ass!" as he attempts to stand up on his obliterated leg.
Serves him right. Skinny lil' punk. The smallest runts can be the boldest.
The big kid should have pulled out his piece and shot the little fucker in the head.
The big kid should have pulled out his piece and shot the little fucker in the head.
:lol:
Seriously. Little short-tempered short-guy-syndrome fuck!
I love how the big kid did what he had to do and just walked away. I abhor violence, but you know, it only takes the one "quit fucking with me" moment.
Nothing will shut up a bully faster than a good, old fashioned ass-stomping.
Nothing will shut up a bully faster than a good, old fashioned ass-stomping.
Or a gun. Don't forget a gun.
Oh, well the gun was a given...
I am very uncomfortable watching a child have his leg broken.
If I hadn't known that fact I might not be so squeamish.
I think children should be taught that brute force is not an appropriate response
When they are pushed beyond endurance it is certainly understandable, but the least they can do is make sure the response is appropriate.
There have been many international situations where a pile-driver has been used to crack a nut. We should be teaching children that this is not something to be celebrated. You don't break the leg of a yappy dog - that's jusy cruel. Why have a lesser value for a human?
I think that brute force was entirely appropriate.
Sorry I am with Sundae on this one. I totally understand the kid's response. I sympathis entirely. I've been in a similar situation to some earlier posters: having been bullied relentlessly by a pack of girls,led by one in particular (who'd fucking followed me from primary/junior school!) I kicked the crap out of her in the middle of our fourth form art class. Made her cry, snapped her necklace, humiliated her in front of her friends. I'll be honest. It felt good. really good.
But I still should not have done it. I completely lost control. Absolute blind rage. It worked. I wasn't bullied again in school, ever, by anyone. Total, uncontrolled rage as a means to achieve what I wanted ? Not a good lesson to learn.
Now I am not saying that the kid in the video was in an uncontrolled rage. Clearly he wasn't. But he does need to understand the potential for his strength to harm someone else.
What I find really disturbing about this thread is the righteous anger, or even glee over what is essentially a child, most likely a troubled child, being harmed. Harmed because of his own actions maybe. Brought it on himself, certainly. A child, being harmed by another child.
The 14 year old kid buried (not so very) deep in my mind does a double-take. Part of me is cheering the worm that turned. But part of me is wondering wtf is going on in the little lad's mind. And all of me winces at the very thought that I am watching his bone break.
What if that was your kid? It isn't just the kids of bad parents and broken homes who do that shit you know? Good kids, from loving families can go off the rails. Can start bullying others. Can feel powerless for whatever reason and start acting out. How the fuck would you feel if we were sitting here pronouncing awesome justice as your child rolls in pain?
The answer: I don't tolerate bullshit from my children. When they are harmed as a result of their own actions I am not sympathetic. It is more important to me that they learn how to behave properly than for them to "feel good" all the time and never experience anything unpleasant that might force them to, you know, GROW as individuals.
So how would I feel if the little shit was my child? After seeing that behavior, there would be a serious day of reckoning. I will take the child to get his leg looked at by a doctor, but I will be goddamned if there is one ounce of visible sympathy he will be able to detect in my terrible visage.
Feel good?
Broken leg. That's a hell of a punishment for acting up.
Either way. I still find the tenor of this discussion frankly disturbing.
We are grown ups. Crowing about a schoolboy fight where a child's leg gets broken.
It is not about the age of individuals. Project into the future, that little shit is a guy you get into a road rage incident with. If he causes his own car to wreck, or ends up getting pulled over by the police, yes, we would drive a away laughing. "Serves him right" knows no age limits.
If my kid acted that way towards his peers, I'd break his leg myself (or at least tan his hide a fair bit). There is no way I'd put up with that sort of behaviour from any of my kids, and I'm with Flint on this. There'd be no sympathy from me if they happened to get their comuppence.
You might say this is just theoretical, but it's not. My boys have all taken their knocks over things they shouldn't have done and they've had to suck it up with nothing more than concern over the immediate injury from me and a big fat, "I hope you've learned your lesson since my warnings weren't enough for you".
They hold their own, but they're not bullies and that's all I expect from them. I wouldn't condone them breaking another child's leg, but I certainly wouldn't censure them if I knew they'd been the victim of bullying. Children should feel that it's ok to stand up for themselves, and ultimately, we all know that telling someone in authority that you're being bullied rarely, if ever has a positive outcome.
eta: When Aden and Mav moved school once, the smart mouth little bully taunted them on their way home for weeks calling them 'nigger' because of their dark skin. They and I made complaints to the school about it but it continued until Aden snotted the kid, after which the potty mouth magically closed.
It isn't the fact that he broke the kid's leg I have a most trouble with. It's the fact it's on youtube, and we're watching it and finding some kind of entertainment in it, taking pleasure in seeing this justice meted out.
There were times, as a child that I caused situations in which I got hurt/injured. Had my mum responded with I told you so, or serves you right, I'd have been devastated. Unless you're a complete moron, some part of you will know that you did that to yourself and take the lesson anyway. Maybe when the dust had settled it might have come up. But the idea that I could come to physical harm and my parent respond with any kind of a lack of sympathy just does not compute for me.
I am stepping out of this thread now before I end up really pissing someone off.
From and Australian perspective - and I'm sure the other aussies will correct me if I've got it wrong - the reason this thing has gone viral is because bullying is a big issue at schools, and it seems to me that the PC way of dealing with the situation is simply ineffective. If a bully knows that the worst thing to happen is suspension or expulsion, then often they don't care. And even more wrongly, the victim is often told to just ignore it. Yes a lot of bullying issues can be traced back to previous trauma of some kind but not all, and even if they are, it doesn't give one kid the right to villify another just because they feel like it.
eta: I don't know if I'd call it 'crowing' over the kid getting what's been coming to him, but certainly people have a right to express how they feel about it. Personally, I feel sorry his leg is broken, but I don't feel sorry that he was taken down a peg. We all have to learn that there's always going to be someone stronger or faster or smarter or whatever in life. Some just need the lesson in black and white.
Maybe beside the point but lookout is the only reference I've found to a broken leg. I would be surprised if it was more than a bruised ankle. He gets up and limps around on it. Either he's part pit bull or he just got a smacked leg/ankle.
And Dana, you probably saved that girl a lifetime of being an asshole. Yeah, 2 minutes in the penalty box for a hormonal rollercoaster teen who lost control of her emotions once. How can you live with yourself? Jeez, I hope you can learn to forgive your self for being normal. As Griff said, be genlte with yourself, the world won't be. (or summat, innit?)
Oh I am not beating myself up (pardon the pun) over it. Vicky and I ended up being quite good friends afterwards.
Which is how I know what was making her such a bitch. The fact is our school was failing in their duty to safeguard me (we are talking very serious bullying), but they had also abysmally failed to pick up on the fact that Vicky was in complete crisis and was in greater need of safeguarding than I was.
I don't agree with Dana or Sundae here, kids on the whole are vicious little pack animals and it's all very well puting adult analogous to how kids should act,but we all know kids don't think like adults.
They cannot link actions with consequences, I have two Daughters both now grown up but the hassle my wife and I had with other girls picking on them was horrendous.
The school had a policy to deal with bullying but it was useless.
I was only bullied once at school and I found a swift kick in the nuts of anyone that tried usually concentrated their minds, there's an old Scottish saying which is right for the little guy that started the shit
Hell mind him.
Violence is never the answer, unless the question is "what is never the answer?" :haha:
Seriously, I am with Dana and Sundae on this. I don't blame the kid for his response either, but he did have other choices. They might not have worked as immediately, but one punch can kill a person/kid. What if he had accidentally knocked the kids head against that corner rather than just his leg? The kid needs to learn that there can be very very serious consequences for letting his temper loose, even if the other party "deserves it."
it's all very well puting adult analogous to how kids should act,but we all know kids don't think like adults.
.
Precisely my point. We are adults watching this. Why are we cheering on at the sidelines of a schoolyard fight? And seemingly revelling in a child getting his comeuppance?
MTP, I agree about the other options. I would never in a gazillion years suggest that I deserved to be bullied at school. Kids are cruel 'pack animals' as be-bop suggests, and it takes very little to bring you to a bully's attention, and that attention can be very focussed sometimes for years.
