Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Violence is the last thing I want now days but talking it out does not work anymore and teachers dont care, and if you only have to be violent once like me where it takes care of things like this for the rest of your life then do it. Something other than committing suicide my father did this its the weakest thing you can do we need our youth.

BloodDrop101X wrote:Violence is the last thing I want now days, but talking it out does not work anymore and teachers dont' care. If you only have to be violent once like me where it takes care of things like this for the rest of your life then do it. Something other than committing suicide my father did this its the weakest thing you can do we need our youth.

..I am going to try and understand what you said here. And yes, please. Learn some grammar...my mind hurts trying to read these posts and turn them into proper English. It's really quite sad if you can't type in proper grammar without Word giving you a little squiggly green line telling you what's wrong.

But in laymans terms you've been saying:
1) Bringing it up with teachers and other authority figures doesn't work.
2) Violence should be the response when faced with violence.
3) Suicide is weakness, and those who commit suicide are weeding themselves out of the genetic code.

Hopefully this makes it easier for later posters responding to you, but onto my own .02 cents. It may just be because I spent my school boy years in relatively high end and sheltered Silicon Valley private schools, where the worst thing that happened ever was kids boinking in the bathroom or cracking some pipes, but in my experience any reasonable authority figure has been a good ally when it comes to bullying. Don't go running to a teacher or principal you don't know, because they are no doubt the type who would brush you off to make their own lives easier for themselves. Go to a teacher you know. They might actually see you as more than Student #1823, and care about what's happening as such.

Violence is, of course, a last case resort. I'm all for kid's defending themselves with their fists if they have to, and I dislike how the trend seems to be towards eschewing violence all together as a possible solution. I mean....this really isn't something where we can cast a blanket judgment down at all, can it? The term 'bullying' itself is hard to define, and some of the things that could be consider bullying could just as easily be teasing jokes between two close friends. The only way to judge the validity of a violent response is on a case by case basis, which is hard to do, especially with educational systems dealing with thin funds as is.

I'm really trying here guys I have dyslexia really bad, so typing or writting anything for me is hard and I need the help of the auto-correct stuff it really helps. I'm sorry I have such bad grammar. I really didnt mean to be such a jackarse about this its really saddening that these kids took their lives, we really need to do something about situations like this. Unfortunately violence sometimes is needed but only in dire situations like this.

Phryxis wrote:I dunno, I don't.

Kids are not without cunning, they're just immature. They're good at doing things and not getting caught. It's pretty much their primary skillset, really.

I find the tone of all these articles to be a bit ridiculous. "Oh! They hit her in the FACE with a WATER BOTTLE! WHY DID NOBODY STEP IN!!!!!!ONE!!!" Because it happens ALL THE TIME.

It shouldn't happen all the time as that is clearly assault. I would argue that it doesn't actually happen all the time, because most kids are simply not that malicious.

I'm walking down the street and I see a guy who is speaking in a foreign language. I throw a water bottle and hit him in the face. That action would make me a fething criminal.

You can talk about how kids can't be held responsible for their actions, but this story occurred in a high school. I can stretch your argument pretty damn far unless you clarify what is not okay to throw. Does it have to be soda can before it is dangerous? We ain't talking about spitwads, man.

I mean, we all went to high school. We all saw kids get beat up. Even though this is not a good thing, a lot of it is fine. I can recall guys who essentially "wanted" to get bullied, so that they could show their peers that they were tough. I had friends who started things with older kids, got smacked around, then the younger guys all respected him more for being "tough" or whatever.

Girls brawl too. People brawl. It's whatever. It doesn't mean a suicide is on the way.

Suicide is usually the last thing a kid would think about in those types of situations. That still doesn't make any of this okay. You can call it normal, but I can call a lot of things normal while pointing at the other kids. BUT LOOK WHAT THEY DID! THIS ISN'T FAIR!

Meh, sorta. I mean, yes, you're not allowed to punch somebody in the face. That's illegal.

But, at the same time, it's not. People do it ALL the time, and nothing comes of it. In general, I think we've become an excessively litigious society. If somebody gets punched a couple times, it's really not a big deal. Nobody needs to go to jail over it.

This is not what we are discussing. No one was punched in the face, and if they were the administration should have treated them as they treated the kid who tried to help out pink-shirt guy. He punched a bully in the face and was suspended for it. No possible reprimand? Fething nonsense. It shouldn't be regarded as okay because you consider it normal. A lot of people consider a lot of different things normal. Most of those things don't involve physical assault. It isn't normal to talk to plants, but it also isn't criminal.

We can talk about what 'normal' really means, but meh.

