Bullying, when it is and when it is not.

[Brian37]

Ok, a receint story about a chubby female news anchor went viral when she "called out" a e-mailer, who in my estimation wasn't saying "hey fat fuck lose some weight", but the way he says it is "being overweight is unhealthy"

Now lets not get into wieght as the topic, the issue is what constitutes bullying and what does not.

How can an anchor who chose to be a puplic figure argue that some no name is the bully?

To me that would be like Rush Limbaugh or John Stewart complaining that a dissenting viewer is the bully. No one told either of them to get into the public eye.

Bullying to me isn't merely bitching or or poking fun of someone or something. Bullying is the difference between captivity and the ability to leave a situation. If one is not captive it is not bullying.

ESPECIALLY in issues of becoming a public figure. EVEN IF someone called this reporter a "porker" SURE it might be cruel, but it isn't like she is in a classroom where she is being held hostage by other students or a teacher who WOULD BE bullies in that context.

Otherwise if all of us got to define who gets to say what about who in all contexts by merely defaulting to "bully" anytime we hear something offensive, free speech wouldn't exist and we could all justify the murder of each other.

Bullying can only be defined in terms of captivity vs the ability to counter or ignore. If you are trapped, then it is bullying. If you are not and you can use your own voice and or leave or ignore, then it is not.

AGAIN this isn't about this woman or her weight. This is about the missuse of the word "bullying" regardless of who is offended or why.

If we don't restrict "bullying" to terms of captivity, we open ourselves as a spedcies to putting government in the position of becoming thought police.

The danger in missusing "bullying" is that it can errode the right of republicans to bash Obama, and the right of democrats to bash Mitt Romney.

It can't simply be "you offended me".

In the case of this women I would say to her, yea, it sucks that people say things you don't like, I don't like being equated to Hitler because I am an atheist. But especially when one is in the public eye, like a reporter, I am sorry, but you have far less to complain about than say an overweight middle school student who is bound by law to go to school.

She had every right to say "you are being an asshole" or "you are missinformed" and "I am happy with my body". But he did not put a gun to her head and she was not captive and on top of that if she were secure with herself she could simply say "your an asshole" which if she wanted to argue might be the case, but being an asshole doesn't make one a bully.

[Kayenneh]

Definition: Bullying may be defined as the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another person, physically or mentally.

I put the emphasis on the repeated (by the same person) part. If the e-mailer does it over and over again, then it is bullying. Otherwise it was a remark that can be ignored.

One thing that makes me think though (and unfortunately this might be a sensitive topic, so I apologize beforehand to those that might feel offended), can you say that the target of bullying is truly innocent with no fault what so ever? In this particular case (whether it's bullying or not), the woman was overweight, and unfortunately most people have gotten themselves into that position. Corpulence and obesity does not only effect the person, it's bad for the whole society, so is it wrong to point it out that it might be in everyone's interest to lose weight? (Though, one can be diplomatic and formulate it nicely as not to hurt the other person's feelings.)

Humans are flock animals and in order for a group to work, a likeness of minds is often helpful. So can we can we really blame those who shun people who behave differently or can be seen as a threat to the group? Is it the group who need to change attitude and accept the difference and versatility or is it the individual who need to conform to the majority?

[Annik]

I saw the video. I'll admit that the guy (who wrote the email) is kind of an ass, but I wouldn't call him a bully.

[Brian37]

I put the emphasis on the repeated (by the same person) part. If the e-mailer does it over and over again, then it is bullying. Otherwise it was a remark that can be ignored.

Even then context matters. It still depends on captivity otherwise we could have birthers arrested for repeatedly spewing their bullshit.

His take, and yes he was probably being an ass about it, but I think the way he sees it is that we need to exorsize and whach what we eat. But she chose to be in the public eye and I don't care if she were thin. Ann Coulter isn't fat and I certainly repeatedly bash her and have called her a botched sex change operation bought at Wal Mart.

[Autumnlicious]

Kay is dead on.

A bully conducts a campaign of harassment, which by definition repeats actions done with the express intent of causing harm.

One-off comments are not bullying.

Organizing a bunch of people to harass is bullying. Spending days personally harassing and demeaning someone is bullying.

Comments made in stupidity, jest or even aggression but not on a repeated basis?

Free (but disgusting) speech.

---

Even then context matters. It still depends on captivity otherwise we could have birthers arrested for repeatedly spewing their bullshit.