But I know, looking back, that I was not very socially adept around other kids. Early, smalller scale teasing in infant school had stunted what was initially quite normal socialisation, and been exacerbated by extended periods of absence. I didn't have the necessary tools and social skills at my disposal to bridge the distance.
There are other options when dealing with bullies. Some effective, some less so. Unfortunately they are not easily taught. But to sugget that violence is the 'right way' to deal with bullying is a dangerous lesson to learn and to teach. Soimetimes a violent response resolves the situation. Sometimes it simply feeds into a cycle. Sometimes it really does seem like the only rational response, and who knows, maybe that means in those cases it is. But with violent response always comes the potential for serious harm. As Moar said, what if the bully had been pushed and cracked his skull on the corner?
I remember reading reports of a guy, quite recently, who' punched another man for some inconsequential slight, causing to have a heart attack and die. He's now serving serious prison time, and a man is dead, because of a single punch.
Kids are a little animal in their instinctiveness, in their lack of understanding of consequence, the part of their brain that deals wiith that kind of future pacing, association and impulse control isn't fully developed until very late in the teens. But as adults we understand the potential consequences of violence.
but Dana, did you go on to be a person who used uncontrolled violence to resolve every problem? Did you learn that lesson from your experience? No.
Note so far the demographics of the naysayers. Young, childless, women. No disrespect intended, but maybe it's the parenting switch that turns this one on, not just our experiences with bullies aand psychology classes? I'm generally a "violence is not the answer" type person. I'm anti death penalty. But sometimes violence is the answer. If he'd've hit the kid with the camera, then I would agree with you. But he didn't, he just stopped the kid that was hitting him. Then he left. He didn't kick him into a gelatinous pulp. He defended himself and then walked away. And I bet that kid will never punch him or another kid in the face again. And I don't believe the big kid will go around smashing kids to the ground to get everything he wants. I could be wrong on that. But I'll bet not.
but Dana, did you go on to be a person who used uncontrolled violence to resolve every problem? Did you learn that lesson from your experience? No.
Note so far the demographics of the naysayers. Young, childless, women. No disrespect intended, but maybe it's the parenting switch that turns this one on, not just our experiences with bullies aand psychology classes? I'm generally a "violence is not the answer" type person. I'm anti death penalty. But sometimes violence is the answer. If he'd've hit the kid with the camera, then I would agree with you. But he didn't, he just stopped the kid that was hitting him. Then he left. He didn't kick him into a gelatinous pulp. He defended himself and then walked away. And I bet that kid will never punch him or another kid in the face again. And I don't believe the big kid will go around smashing kids to the ground to get everything he wants. I could be wrong on that. But I'll bet not.
Oh please. Because I am not a parent? It was my parent who taught me this attitude. On a personal level I can see being delighted that your child has hit back and stopped the bullying. But I know for a certainty that my Mum would find that video unpleasant if she heard that the lad had been hurt. And she is a parent.
It really pisses me off when people play that card. In a discussion on how to deal with the terrible twos, or teenaged tantrums? Sure, I know nothing. But whether or not violence is the riight response in any given situation is a different matter altogether. And the idea that being a parent is in itself a reason to view that clip differently just doesn't gel with what i know of friends and family who are parents.
Not every parent seeing that clip would share your view. And not every non-parent would share mine. Just because that's how it happens to break down in a conversation between a dozen people, doesn't mean any such thing. If it's the parenting that switches this on, then surely everyone not a 'nay sayer' must be a parent right?
Jesus H Fucking Christ. How dare you just lump us all together as the childless ones and therefore not privy to the great fucking transformation and therefore what? Wrong? Ignorant? Just don't get it because we haven't been 'switched on' yet?
Fuck. Now I really am insulted.
Dana, I don't want you to leave the thread. I appreciate what you are saying.
But I agree with monster. It may be one of the most trite-sounding clichés, but t here is no equivlent experience that can impart this knowledge. It's not a great conspiracy, but simply a logical condition.
There were times, as a child that I caused situations in which I got hurt/injured. Had my mum responded with I told you so, or serves you right, I'd have been devastated.
And this "devastation" would really, really cause you to PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION for once. This is called a "teachable moment" and as a parent you may only get ONE SHOT at having your child PAY ATTENTION to what you are saying. You don't squander it. Why is this necessary?
Unless you're a complete moron, some part of you will know that you did that to yourself and take the lesson anyway.
Because this is not true. As you have said in this very thread, the part of a child's brain that links actions to consequences is not fully physically developed until much later in life.
Maybe when the dust had settled it might have come up.
Nope, you'd be too late.
The child doesn't remember to attach ANY importance to what you are saying after you've soothed away the reality of the situation.
But the idea that I could come to physical harm and my parent respond with any kind of a lack of sympathy just does not compute for me.
Here is the reality of being a parent: if you care more about fuzzy wuzzy emotions than you do the child learning how to survive and act intelligently, then you are doing them a disservice. As a parent, you know that children do not have the experience to put "two and two together" in some situations, so it is YOUR JOB to make these connections for them.
NOT to be their "best friend" and NOT to make them "feel good" about everything. If you act stupidly, you SHOULD feel bad. As adults, we don't get a Santa Clause to "fix" things for us, so as a child, we shouldn't be taught that.
Then maybe you missed learning a lesson along the way, Dana.
It was just a thought/comment/observation, not a diagnosis. Look back, see if it's right before you go off on one. Maybe you protest a little too much here. I would not be ecstatic if that was my kid. But I wouldn't punish him. I'm not "lumping you all together". I'm noting that I disagree with people I generally agree with, and agreeing with those I often don't, and wondering why. It's a logic thing. It may have nothing to do with parenting at all. get a grip and stop smoking that stuff, it's imparing your faculties.
Yeah. A lot of theoretical ideas fly out the window when you actually have a child and see first hand how helpless and dependent on you they are for everything.
At least until they are old enough to go to fridge and get you another beer. <-- not even funny, but I had to put that in anyway.
At least until they are old enough to go to fridge and get you another beer. <-- not even funny, but I had to put that in anyway.
Is very funny to me :D
A lot of theoretical ideas fly out the window when you actually have a child ...
This is what I was trying to say, put more concisely.
"Knowing people who have kids" or whatever means a big, fat nothing. Live with the reality of having another human being's life in your hands, LITERALLY, day in day out, 24/7 for years and years on end. It's a little different than having a nephew or raising a fucking chihuahua.
If you don't like to hear this then you are shutting your ears to a logical, demonstrable reality.
BTW, wasn't it YOU that asked:
How the fuck would you feel if we were sitting here pronouncing awesome justice as your child rolls in pain?
I guess you didn't like the answer? Well next time don't try to "play that card" as you put it.
dumbass bully's mom wants an apology. The only apology she should get is as follows, "I am sorry you didn't teach your little ratfuck not to abuse other people. Barring that I am sorry you didn't teach him to at least wonder if the person he chooses to pick on can pummel him into oblivion."
Also, the rat didn't receive a broken leg, the site I saw this on had that incorrect. I now return you to your previous moral dilemma.
For me it starts and ends with a little douchebag biting off more than he can chew. He chose to step up and abuse another human being. It just so happens that other human was bigger, stronger, and tired of being fucked with. Happy ending in my opinion.
For me it starts and ends with a little douchebag biting off more than he can chew. He chose to step up and abuse another human being. It just so happens that other human was bigger, stronger, and tired of being fucked with. Happy ending in my opinion.
This.
The legend of Casey the Punisher (aka Casey Heynes) took a dramatic — and some would say disturbing — turn on Wednesday, as a notorious hackers group hijacked the 16-year-old’s school web site in protest of his suspension. The hacktivist group “Anonymous” has ~turned their guns on ~ the Australian school which suspended Casey Heynes for his role in the infamous bullying incident.
The moral of the story here is that you shouldn’t suspend a bullied kid unless you’re prepared to feel the wrath of the hacker community. Because most computer nerds were probably bullied when they were in school, they take this very personally.
Link
The little shit got what he deserved. How far would he have gone, had Casey not finally defended himself? What if it escalated till Casey got "really hurt"?
Keep poking a dog with a stick and eventually you'll get bit. Good for Casey. Hopefully good for the bully as well. Maybe he learned his lesson - FINALLY.
His mother apparently has not ...
But Gale's mother, Tina, says she and her family are the victims, now that the video has gone viral, and she says Heynes owes her family an apology.