If you walk up to somebody and break their jaw for no good reason, ok, let's have an assault charge.

Definitely.

But if two people just sorta flail around, maybe somebody gets a swollen lip, especially if they BOTH wanted in on it, then why does that need to be illegal? Two people scrapped, not a problem.

That is not what we are discussing here. There was no brawl. A teenage girl was pushed down stairs and hit in the face with a water bottle. I see no reason that you wouldn't care unless you simply don't empathize with people in her situation. Saying it is normal is not an excuse, and going off on tangents about fist-fights isn't either. There was no two to tango here; a girl was pushed down a set of stairs.

Pushing a girl down some stairs... I dunno, I'd have to see it happen. It could be horrifying, it could be minor. If she falls down a flight of 25 concrete steps, cartwheeling all the way, that's pretty egregious. If she just sorta slips down 2 or 3 and bruises her elbow, then whatever. It's not criminal.

I draw the line at pushing people down any length of stairs. People don't have to break their neck for it to be criminal.

Did you know that if you hit your head on concrete after falling down two stairs, NOT EVEN THREE, that it can actually split open?

'If she sorta slips... and bruises her elbow'. I mean really man, who in the feth are you kidding here? Oh, sorry mate, pushed you down a few stairs but you actually just slipped and it doesn't matter because you bruised your elbow. Wrong. That is the kind of ridiculous excuse that hit and run drivers use.

Certainly possible, but I dunno... We've got some disagreements here.

You seem to think it's a small number of people, I tend to think it's basically "everyone." If it's a small number of people, yes, intervention makes a lot more sense. It's both more practical, and also more likely that the people actually need help.

I definitely disagree here. When it comes to the criminal actions that I am discussing it IS usually one or two people. While the mental abuse some kids may suffer could trigger serious mental instability it usually takes a moron trying to physically injure them to get the point across. That moron was the kid who PUSHED her down the stairs. She didn't 'actually just slip', chances are she was pushed.

For me it comes down to impact...

There was a sickening cracking sound a few feet away. It was followed by a bloodcurdling scream. Blood poured out of the girls head while kids surrounded to point and stare.

The police and ambulance arrive shortly after. "Whoever did this is going to face serious consequences", said the principal as he ran through the front doors of the school.

Is working with the bullies going to do much? I don't really think so. I think most of these people will eventually just grow out of it, and move on with life, and be normal, if slightly less empathic than average. They don't really NEED any help, they're just the run-of-the-mill human failings that the victims are beating their heads against. You don't really need to do anything for them.

You fail to understand what I mean when I say support. That can take many forms and is often not happy-go-lucky fun time dance routine #2.

And no, it is usually not the target that chooses their bully.

Look at these victims...

How about we stop doing that, eh? I am a bit tired of your suggestions on this part. They are in many cases a bit disrespectful. Don't get me wrong I joked with you about something I probably shouldn't have, but I do not agree that we need to focus on the bullies targets. I have made my opinion relatively clear, and I am quite sure as you are that we just disagree on a few things.

Due to the complex nature of this problem I feel that the best option is to focus on helping the bullies targets (who are not always victims, and sometimes violently reactionary) while at the same time recognizing that there are ways to help kids deal with their malice and anger. I'm saying that both need help and both can get it.

BTW, Straight men can wear pink and call out for attention. They are usually called hipsters. I get your argument on this point, but I don't really agree with you all that much. I find your conclusions to be presumptuous.

So, basically, I was a kid, I was presented with a beautiful girl who wanted to [edit] me, and all I could really come up with was to be mean to her, and think she was ridiculous because she was Russian.

That sucks. I do not mean this as a personal attack but most teenage boys would jump on that like oil in a frying pan.

Moral of the story, don't be mean to hot chicks when they are trying to [edit] you. Hmm... [edit] sounds a bit violent in this context. Yeesh.

Oh yeah baby, [edit] me all night. LOL.

Kids are stupid. You're not going to talk to sense into them. All you can do is figure out which ones REALLY need help, and try to give it to them. The other ones are just sorta churning and flailing around, being mean to anything they don't understand, because it's literally the best they can come up with. You just need to shelter the fragile ones from that reality, because no amount of sensitivity training is going to make a teenage clod less of a teenage clod.

Who said anything about sensitivity training? I am saying that support needs to be offered, and in many cases the support for students that harass other students physically should often be suspension or expulsion. In my experience this is not a new idea. Unfortunately there are circumstances where the worst cases are left to their own devices until they do something like pushing people down stairs. I say support, because I consider protecting the kid from their own malice by seperating them from other children a relatively good idea. In that time where the dangerous bully is suspended or kicked out of the school they can go to a shrink and talk about why they push people down stairs. Giving the opportunity to get support is support in itself. Perhaps in an abstract way, but I do consider this an issue of helping the bully so that in most cases those kids recognize that pushing people down stairs IS FETHING CRIMINAL. Do not pass go, do not collect 200$.