You can't arrest them for lying.

You can sue them for libel though.

[Brian37]

Kay is dead on.

A bully conducts a campaign of harassment, which by definition repeats actions done with the express intent of causing harm.

One-off comments are not bullying.

Organizing a bunch of people to harass is bullying. Spending days personally harassing and demeaning someone is bullying.

Comments made in stupidity, jest or even aggression but not on a repeated basis?

Free (but disgusting) speech.

---

Even then context matters. It still depends on captivity otherwise we could have birthers arrested for repeatedly spewing their bullshit.

You can't arrest them for lying.

You can sue them for libel though.

Not nessaraly. People vs Larry Flint. It was a lie that Jerry Falwell fucked his mom. But what made it legal was it was covered under parody. Now even with the birthers, you are still talking about a public figure, and when it comes to criticising or blatently lying about a public figure the standard is based on more than merely lying about them.

It is a lie that Obama is a communist, but perfectly legal, as it should be for people to constantly repeat it. Otherwise we put government in the position of thought police. The good thing is that same free market is eqwual in the sense that those who object to it can call bullshit as publically and loudly as the idiots who spew it.

Public figures are at a higher standard of proof than saying the same thing about a no name neighbor or co worker. And civil court included, if you sue and win and they don't pay, they can go to jail for not obeying a court ruling. Public figures should have a much higher standard even in a civil suit case.

[Reforged]

Could you actually quote some of the letter? I'm fairly certain no-one here would consider it bullying if you did.

[IATIA]

If one is not captive it is not bullying.

AMEN!

A bully is the kid that takes your lunch money everyday at school, not some cyber-freak on the net.

If I find someone online that I prefer not to communicate with, IGNORE. See, no more 'bully'.

This bullshit of 'cyber-bullies' driving some dumb fuck to suicide is ridiculous. There is a completely different issue in play with this scenario and I could rant on the stupidity of that fucking shit for pages on end. This country (America) has a very serious problem and it is not the bullies.

[Brian37]

If one is not captive it is not bullying.

AMEN!

A bully is the kid that takes your lunch money everyday at school, not some cyber-freak on the net.

If I find someone online that I prefer not to communicate with, IGNORE. See, no more 'bully'.

This bullshit of 'cyber-bullies' driving some dumb fuck to suicide is ridiculous. There is a completely different issue in play with this scenario and I could rant on the stupidity of that fucking shit for pages on end. This country (America) has a very serious problem and it is not the bullies.

No it isn't that simple. I was bullied as a kid, my grade school years and highschool years were torture. So I can understand the net being even more of a weapon than the face to face street crap I endured.

It cant be all or nothing but only case by case.

In cyber bullying we are not talking about a rash of people who don't know each other. These things happen locally and the victim is still required by law to go to the school where the actuall face to face rectognition goes on, even if no one actually physically touches them.

My advice to those bullied, because I most certianly was, even before the age of the internet is simple. Dont let others define you. Stand up with your voice or ignore them. You define yourself, not even your family or friends have any right to do that. When you accept yourself and be yourself, it is less likely those who try to intimidate you can win.

I learned the hard way that responding to bullies, although unavoidable at times, more likely than not, the best option is to say "fuck you" even if it is only in your head.

The best cure for bullies is time. There will always be someone who accepts you for you. It may not feel like that at times, but especially when you get older, you eventually find that the politics of youth is all bullshit.

[Kayenneh]

A bully is the kid that takes your lunch money everyday at school, not some cyber-freak on the net.
---
This bullshit of 'cyber-bullies' driving some dumb fuck to suicide is ridiculous.

Actually, I can't quite agree with you IATIA. I was bullied too, but I was terrorized mentally, not physically. (At that time, all I wished for was for my tormentors to have the balls to attack me, so that I could have hurt them in return, but since it was a ring of girls who orchestrated my torment, no one ever laid a hand on me.) The net was quite new around this time and I (fortunately) kept my e-mail address to myself (well, thankfully only a few had access to the internet back then), but they had my telephone number and used it outside school to bother me further. It got to the point when I couldn't look at the texts received or listen to my voice mail, since I knew that there was always something nasty waiting there. So yeah, technology can help the bully of making the target's life hell.

And sure, today you can ignore people in social media on the net, but can you stop your bullies from stealing your identity and make a fool out of you, presenting you as someone you aren't?