"We don't need this posted everywhere," she told Australia's Seven Network on Wednesday. "I would like him to apologize."
Tina said she while was "shocked" at Ritchard's behavior, she didn't think he deserved to be slammed to the ground.
OH and by the way ...
Neither boy suffered serious injuries in the fight.
Read more: The bully doesn't have a chance in life. He does whatever he wants and his mommy defends him. We've all seen it. "Not MY boy, he's a perfect little angel." Exactly how he came to be what was depicted in the video. Wild children running around, you see them. I look at my nieces and remember my nephews when they were kids. Gee, I don't see them acting like assholes.
Casey needs to kick the shit out of mom, too. ;)
It's sad, all around.
Oh please. Because I am not a parent?
No, they're wrong. I'm an old, married father, and I agree that conflicts should be resolved without violence. I am not a barbarian.
I feel sorry for both these kids, with their full names and videos of them splashed up on the internet for the whole world to see forever. They are not celebrities. They deserve to be left alone. They are just kids.
These two will both be in their fifties, and a vanity Google search will still bring up this incident as a top hit. This incident will follow them both for the rest of their lives. Not fair.
Yeah, things sure are different. When Eddie Haskell picked on someone, it might get back to his parents, or even Ward...but it didn't become national news.
I don't consider myself violent either, Spexx. But I do know that kid wouldn't have been punching on me even that long. I can't fathom just taking it, though that's all godlike and stuff. There have been very few times I was pushed into the proverbial corner enough to defend myself, and I always felt bad after, but I'll be damned if someone gets to just pummel the fuck out of me for fun.
On an emotional level, it's satisfying to see the victim turn the tables. It's not so hard to see the metaphor - the big kid represents the huge American middle class, and the little one is the upper class just jab, jab, jabbing the middle class in the face, demanding that the middle class take on more tax burden, while laying them off and cutting their salaries and benefits. Then the middle class rises up and body slams the upper class. Yeah, that feels good.
But mature adults don't condone that behavior.
What I can't condone is a school that ignores bullying and then punishes the victim for fighting back.
Violence should be the last alternative. And I bet it was in this case.
If you want this kid to learn to handle problems without violence, you have to provide an environment in which that can occur.
He 'got what he deserved'.
He 'should have shot him'.
Maybe a happy medium would have been a knife in the lower abdomen?
There are some people with a serious lack of understanding of bulling here. Do you really teach that stuff to your own children?
These actions rarely stop bullys, indeed provoking a reaction is generally what they're after, they love it, it pretty much ensures you'll get it next time too - not the reverse.
The big guy's reaction was understandable and he shouldn't be punished but the smaller kid definitely should and whoever was holding the camera should get the same. If it was up to me everyone who stood by and did nothing when the smaller kid would get it too.
But mature adults don't condone that behavior.
No. Mature adults who live in a mythical land where calmly discussing our differences inevitably leads to conflict resolution and a healthy round of hugs don't condone that behavior.
The rest of us live in the real world where sometimes use of necessary and, in fact, desirable. I would much rather the little bully get jacked at this stage in his life and hopefully learn a lesson (doubtful with an apology seeking mother) rather than wait until he is older and the stakes and pain are much higher.
No. Mature adults who live in a mythical land where calmly discussing our differences inevitably leads to conflict resolution and a healthy round of hugs don't condone that behavior.
The rest of us live in the real world where sometimes use of necessary and, in fact, desirable. I would much rather the little bully get jacked at this stage in his life and hopefully learn a lesson (doubtful with an apology seeking mother) rather than wait until he is older and the stakes and pain are much higher.
Of course you say you would, because you're a tough guy wanna be. When you could have shot the guy in the coffee shop, you didn't. You kicked him like a little girl. Poser.
Yep, you got me nailed down. Damn, I guess I'll just sit here and diddle my wanna be self.
Of course, the example you just used is a perfect example of how things should go, imo. I used the appropriate level of force to stop the guy and then I stopped. I didn't skulltap him to show how awesome I am. Threat eliminated, problem solved. Of course, I didn't stow my weapon and give him a hug so I was prepared if the dumbass wanted to escalate the violence further.
Seems to me this kid did the same thing. He responded to provocation with an appropriate level of force, watched to make sure the threat was eliminated, then walked away.
But mature adults don't condone that behavior.
How do you think this should have gone and what would you expect the outcome to be?
Be specific.
You don't need to be overly specific. At this stage in the game we don't need the social security numbers for each of the government appointees you would like named to the commission to settle the differences between the boys.
That's usually what happens when you wade in with your smartass pseudointellectual quips and then someone asks what you would rather have happened. Bye bye.
I wasn't suggesting that I as an auntie, looking on have an insight into parenting. I was saying that that the parents I am closest to and know best (my mother, my brother and my SiL) would not find that video entertaining, or even salutary. They are parents and they would not share your view.
That's all I was saying. This isn't about parents having one view and non-parents having another view.
And I had plenty of lessons growing up. My mother was a wonderfulparent, and would absolutely have helped me draw lessons from those occasions. But she wouldn't do it in a way that lacked sympathy.
I'm not even suggesting that my parents didn't encourage me to fight back against bullies. On one occasion my Mum, at her wits end with me keep returning home from playing outside, in tears from being bullied by another kid (bizarrely also called Vicky) actually sent me out once to have a go back.
It isn't the fact that the kid fought back I have the biggest problem with. It's the fact it is plastered all over the internet where adults are taking pleasure in seeing it. It feels fundamentally wrong, to me, for us as adults to take any kind of satisfaction in a child getting hurt, no matter how much they brought it on themselves, and no matter what gutlevel joy we might have at the sight of a bullied kid striking back.
That's usually what happens when you wade in with your smartass pseudointellectual quips and then someone asks what you would rather have happened. Bye bye.
Cite, or go punch someone, tough-guy-wanna-be.
The fat kid did the right thing and more kids should do it. Someone needs to buy him an ice cream and give him a pat on the back.
Would you say the same thing had his piledrive move broken the other kid's neck?
Dana, to clarify, the only thing you've said that I have taken exception to was, to paraphrase "How would you feel if [the bully] was YOUR kid?"
My point, as regards this, is that as a parent your job is not to be sympathetic, but to be an arbiter of values and principles that your child needs to internalize in order to be an effective adult. I would ask you whether you think any important lesson you've ever learned in your life was "easy" or came at absolutely no cost? I would say, of course not. Life is hard. Hard lessons are what stick.
Ok, Flint. That's fair enough. I just don't see a need to have no sympathy along side the message is all. Maybe that's just a stylistic difference, I don't know. I also disagree that a parent shouldn't or can't also be the child's friend
My mother is and pretty much always has been my friend. There was no doubt in my mind as a kid that she was also In Charge. She was able to do The Look. That was enough most of the time. But honestly, if I really crossed a line and did something horrible, parental anger, from either mum or dad wasn't half so upsetting and impactful as disappointment. We weren't a discipline heavy household. Things were generally talked through, not dealt with in anger. Smacking just was not something we did. Same goes for my Brother's family. 'Punishment' simply doesn't happen. Never really has. That's just not the model my brother and his wiife work on. Their girls are incredibly well-adjusted. They are also good friends.
Not saying that way is right. Just saying that the punishment/enforced lesson model isn't the only way. And parental authority is not necessarily in conflict with friendship.
Who said anything about anger or punishment??? Not me. Who said anything about "smacking" a child? Who said anything about not being friends with your children? Where are you getting all this?
As an adult, do you want your friends to tap-dance around uncomfortable truths? Why wouldn't you respect a child with the same honesty and forthrightness that you expect?
NOT to be their "best friend"
Who said anything about not being friends with your children? Where are you getting all this?
Honestly not meaning to be legalistic when I point out that you've posted two clearly different things.
Who said anything about anger or punishment??? Not me. Who said anything about "smacking" a child? Who said anything about not being friends with your children? Where are you getting all this?
As an adult, do you want your friends to tap-dance around uncomfortable truths? Why wouldn't you respect a child with the same honesty and forthrightness that you expect?
Who said anything about tapdancing around uncomfortable truths? Who said anything about not respecting a child with honesty and forthrightness? If anything I am saying the opposite.