I assume if the faculty experienced the same form of assault they would just stand up, laugh jovially, pat the kid on the head, and say "You're lucky that I just bruised my elbow, but because that was all that happened I'll let you enjoy the rest of your day. Don't go pushing anyone else down stairs, ya hear!" And then then walk away continuing to laugh jovially.

Or not.

Gay bullying is the new Columbine.

Will they leave you alone if you dress more fashionably?

It shouldn't happen all the time as that is clearly assault.

Well, it's a tangent, but as I said before, I don't think we need to criminalize minor physical violence. Smacking somebody in the face with a water bottle is unpleasant, but it's also not going to result in real injury. Shoving somebody down some stairs is different, I understand, but I'm just trying to register an objection to your stance on "assault." I think you're being overly sensitive, both in terms of practicality, and in terms of how the law is actually enforced.

These things are about moderation and nuance, and picking the right response to a difficult situation. You've climbed up onto the moral highground, and you're casting lightning bolts of judgement. "Assault!" "CRIMINAL!" "EXPULSION!"

It's unhelpful. I know you feel righteous indignation that people were bullied, but it's not helpful. Have some restraint. There's a difference between smacking somebody with a water bottle, and shoving somebody down a flight of concrete steps. When you label it all as "CRIMINAL" you lose the ability to make considered decisions.

As I described earlier, I shoved and slapped a special ed kid in grade school. A teacher pulled me aside and said "don't" and I realized I shouldn't, and I stopped. In your world, I go get booked, and I probably come out pissed off, and looking to take it out on that same kid.

There's a lot to be gained by being 'cool' to a kid. I got caught doing something wrong, and I knew it. The teacher could have thrown the book at me, but he didn't. He just said "don't do that." I realized he was being cool to me, it made me respect him and his judgement, and it helped me process the fact that I was being uncool. Problem solved.

You're not solving problems, you're just living out vigilante wet dreams. It's not helpful.

You can talk about how kids can't be held responsible for their actions, but this story occurred in a high school.

I didn't say this. Kids can and should be held responsible for their actions.

All I'm saying is that smacking somebody in the face isn't some great responsibility. It stings for a few seconds, it's over. It's not "assault." The only way it becomes "assault" is if the victim presses the issue with the police, which they shouldn't do. There are better ways to solve it, and two wrongs won't make things right.

That still doesn't make any of this okay. You can call it normal, but I can call a lot of things normal while pointing at the other kids.

I'm not saying it's ok, I'm saying that it's not something that needs to be addressed in the work of preventing suicide. That's what we're talking about, preventing suicide. You're saying that somebody needs to step in when physical violence occurs, then we'd not have these suicides. I'm saying that that solution won't work, because kids are good at hiding their violence, and even when they don't, it's generally irrelevant scuffling.

It shouldn't be regarded as okay because you consider it normal.

I feel like you've got a "normalcy" chip on your shoulder. You seem to see a lot of what I'm saying as an appeal to conform, and you seem to think that's a very bad thing. I promise, though, I'm not telling you how to act, and I'm certainly not telling you that you have to act a certain way so you can be "normal."

What I'm talking about is practicality. I'm not saying it's ok to punch somebody in the face. I'm saying it's so commonplace, that if we punished it every time it happened, we'd have 50% of the teenage male population in jail for assault. That's not a useful way to run a society.

I mean really man, who in the feth are you kidding here?

I'm not kidding anyone. I'm saying I wasn't there. I didn't see these stairs, I didn't see the push. All I know is that the event is being discussed in the same context as getting smacked with a water bottle, which is trivial. People don't usually say "well, they stabbed him 15 times with an ice pick, and then also gave him a purple nurple." The nurple doesn't even register.

These articles are all about sensationalizing bullying. They're trying to make it bigger, more evil, and more dramatic than it is, precisely because it strikes a chord with readers like you. I'm taking their sensationalism with a grain of salt.

I didn't see the stairs, I didn't see the push. It might have been awful. Or, it might have been reasonable for the pusher to assume that he was doing nothing more than scaring the girl. I wasn't there.

All I'm trying to do is point out what we know, and what we don't know. You seem to think you KNOW that this stair pushing incident was an act of criminal malice. You don't know that. I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm just saying you don't know. If you think it's a safe assumption to make, go for it.

But, as I've said already, as you make those assumptions, you seem to have a lot of righteous indignation built up over this stuff, which is causing you to get very draconian in your legal judgements. You're making minor slights into assault charges in a way that's impractical an unhelpful. Don't confuse emotion and outrage with wisdom and judgement.

I do not agree that we need to focus on the bullies targets.

Well, then you're wrong.

A healthy, well adjusted person will not kill themselves. They will not kill themselves even after extensive bullying.

The core reason these kids killed themselves was NOT the bullying. It was because they were fundamentally unhappy, and nobody saw it, nobody stepped up to help them in the way they needed help.

Honestly, that's why I find these articles so infuriating, and I take such a strong stance against the arguments you're making. Your whole agenda is to criminalize the actions of the bullies, demonize them in the strongest terms possible, punish them for their misdeeds. It's romantic cinematic justice, but it's not useful.

The real issue here is that kids with emotional problems are not being helped. Take the gay kid. He's gay, he's closeted, nobody is helping him understand himself, understand his feelings, help him get to where he needs to be. They're just keeping him in the closet, assuring one another he's not gay, he's just TOTALLY gay. Then he can't take it anymore and kills himself. Instead of asking how they let him down, his friends and family look for somebody to blame. It was the bullies!

No. It wasn't. It was the cowardice of his friends, family and teachers.

You're repeating it. You're doing the exact same thing that killed the kid. He doesn't want you to accept his wearing pink. He wants you to accept him being GAY. What do you say? "Sounds to me like he's a mack, he's not gay at all!" That's NOT helping him. That's killing him. Everyone patted themselves on the back for accepting the zany quirks of the odd, but TOTALLY not gay kid. We're all so open minded and tolerant! And he's dead. Good job.

You're so hung up on being nonjudgemental that you're incapable of good judgement. If a kid wears pink, sings soprano, and says he's not gay, THAT DOESN'T ADD UP. Somebody needs to step up and recongize that the kid isn't processing things correctly, and needs some assistance working it out.

As they say, "don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out." Your brain has fallen out, and tumbled down a flight of stairs.

zarathos wrote:The major bully in my junior high days no longer walks, I ended up breaking his back. I am not proud of this at all however, the point is no one should have to go this far to stop a bully. Ironically this "former" bully and I are now great friends even he says that "he wishes that teachers would have stepped in and set him on the right track instead of ignoring it." There is definately no way for the victim to win, if the tell the "authorities" then they may stop things in school but not outside and are seen as a "tattletail" if they fight, they get into heaps of trouble themselves (trust me I know from experience) All if this bullying and the results are getting pretty close to another Columbine. When victims have enough there are two options, 1 kill themselves (as it truly never stops) or 2 kill the bully. This is the options most victims see as their only 2 options. the question I have is why does it have to get to this point?

QFT , i think many people just simply fail to realize how brutal bullying activities can get simply because they only seen the light cases.

Monster Rain wrote:

avantgarde wrote:I agree that kids these day are a bunch of molly coddled flour bags. I mean they can't even stand up to a little physical or psychological harassment. You know what the problem is? Parents aren't beating their children enough, that's what's making them soft. If parents would just apply the belt a little more that'd tough 'em and make them a fine soldier in the fight against communism.

I see what you did there.

I don't.



Agree with avantgarde though. I'm going to raise my kids to be motorcycle bikers. Give them a leather jacket, a Zippo, a wallet and a pocket knife for every birthday until they're ten. At 18, I'll buy them each a Harley. No drugs though. Drugs gets their hog taken away for a month. No haircuts either. I'll force them to have hair as beautiful as mine and consequently, Dave Mustaine.


Oh..Well, If I have a girl....Actually, the same thing. except she'd get leather pants too.

What was I talking about

Ah yes, my point: Kids need to learn how to deal with conflict at an early age, but not too much so they get crazy when they're older. Stop cuddling with your son and punch him in the face. Then force him to kick your ass. That makes a cool kid

Phryxis wrote:

It shouldn't happen all the time as that is clearly assault.

These things are about moderation and nuance, and picking the right response to a difficult situation. You've climbed up onto the moral highground, and you're casting lightning bolts of judgement. "Assault!" "CRIMINAL!" "EXPULSION!"

No I'm not. Apologies if I have misinterpreted your opinion, but that is certainly not what I am suggesting.

You're not solving problems, you're just living out vigilante wet dreams. It's not helpful.

We're talking past each other and this has officially become a waste of time.