As an adult, if you've ƒucked up, sympathy is not going to be constructive--it is going to be DEstructive to your progress as an individual. If you think your "friends" are people who would coddle you and make every effort to make you "feel good" about the situation rather than being concerned with the lesson you need to take away, then I guess you might miss that this would be doubly destructive to a child who is forming the values and principles that will need to last them a lifetime. From this, where you get "anger, punishment, and smacking" I haven't the foggiest notion.
Being friends with someone means respecting what will be best for their well-being.
As to your ORIGINAL QUESTION regarding being the parent of the little shithead bully, if you think he needs "sympathy" then you are speaking from some kind of bizarro world that I can't even conceptualize.
I think your definition of sympathy and mine may be slightly different. I'm not talking about cuddling and making them 'feel good' about the situation. Lessons can come in many forms and sympathy for the hurt need not negate the lesson, it can at times be the best route into talking through why something has happened.
Actually, much of this is because of your earlier post, which I have just reread. I am not sure if you edited it, or if I just misread it the first time, but what it says is that you would not let sympathy show on your face. That's somewhat different to not feeling sympathy, which is what I thought you'd said.
From the dictionary:
the feeling of being sorry for somebody; showing that you understand and care about somebody's problems
from wiki
Sympathy is a social affinity in which one person stands with another person, closely understanding his or her feelings. Also known as empathic concern, it is the feeling of compassion or concern for another, the wish to see them better off or happier. Although empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably, a subtle variation in ordinary usage can be detected. To empathize is to respond to another's perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort.[1] Sympathy not only includes empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non-fleeting concern for the other person.[2]
There are ways of showing sympathy that aren't about making that person feel good. Showing concern, wanting them to be happier yes. But not cuddling them and making it all go away, that's not what I am tallking about at all. Making them hapier would presumably include exploring the whys and hows of what went on, and showing that you understand them, and that the lesson learned is enough.
Also, really, if i have fucked up, the person I go to for sympathy and honesty is my best friend J. Not so he can say 'there there it's all better', but so he can grimace in recognition of where I am at and drink a beer with me. He'll tell me I brought it on myself, but he'll say that in a sympathetic way. In much the same way I do with him when he's fucked up. He doesn't need to underline the lesson for me. I don't need to underline the lesson for him.
Oh, and as to the smacking issue: sorry, I realise you never said anything about hitting your kids. I was responding more generally to what's been said in the thread by other posters. Was a bit of tangent i know, but seemed relevant in terms of varying styles of getting a lesson across is all.
I think your definition of sympathy and mine may be slightly different. (Hot monkey sex) I'm not talking about cuddling and making them 'feel good' about the situation. Lessons can come in many forms (Hot monkey sex) and sympathy for the hurt need not negate the lesson, it can at times be the best route into talking through why something has happened.
Actually, much of this is because of your earlier post, which I have just reread. I am not sure if you edited it, or if I just misread it the first time, but what it says is that you would not let sympathy show on your face. That's somewhat different to not feeling sympathy, which is what I thought you'd said.
From the dictionary:
from wiki
There are ways of showing sympathy that aren't about making that person feel good. (Hot monkey sex) Showing concern, wanting them to be happier, (Hot monkey sex) yes. But not cuddling them and making it all go away, that's not what I am tallking about at all. Making them hapier would presumably include (Hot monkey sex) exploring the whys and hows of what went on, and showing that you understand them, and that the lesson learned is enough.
Also, really, if i have fucked up, the person I go to for (Hot monkey sex) sympathy and honesty is my best friend J. Not so he can say 'there there it's all better', but so he can grimace in recognition of where I am at (Hot monkey sex) and drink a beer with me. He'll tell me I brought it on myself, but he'll say that in a sympathetic way. In much the same way I do (Hot monkey sex) with him when he's fucked up. He doesn't need to underline the lesson for me. I don't need to underline the lesson for him.
I may be wrong, but I think your post is moderately improved, if less sincere, by these minor edits.
*grins*
There isnt much in life that can't be improved by adding hot monkey sex.
It occurs to me as I watch and listen to and participate in discussions about this incident both online and irl, that while the footage might be brutal and quite hard for some to watch, it has opened up a social discourse about the true issues some kids are facing every day.
It might be unpleasant and it might be offensive even, but if we continue to view this issue as something periferal and 'not real' kids will still be bullied.
Whether you agree with any of the choices and decisions and actions of any of the stakeholders in this incident, we all must surely be aware that it's a good thing that the issue has been brought out into the open for all of us to not only address the rights and wrongs of the stakeholders, but also to consider what we personally should be doing to safeguard our children - either as victims or bullies - from similar outcomes.
Eric Holder the Racist strikes again!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/18/doj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck/
Here is the catch. DOJ will only investigate bullying cases if the victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. In essence, only discrimination against a victim’s race, sex, national origin, disability, or religion will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider himself invisible to the Justice Department.
Does the DOJ have any legal grounds to investigate any cases that don't fall under the civil rights act? I don't think so, until congress passes a law against bullying. But we'll just blame Obama anyway, because that's the plan the
real bullies have for America.
Cite, or go punch someone, tough-guy-wanna-be.
OK, I spent the whole weekend punching a clown. I figured that would give you enough time to answer Pete Zicato's question. How you coming on that? In case you forgot I'll repost his question.
How do you think this should have gone and what would you expect the outcome to be?
Be specific.
Now on a more serious note Spexx I think you misunderstand the motivation behind the thread and some of the comments. I don't take any pleasure in someone's pain. I very much support and give a huge shout out to anyone who finally realizes they don't have to take that shit or live in fear. In this case I recognize and am pleased for the boy who has decided enough is enough and chooses to stop being a victim. I also support life lessons that can benefit all involved at a young age. In this case the former victim learned a lesson but hopefully the bully did as well. Hopefully he will realize that other people aren't there to make him feel like billy bigboots. Hopefully in the future he will choose not to pick on others he perceives to be weaker than himself.
Sometimes lessons are painful but the pain involved is not the source of enjoyment but merely a catalyst for change.
OK, I spent the whole weekend punching a clown. I figured that would give you enough time to answer Pete Zicato's question. How you coming on that? In case you forgot I'll repost his question.
This is how that works: I post a specific, and you strawman argue it to death. I'm not going there. Like UT, I tire of this.
Now on a more serious note Spexx I think you misunderstand the motivation behind the thread and some of the comments. I don't take any pleasure in someone's pain. I very much support and give a huge shout out to anyone who finally realizes they don't have to take that shit or live in fear. In this case I recognize and am pleased for the boy who has decided enough is enough and chooses to stop being a victim. I also support life lessons that can benefit all involved at a young age. In this case the former victim learned a lesson but hopefully the bully did as well. Hopefully he will realize that other people aren't there to make him feel like billy bigboots. Hopefully in the future he will choose not to pick on others he perceives to be weaker than himself.
Sometimes lessons are painful but the pain involved is not the source of enjoyment but merely a catalyst for change.
Timothy McVeigh felt that the incidences at Ruby Ridge and Whitby Island were the US government bullying him and his kind. So he retaliated using violence, and blew up the Murrah Building. Osama Bin Laden felt that the US was bullying Muslims, so he arranged to have some jets flown into some buildings on American soil.
You can behave like McVeigh or Bin Laden. I will behave like Gandhi or MLK.
Yes, Flint, this is hyperbole. Sometimes hyperbole is useful in getting a point across.
Another way to look at it is this: if the video had instead shown the little kid punching the victim, and then a hall monitor marches up, grabs the bully by the scruff of the neck, and paddles him soundly but calmly before sending him to detention, most people's reaction would be different. We might nod in satisfaction, or even smirk, but no one would be particularly cheering. Because we're not celebrating the fact that the bully was injured, or even humiliated--we're celebrating the victim overcoming his fear, and becoming a more confident person. It's joy for the victim, not vengefulness against the bully.
Another important thing to note is that if (in some magical fairy tale land) this school actually were to enact corporal punishment, it still wouldn't be as effective as this one small display you see in the video. The bully very well might redouble his torture of the victim after being paddled by a hall monitor, because that's how power hierarchies work: you can't retaliate against the power above you, so you take it out on those below you. It's the reason why kids who are beaten at home often become bullies in the first place. The lesson that the bully is not above this kid at school, and that any other supposedly weak kid might punch back at any given time, you never know--that's a far stronger lesson than "the hall monitor might punish me... so I'd better not get caught."
after someone punched you in the face twice, you would let him hit you a third time? really?
No, I wouldn't.
Spexx you are avoiding the issue. What would you see instead? What do you think the big kid should have done? He ignored it the first time. And the second. It didn't get him very far, did it?
And yes, there is a difference. This victim's behaviour is instant retaliation/response, no premeditation. If he had waited until the next day to attack the little squirt, that would be an entirely different scenario. Like McVeigh and Bin Laden.
after someone punched you in the face twice, you would let him hit you a third time? really?
I know you're talking to Spexx, but to answer for myself... I certainly wouldn't now. But I did as a kid. A third time and many more after that. And nothing ever improved, even after the school intervened on behalf of me and several other students she was going after. I wish to God someone had just taken me aside and said, "Punch her in the face. Just one time, as hard as you can, square in the middle. You will get in a little bit of trouble, and you will have to accept that, but it will make her stop, and you know that's more important than any punishment the school will hand out to you." And I have every intention of saying something similar to my children when the time comes.
This is how that works: I post a specific, and you strawman argue it to death. I'm not going there. Like UT, I tire of this.
Timothy McVeigh felt that the incidences at Ruby Ridge and Whitby Island were the US government bullying him and his kind. So he retaliated using violence, and blew up the Murrah Building. Osama Bin Laden felt that the US was bullying Muslims, so he arranged to have some jets flown into some buildings on American soil.
You can behave like McVeigh or Bin Laden. I will behave like Gandhi or MLK.
Yes, Flint, this is hyperbole. Sometimes hyperbole is useful in getting a point across.
I'm fairly certain that McVeigh didn't come running out of his house after seeing the news coverage of Ruby Ridge or Whitby Island and take the fight to the government. Rather, he hid in a basement, hatched a plot, bought supplies, and then murdered innocent people completely unattached to either grievance.
Good old Osama tried to blow up a building to make a political statement. Not the White House, Capitol Building or Supreme Court, not even a military base, instead he tried to blow up a commercial building filled with an international hodgepodge of people. That didn't work so years later he came back with planes. Statement made. "Fuck you America"
Neither situation even remotely correlates with a kid standing still and taking punches and then deciding he'd had enough before
immediately repulsing the attack, downing his attacker, ensuring he wouldn't be attacked again, and walking away
I have great respect for Ghandi and MLK, and I respect your right to behave in that manner when you are presented with the opportunity. It might be important to remember though that if we all felt and behaved as you suggest we would all be at the mercy of the thugs and bullies because
no one would be there to slap them down.
MLK and Gandhi were able to use non-violent protests to bring social change upon their society but these protest movements are only successful under certain conditions. If a non-violent movement against Hitler started in the late 1930's (or any brutal dictator for that matter) I really doubt they would have have enjoyed the same amount of success.
Dealing with bullies works in a similar fashion. Using non-violent methods will work under certain conditions but will fail in others. If talking to teachers and parents have not stopped the bullying, sometimes a fight in the next best option.
Dealing with bullies works in a similar fashion. Using non-violent methods will work under certain conditions but will fail in others. If talking to teachers and parents have not stopped the bullying, sometimes a fight in the next best option.
I agree. We don't know what steps were taken before this clip.
I agree. We don't know what steps were taken before this clip.
Then I imagine you're actually in agreement with most people here. Earlier you said "conflicts should be resolved without violence" and "mature adults don't condone that behavior," neither of which implies room for a last-resort option of fighting.
I know you're talking to Spexx, but to answer for myself... I certainly wouldn't now. But I did as a kid. A third time and many more after that. And nothing ever improved, even after the school intervened on behalf of me and several other students she was going after. I wish to God someone had just taken me aside and said, "Punch her in the face. Just one time, as hard as you can, square in the middle. You will get in a little bit of trouble, and you will have to accept that, but it will make her stop, and you know that's more important than any punishment the school will hand out to you." And I have every intention of saying something similar to my children when the time comes.
This is why when mrs. foot tells the kids "we don't hit" I take them aside and say "yes we do, and here's how to throw a punch and here's where to hit them. but we don't
usually hit first."
It's really hard to say what you might do in that kid's position. The adrenaline that hits you might well change your opinion, spexx. Intellectually, it's correct and easy to say that violence is never the answer. And then someone hits you in the mouth.
It's a unique scenario. He's clearly much larger than his tormentor, and stronger. You usually don't see this played out this way. Also, the way the smaller kid was behaving made me think that he had been doing this for a while. I don't think it was the first time he had picked on the larger kid. He had become bold, it would seem. And the big kid finally had enough.
I had a smaller kid (my best childhood friend) hit me in the face once. He got scared and ran away as soon as he did it, and stayed out of reach long enough to let me cool down and apologize over and over. I never hit him back. Had he stood there and tried to give me 3, I am pretty certain I would have acted similarly to the way that this kid did.... actually, I started toward Dan after the first shot....
Australian School 'Bully' -- I'm Not Sorry!
[YOUTUBE]rqX3uUj8w3Y[/YOUTUBE]
I keep coming back to the same questions ... Why was this on video?
Did anyone ask the person who shot it?
It seemed premeditated to me.
I agree that conflicts should be resolved without violence. I am not a barbarian.
But mature adults don't condone that behavior.
I will behave like Gandhi or MLK.
The big kid should have pulled out his piece and shot the little fucker in the head.
Sometime's I think he just says something weird to get a reaction. Fishing. That's my take on it. For whatever reason, there is a lack of subtly to be sure.
You show an amazing lack of understanding sarcasm.
Yeah, it's hard to detect when your quotes are snatched and then scattered all out of order and stuff. Somebody must work for Faux News. :lol:
Then I imagine you're actually in agreement with most people here. .
The sense that I got from most people posting in this thread is that they celebrate and endorse children being violent. I am not in agreement with those people.
Yeah, it's hard to detect when your quotes are snatched and then scattered all out of order and stuff. Somebody must work for Faux News. :lol:
It's like classic has never read a post of mine.
You show an amazing lack of understanding sarcasm.
Its willful, I do believe.
Yeah, it's hard to detect when your quotes are snatched and then scattered all out of order and stuff.
I clicked one out of order. Crucifixion worthy.
You show an amazing lack of understanding sarcasm.
Yeh its me - Where was the sarcasm? I'm sure that it took you 30 posts to later change your tune. Whatever.
Its willful, I do believe.
Shawnee - check
Spexxie - check
Pico & me - check
Only one missing. Not bad for one post in under 2 hours as well.
Go team! :thumb:
I dunno, classic,... It WAS pretty clear that spex was being ironic when he said the big kid should have busted a cap in his ass.
I don't think people are celebrating violence. I, in particular would be celebrating the bigger kid's confidence to stand up for himself. If he let that kid pick on him long enough, then others would jump on that bandwagon. Sometimes it is even worse when the school administration gets involved. If that were my kid, I would be proud that he didn't let the little snot keep messing with him. He should go out for football. :)
Yeh its me - Where was the sarcasm? I'm sure that it took you 30 posts to later change your tune. Whatever.
I don't want to fight with you, but if you know me at all, you know that I wouldn't say that.
Yeh its me - Where was the sarcasm? I'm sure that it took you 30 posts to later change your tune. Whatever.
I read it as sarcasm as well. While I disagree with Spexx' view on this, he's been consistent.
Obviously everyone else did other than me. Shocked - NOT.
I was reminded of the BB gun you bought your son and surprised at this comment at first, but didn't see where the sarcasm was indicated. Whatever - my bad.
Obviously everyone else did other than me. Shocked - NOT.
I was reminded of the BB gun you bought your son and surprised at this comment at first, but didn't see where the sarcasm was indicated. Whatever - my bad.
No worries.
I want to take this back to the comment Sundae made initially, and with which I agreed: it's a question of proportionate or disproportionate force.
Had the bigger lad thrown a punch, chances are we would not be having this conversatiion. If he'd given him a hard shove, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Either of those responses, given the disparity in size and strength, would have shocked, possibly hurt, the bully and given a clear message that this kid isn;t for bullying.
He didn't 'hit back'. He picked the other kid up, turned him over and slammed him bodily onto the ground. He basically pulled a WWF move on another kid. Only, in WWF they are landing on sprung surfaces. That is either entirely over the top as a response, or shows a serious misunderstanding of staged -v- actual violence. It also possibly shows a either a lack of awareness of his own strength, or a lack of awareness of the potential for his actions to cause harm.
None of which makes me think the lad should be in trouble for acting the way he did. But it does suggest some important lessons he could do with learning fairly soon.
I'm pretty sure he was hoping his actions would cause harm. lol
How can we expect kids not to let things escalate when as adults and world rulers we aren't capable of the same?
I'd also suggest that giving the kid a hard shove or a punch could lead to the same or worse injuries. Either you're against violence as an effective way to end conflict or you're not. No disrespect Dana, but why do you get to decide what the right amount of violence is?
I think the bigger kid showed remarkable restraint at the end there. He watched to make sure tiny was finished, and just walked away. He could have dropped an atomic elbow or put a figure 4 leg lock on his ass.....
just sayin'
My only regret is the big kid didn't pick him up and throw him down again after he got up. A pile driver on the head was certainly warranted. And then the pussy had the balls to get on international news and said it was not his fault. To late asshole. I hope you have a headache.
All of y'all "go victim" people are ignoring one crucial point. The victim could have accidentally killed or crippled the bully when he picked him up and threw him down. If that has been the result, it would have ruined his life and emotions a lot more than being bullied a bit. To me, that is why his reaction is the wrong one, his life could have been RUINED by that act far worse than any suspension. If you don't believe me, ask my mother how it feels to have your bully killed by accident, only if you just wished their death and weren't even the cause of it yourself.
When my mother was a little girl, her next door neighbor was her bully. One day my mom was outside playing, and the bully came along on her bike and proceeded to run over my mother's toes. My mother yelled at her, "I hope you die." Well, the girl did, that night she and her grandfather were stalled on a train track and hit. Mom found out the next day in school and still carries around the scar of wishing something so horrible on a person, and then actually have it happen.
Also, yes, the bully probably would not have stopped with just administrative intervention, but we have no proof that that little move won't bring the bully back with a bigger vendetta, a few friends, and a more secluded spot. Sometime standing up to the bully doesn't stop them, it only makes them that much more determined to show you that they're boss.
I don't think anyone missed that point mtp. It's been brought up a number of times.
I don't think anyone missed that point mtp. It's been brought up a number of times.
Really? Other than my earlier mention and dana's agreement, when has anyone else addressed that issue?
Well twice is a number of times isn't it? :)
Seriously though, I think that point is central to Dana's argument - or at least, that's what I get out of her posts.
As adults posting in this thread, I think I can speak for everyone when I say that none of us would want any lasting or permanent harm to come to either of these boys.
Speaking for myself I feel very sorry for both boys and would like to see better systems in place, but then, schools already have their hands tied on what they can actually do about things like this and ultimately, we say that it's really a parents job to teach a child what the difference is between right and wrong. Clearly some parents fail, so then whose fault is it? Really?
Watching the interviews with the parents of these boys, it seems to me that none of them are particularly bright and probably don't have the best social skills themselves.
It's a sad state of affairs, but when it all comes down to it, the parents should be better guides and role models for their kids, but the truth is, sometimes they're not, so then the government should take over? We should hope the child somehow figures out where he's going wrong? What? What is the answer?
Well twice is a number of times isn't it? :)
Seriously though, I think that point is central to Dana's argument - or at least, that's what I get out of her posts.
As adults posting in this thread, I think I can speak for everyone when I say that none of us would want any lasting or permanent harm to come to either of these boys.
Speaking for myself I feel very sorry for both boys and would like to see better systems in place, but then, schools already have their hands tied on what they can actually do about things like this and ultimately, we say that it's really a parents job to teach a child what the difference is between right and wrong. Clearly some parents fail, so then whose fault is it? Really?
Watching the interviews with the parents of these boys, it seems to me that none of them are particularly bright and probably don't have the best social skills themselves.
It's a sad state of affairs, but when it all comes down to it, the parents should be better guides and role models for their kids, but the truth is, sometimes they're not, so then the government should take over? We should hope the child somehow figures out where he's going wrong? What? What is the answer?
I was addressing the "go victim!" crowd. Dana is not one of those. There is no 100% right answer, I know Ali. If the bully kid's parents/guardians fail, the teachers and admins might not be much help. Then again, a school counselor might be very effective, if the school has the funding for it :(. If your kid is being bullied so horrendously, I'm sure most parents would be able to find an alternative to that school, just remove them from the situation so that they do not have turn to violence. If that is absolutely 100% not possible (which I'm unconvinced it is) and the teachers and admins are ineffective, there is probably a legal recourse, what about possibly suing the bully child's parents? Getting some sort of restraining order? Yes, even having the government step in and force the bully child/parents into counseling. I would be all for putting into place a system that makes parents get a certification for raising children, but I know that would be far too complicated to truly implement, and what would you do if a person didn't have that certification and had a child anyway? Put the child into foster? Seems a bit harsh, but maybe that is the type of system we do need to show how serious raising a child is, and thats its a privileged to be earned, not a right.
I think all the girls should just be sterilized some time before they can breed, then after they're in a stable relationship and everything's peachy and they've both done the course, then she gets unsterilized and they can have a baby. Gatica style. :) Or even stepford wives?
I know it's a serious subject, but I'm just not sure if there's an answer. Moving a child to a different school is a big step, and chances are, if their attitude or behaviour doesn't change, they'll probably still have the same issues to deal with. Kids have a pecking order as do most other social groups. Not sure what the answer is, but I can only go on personal experience with my own kids, and that has been that a bully will keep going till he finds out the hard way that you've had enough.
I think all the girls should just be sterilized some time before they can breed, then after they're in a stable relationship and everything's peachy and they've both done the course, then she gets unsterilized and they can have a baby. Gatica style. :) Or even stepford wives?
I know it's a serious subject, but I'm just not sure if there's an answer. Moving a child to a different school is a big step, and chances are, if their attitude or behaviour doesn't change, they'll probably still have the same issues to deal with. Kids have a pecking order as do most other social groups. Not sure what the answer is, but I can only go on personal experience with my own kids, and that has been that a bully will keep going till he finds out the hard way that you've had enough.
Why not the men? Especially since vas deferens valves might soon be a very viable choice.
Moving a child to a different school is a big step, but its better than them being forced to violence, not just because I think violence is wrong, but because things can go horribly horribly wrong. Freak accidents DO happen. Kids do have a pecking order, but at least where I grew up, it was very often not nearly to the extreme as to what that video showed. I think that in most cases it is rare and if you move your kid away from one bully, that there will not just be another like him at the next school. Bullies don't always learn their lesson, even if its the hard way. If you fight back, there is nothing to say they won't just try to find another way to exert their power over you.
Everything you say is true mtp, but in practice, it costs a lot of money to change schools. more money than many if not most families can afford. Particularly those who already have financial stresses (as I suspect the families in these videos have).
There needs to be a holistic approach showing concern not just for the victim, but for the bully also. Clearly according to research bullying is mostly (if not exclusively) perpetrated by those who feel a lack of power in some other area, so with that in mind, we need to address these issues with intensive counselling for the child and also the family.
Unfortunately, a lot of the causes of these issues are due to low socio-economic situations for the family, so the options are limited unless covered by the state, and at this stage, that's not really the case. In extreme circumstances it can be, but often the funds are channelled through ways in which the majority of the benefit is not for the child.
eta: and all of this is assuming the family is willing to accept help, and in many cases, the family simply denies the problem and refuses help.
I guess what it comes down to is that if the family wont or can't help, and any help from the state is at best ineffectual, most parents of a bullied child would condone almost any other recourse in order to protect their child from abuse, which is the sentiment expressed by many here. I know that in the situation of my kids, the school was unable to protect them, and so they decided to protect themselves, and I supported them. Surely if a parent of a bullied child who stood up for themselves then chastised the child it would cause the same, if not more harm than the bullying in the first place.
Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than what's right or wrong.
Everything you say is true mtp, but in practice, it costs a lot of money to change schools. more money than many if not most families can afford. Particularly those who already have financial stresses (as I suspect the families in these videos have).
There needs to be a holistic approach showing concern not just for the victim, but for the bully also. Clearly according to research bullying is mostly (if not exclusively) perpetrated by those who feel a lack of power in some other area, so with that in mind, we need to address these issues with intensive counselling for the child and also the family.
Unfortunately, a lot of the causes of these issues are due to low socio-economic situations for the family, so the options are limited unless covered by the state, and at this stage, that's not really the case. In extreme circumstances it can be, but often the funds are channelled through ways in which the majority of the benefit is not for the child.
eta: and all of this is assuming the family is willing to accept help, and in many cases, the family simply denies the problem and refuses help.
I wholly understand the financial strife issue, and that having to move a child due to bulling would not be easy, nor the perfect solution. Counseling and help to stop the bulling as you suggested probably would be, and has its own financial issues. It makes it all the more sad then that many here see the violent response as a correct reaction, when rather it is far from the ideal, or even most helpful response. No the child should not stand there and "take it" but neither should he be forced to violence, and it is simply NOT true that that is the only way to stop a bully. Just the only one that the victim might think is available, and an option that can be just as dangerous to the victim as it is to the bully.
Even if it is a difficult thing to do, but if it is still an option, if you have to move your child to protect them from that extreme choice, I would think that would be a parent's choice. Just remember, your child may commit involuntary manslaughter even if they're just protecting themselves. If you can at all reduce the chance of that happening, wouldn't you do anything within your power to do so?
That's true, so I guess if we lived in a Utopian society, it'd be easy. Unfortunately we don't, and most (if they exist) cures for bullying, the nice way, are achieved through long term aid. Sometimes the victim doesn't have a long time to wait. It's sad, but it's very true, and it's also true that until you've watched your child deflate before your eyes because of bullying, it's hard to understand why a normally passive person would condone this sort of behaviour.
So, MTP let me get this straight. I should teach my kid to run away if someone bullies him? and if that doesn't work I should help him to run further by moving him to a different school? So if the bully is in the neighborhood, should I also sell my house and move out of state?
[YOUTUBE]StHwAffUNxo&feature[/YOUTUBE]
No thanks. Conflict is rarely beneficial and it is certainly something to be avoided, but there is value in having a spine and being willing to stand up for yourself and not waiting for some benevolent authority figure to come save you. Waiting for an authority figure to come save you only works when they have the time, energy, and desire to give a shit about you. If you won't stand up for yourself in the unfortunate event it is required, don't expect anyone else to do it for you. Violence/conflict should not be desired, nor should it be feared.
and before you go further down the "he could have permanently damaged that poor bully" road, yes - you are right. A discussion on appropriate use of force and escalation would be a good idea, but no damn way would I scold the kid for standing up for himself.
That's true, so I guess if we lived in a Utopian society, it'd be easy. Unfortunately we don't, and most (if they exist) cures for bullying, the nice way, are achieved through long term aid. Sometimes the victim doesn't have a long time to wait. It's sad, but it's very true, and it's also true that until you've watched your child deflate before your eyes because of bullying, it's hard to understand why a normally passive person would condone this sort of behaviour.
I keep reiterating that it is not easy, it is just better than violence. If it is going to take too long to get them to another school and the bullying is just THAT bad, then just remove them from school for the time being.
@Lookout- It is NOT running away or teaching them to run away. It is teaching them to remove themselves from a bad situation before they accidentally make it worse. So you would rather your child be put in a situation where he could accidentally cripple or KILL another child just so they won't have to swallow their pride and walk away from a fight? One punch can kill, there is not appropriate amount of violence. Plus no one said anything about selling your house and moving states. What, you only have one school in your whole state?
I there is not appropriate amount of violence.
And there is the philosophical difference that will prevent us from ever agreeing on this topic. You see it as a horrible evil that can and must be avoided at all cost. I know that it is sometimes unfortunately necessary because not everyone is directing gumdrops and goodwishes in your direction. I do not enjoy violence but I will not live in fear of it.
And there is the philosophical difference that will prevent us from ever agreeing on this topic. You see it as a horrible evil that can and must be avoided at all cost. I know that it is sometimes unfortunately necessary because not everyone is directing gumdrops and goodwishes in your direction. I do not enjoy violence but I will not live in fear of it.
Good job taking the quote out of context and thereby misinterpreting it and its meaning. I never said anything about gumdrops or goodwishes fixing the issue. Its not a philosophical difference, its a literate one apparently.
I keep reiterating that it is not easy, it is just better than violence. If it is going to take too long to get them to another school and the bullying is just THAT bad, then just remove them from school for the time being.
I'm not sure what the rules are in the US, but over here you can't just take a kid out of school and keep them at home. Sure you could home school, but what if you already have a full time job? Maybe you should quit to support your child, but then, how will the bills get paid?
It's just not that simple.
Resorting to violence is a last resort, and most parents would encourage their children to try all other avenues, but sometimes they just don't work.
Sure systems could/might be implimented maybe in the future, but what if it's happening now?
It's just like all the other social issues. There's no quick fix, so we have to 'make do' with the best solution until something better comes along.
eta: My recent posts are not so much about this particular thread, but trying to explain what some of you feel is the 'cheering on' of the victim. Trying to help you understand why some of us feel less than sympathetic to the bully and why we recognise that the victim felt he had no other choice. That's real life. That's the way it is, and wishing it were something different is pointless.
Misinterpret? Let me back up then and see if I understand you correctly.
MTP's position: All conflict and violence should be avoided. Taken to its logical conclusion then a victim of bullying bears the responsibility(let's not forget the expense) to follow a progression of walking away, involving a bunch of authorities, then changing schools if the situation doesn't change. Do I have that right?
Lookout's position: Conflict and violence are best avoided but not to be pulled off the table as an option as they are unfortunately sometimes necessary and effective.
Just remember that if I'm a bad guy I don't really give a shit how you feel or what happens to you tomorrow. If I know (because you have made it clear) that no matter what I do you will not stand up to me, then I am free to take from you or do to you anything I want because you're an easy mark.
Here's what I taught my kids. Try to walk away or ignore. If they lay a hand on you, then it is katie bar the door. I dont care if you pick up a stick, bite, kick or whatever. Just fight back using any means possible. You don't have to win, but you better leave a mark on them. I've learned that way they won't mess with you again. Hey it worked for me & has seemed to work pretty darn well for my kids.
Misinterpret? Let me back up then and see if I understand you correctly.
MTP's position: All conflict and violence should be avoided. Taken to its logical conclusion then a victim of bullying bears the responsibility(let's not forget the expense) to follow a progression of walking away, involving a bunch of authorities, then changing schools if the situation doesn't change. Do I have that right?
Lookout's position: Conflict and violence are best avoided but not to be pulled off the table as an option as they are unfortunately sometimes necessary and effective.
Just remember that if I'm a bad guy I don't really give a shit how you feel or what happens to you tomorrow. If I know (because you have made it clear) that no matter what I do you will not stand up to me, then I am free to take from you or do to you anything I want because you're an easy mark.
No, you don't understand my position. Violence is not always effective, and it is dangerous. The child should not have the responsibility of "taking matters into their own hands." It is fully the parent's responsibility to protect their underage child, and yes sometimes that does mean a significant expense if all other alternatives fail. Leaving your child in a position you know they may well have to turn to violence in order to protect themselves? Unacceptable.
Not being willing to become violent, does not mean I will not and do not have the means to stand up for myself.
Violence is not [COLOR="Red"]always[/COLOR] effective, and it is dangerous.
Finally, a statement I can agree with. Violence usually is not effective. But for those rare times when it is, it may be the only effective tool left and then it should be employed. It is potentially dangerous. Yep, and so is continuing to allow yourself to be a victim.
No thanks. Conflict is rarely beneficial and it is certainly something to be avoided, but there is value in having a spine and being willing to stand up for yourself and not waiting for some benevolent authority figure to come save you. Waiting for an authority figure to come save you only works when they have the time, energy, and desire to give a shit about you. If you won't stand up for yourself in the unfortunate event it is required, don't expect anyone else to do it for you. Violence/conflict should not be desired, nor should it be feared.
and before you go further down the "he could have permanently damaged that poor bully" road, yes - you are right. A discussion on appropriate use of force and escalation would be a good idea, but no damn way would I scold the kid for standing up for himself.
This kind of parenting creates bullies.
You're obviously not christian.
You see it as a horrible evil that can and must be avoided at all cost.
How did you get that from what she wrote? She wrote that there are systems that have been ceated by society to resolve conflict in a civilized way. Use them. If the systems are slow, it is still incumbent upon the parent to protect a child's wellbeing.
Is that right, Moretp?
Finally, a statement I can agree with. Violence usually is not effective. But for those rare times when it is, it may be the only effective tool left and then it should be employed. It is potentially dangerous. Yep, and so is continuing to allow yourself to be a victim.
Did the kid in the video try anything but violence before this incident?
This kind of parenting creates bullies.
You're obviously not christian.
Use a sharper stick, maybe I'll respond.
Use a sharper stick, maybe I'll respond.
Typically evasive.
What would all you "go victim" people think if the little one had gotten up and he and his crew had beaten the big kid until he was unconscious? Still and epic win, because he stood up to his attackers?
Typically evasive.
Have you answered Pete Zicato's question yet?
Let me know when you do and I'll take that as a signal you actually want a discussion.
Boys have been fighting since the beginning of time. If there wasn't such a 'zero tolerance' at school then maybe the kid getting hit in the face would have felt free to shove him away.
Many times the person getting bullied has to suck it up because he has been taught not to retaliate. Many times that base instinct to protect oneself raises it's head and the bully gets hurt.( too ) Most of the time it isn't caught on film. If there had not been a video of this, or any witnesses, guaranteed that big kid would be charged with assault, given community service and for the instigator?, nothing.
I understand the reasons for zero tolerance but I cannot fathom their ( the kids ) reality, when at home they are taught to stand up for themselves, yet school teaches you a contradictory rule. The rule is not stand up for themselves. There is a rule but no tool other than what the parents teach them at home that doesn't apply to the school yard.
I highly doubt that little kid would have punched him outside of school. The fighting field would have been a little more fair. There would not have been the 'schools rule' that kept that big kids fists down long enough to take it in the face once or twice.
For the parents that teach their kids to ignore or walk away, how do they do that when they are getting punched in the face? or verbally taunted? Ignoring isn't a great tool. They don't ignore it. They take it home and it seethes until they cannot take it anymore and someone gets body slammed into the concrete.
Ignoring isn't a great tool. They don't ignore it. They take it home and it seethes until they cannot take it anymore and someone gets body slammed into the concrete.
OR they start all kinds of self-destructive habits...
Cutting, drinking, drugs...
Ignoring a problem hoping it will go away rarely works. In fact, it usually gets worse..
Good points sky.
Except for teeth. If you have a problem with your teeth and you ignore it, then eventually your teeth and your problem will go away.
Disclaimer: I am not a professional dentist.
But if you just let me hit you the problem will go away faster.
Disclaimer: I am not Ghandi
Remember the good, old days when kids could beat eachother up without all the analysis?
Yes. I remember when solutions to problems were handled at the lowest level possible without meetings, handwringing, and fingerpointing.
Seiously though I remember in 4th grade "fighting" Tommy T over a girl we both liked. The towncop was standing there chuckling and the only instruction he gave was to take off our gloves so we wouldn't tear any skin if we somehow miraculously hit eachother.
I'm tired of repeating myself and continuously having you blatantly ignore my point. Your testosterone fueled, knee-jerk reactions annoy me.
*Walking away*
I'm not ignoring your point. I'm pointing out that your point is incompatible with the real world. If it makes you feel better to discount a different viewpoint as testosterone fueled and knee jerk then go right on ahead. My views on the application of force aren't something I've just popped out in response to some youtube video, they are considered and consistent. (you might notice that if you follow the link that Spexx took the trouble of looking for after almost 3 years)
Maybe they should give them baseball bats and let them beat the shit out of each other. Now that would make for some youtube video.
Yes. I remember when solutions to problems were handled at the lowest level possible without meetings, handwringing, and fingerpointing.
Seiously though I remember in 4th grade "fighting" Tommy T over a girl we both liked. The towncop was standing there chuckling and the only instruction he gave was to take off our gloves so we wouldn't tear any skin if we somehow miraculously hit eachother.
Yeah. And look how you turned out.:rolleyes:
Oh oh oh, look my stalker troll has come out to play.
Oh oh oh, look my stalker troll has come out to play.
Don't shoot me, poser.:sniff:
Oh oh oh, look my stalker troll has come out to play.
Who is stalking you?
Nope, that would be like getting a tank to deal deal with a housefly.
Here's a riddle: what do you call a person who can't discuss ideas rationally, without resorting to histrionics?
Here's a riddle: what do you call a person who can't discuss ideas rationally, without resorting to histrionics?
I guess we're done here.
Wait - I see a pattern here. Someone asks a question... Spexx posts that the discussion is over. I guess he really does believe in avoiding conflict at all costs.
Honestly I think someone has stolen Spexx's login. I've never liked the guy but I thought he actually posted some worthwhile stuff. Recently he is like a clone of TW if you changed the flavor of paranoia and removed the original content.
This kind of parenting creates bullies.
This philosophy is used in almost all martial arts. You NEVER start a fight and try to avoid them if you can but if you are ever placed in a situation where you need to fight, train so you can defend yourself. This philosophy will usually not create bullies but quite the opposite.
Bullies are not created from learning how to fight. Bullies are created when learning and embracing that using force on someone you perceive as weaker than yourself will benefit you somehow.
Wait - I see a pattern here. Someone asks a question... Spexx posts that the discussion is over. I guess he really does believe in avoiding conflict at all costs.
Honestly I think someone has stolen Spexx's login. I've never liked the guy but I thought he actually posted some worthwhile stuff. Recently he is like a clone of TW if you changed the flavor of paranoia and removed the original content.
Oh oh oh, look my stalker troll has come out to play.
This discussion is over.
[COLOR="White"]Look look, I'm walking away... does this mean I'm growing?[/COLOR]
You seriously have to quit losing weight Jim. I like the hair though.
I'd also suggest that giving the kid a hard shove or a punch could lead to the same or worse injuries.
I'd suggest that picking someone up, turning them upside down and slamming them bodily onto a concrete surface with a brick wall in the way has way more potential to cause crippling injuries than a shove or punch. Not to say shoves and punches are risk free, but the pile drive move is really something that should only be used when on a sprung surface. Preferably having both had training in how to fall.
Either you're against violence as an effective way to end conflict or you're not.
That's total nonsense. That's like saying if I am in favour of the kid throwing a punch I am equally in favour of him pulling out a knife and slashing the other kid across the face. Violence exists on a sliding scale.
Violence can be an effective way to end conflict. There are times when it is the only way. But that doesn't mean all levels of violence are acceptable.
No disrespect Dana, but why do you get to decide what the right amount of violence is?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a discussion and expressing our opinions on the issue. I don't 'get to decide' for anybody what level of violence is right. Nor do you. Stalemate. ffs.
You can whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks ... :blush:
I'd suggest that picking someone up, turning them upside down and slamming them bodily onto a concrete surface with a brick wall in the way has way more potential to cause crippling injuries than a shove or punch. Not to say shoves and punches are risk free, but the pile drive move is really something that should only be used when on a sprung surface. Preferably having both had training in how to fall.
All I'm saying is that no matter what level of violence you use, there is a potential to cause serious harm. What if he'd shoved him and the boy had hit his head on the concrete? Same outcome.
That's total nonsense. That's like saying if I am in favour of the kid throwing a punch I am equally in favour of him pulling out a knife and slashing the other kid across the face. Violence exists on a sliding scale.
Violence can be an effective way to end conflict. There are times when it is the only way. But that doesn't mean all levels of violence are acceptable.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a discussion and expressing our opinions on the issue. I don't 'get to decide' for anybody what level of violence is right. Nor do you. Stalemate. ffs.
My point is Dana, that you're saying it's ok to go so far, but not as far as that. Why is one thing ok and not another? Maybe the victim had tried pushing himself away in the past and to no effect? Maybe he decided on a definitive ending to the situation. That's what it looked like to me.
As I said, no disrespect intended at all, but I don't understand (honestly), how you can say it's ok to push or punch someone, but it's not ok to use a different level of force.
Oh sure I understand the concept of reasonable force and all that, but seriously, we're expecting kids to be able to make that sort of judgement call when they're in a desperate situation? I don't think so.
I still say, beat the fuck out of the bullies and diminish their base of operation....
Here is the other boy's side of the story.....
[YOUTUBE]TqPs4YBf__E[/YOUTUBE]
He seems like a smart intuitive kid.
Right on Casey. I hope you never need to do that again.