All I'm saying is that smacking somebody in the face isn't some great responsibility. It stings for a few seconds, it's over. It's not "assault." The only way it becomes "assault" is if the victim presses the issue with the police, which they shouldn't do. There are better ways to solve it, and two wrongs won't make things right.

I disagree. I can ignore a person, but when they physically assault me my options are very limited. This holds true for a student as well.

You're saying that somebody needs to step in when physical violence occurs, then we'd not have these suicides

No I'm not. Offer support to both sides, and if the bullying side is in fact the entire school as you suggest, make it entirely clear that violence is not acceptable.

What I'm talking about is practicality. I'm not saying it's ok to punch somebody in the face. I'm saying it's so commonplace, that if we punished it every time it happened, we'd have 50% of the teenage male population in jail for assault. That's not a useful way to run a society.

How common place? Anyway, you're stretching my argument to the extreme. I haven't suggested that.

I'm not kidding anyone. I'm saying I wasn't there. I didn't see these stairs, I didn't see the push. All I know is that the event is being discussed in the same context as getting smacked with a water bottle, which is trivial. People don't usually say "well, they stabbed him 15 times with an ice pick, and then also gave him a purple nurple." The nurple doesn't even register.

Pushing a girl down some stairs... I dunno, I'd have to see it happen. It could be horrifying, it could be minor. If she falls down a flight of 25 concrete steps, cartwheeling all the way, that's pretty egregious. If she just sorta slips down 2 or 3 and bruises her elbow, then whatever. It's not criminal.

I suppose I get what you're saying, but I disagree in general simply because pushing people down any set of stairs is extremely malicious. I do not believe that the action should have to seriously injure someone before it becomes criminal. I consider the attempt criminal, and I doubt that most courts would flatly disagree with me.

These articles are all about sensationalizing bullying. They're trying to make it bigger, more evil, and more dramatic than it is, precisely because it strikes a chord with readers like you. I'm taking their sensationalism with a grain of salt.

I don't see how I am stopping you from doing that. There are a lot of stories about this subject. I have personally talked to people that suffered greatly at the hands of real bullies. Not the kind of bullies that taunt you. These are the kind of bullies that ARE criminal. I do not understand how you are taking my arguments to such blatant extremes. It seems like your arguments can be seen to defend some of those criminals.

I will add, again, that I am not trying to misinterpret your statements. I could be reading too far into what you are saying, but given your other opinions I am not entirely sure that is true.

As they say, "don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out." Your brain has fallen out, and tumbled down a flight of stairs.

Okay, I will choose not to take this as an insult. Have a good day mate. I'm tired of discussing this issue with you, and I feel we disagree on many things.

I'd prefer that you would avoid bringing my character into all of this, as I have not done so in your case. Where it was unclear I have attempted to make sure that you understand I am not trying to discuss your experiences. There is a bunch of stuff going on here, and I have gak to take care of.

Have a nice day.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

TheBlackVanguard wrote:I was bullied because I came from a ho dunk, redneck, small town, and I had long hair and listened to metal. If you didn't play sports at my school you had to dress like a cowboy and listen to country or nobody liked you and you became an outcast.

How did I fix it? I pulled a knife on the first kid to really try to physically bully me (He tried to hit me with his truck once when I was crossing the street in front of school) after that I was left alone, much like many of the stories given here.

What does this say? Either parents, kids, or teachers, need to Man Up and quit caring about being PC and address the real issues.

That being said for someone to commit suicide over bullying is a complete overreaction which means theres something else going on.

This guy wins. :thumsup:

I swear, what is wrong with some kids...Not you quotee

I'd prefer that you would avoid bringing my character into all of this, as I have not done so in your case.

It's not my intention to bring your character into this, at least not in a negative way.

If anything, I think you're suffering from an 'excess' of compassion or empathy. You don't have a poor character, you have a character that's SO focused on fairness, SO focused on acceptance, that I think it's actually backfiring against your own goals and ideals.

You're basically trying to be TOO nice, and TOO noble. It's not evil, it's just impractical.

For example...

You feel so badly for the victims of the bullying, that it leads you to demonize the bullies beyond what's really necessary or correct. You're willing to be unfair to people in your rush to ensure fairness.

You want so badly to give people their space, that you won't second guess anything anybody says. When the pink kid acts completely gay, but says he's not, you just take that at face value and accept it, rather than making a judgement. You're so unwilling to question others, you don't even do it when it's to their benefit.

This is really a classic problem in the west these days. We've gotten so "tolerant" that we refuse to make judgements of any kind anymore. In some cases, this is good. It allows us to be accepting of people's differences. In the case of this pink kid, it's bad. People refused to judge what he was doing to the point that it was basically just ignored. That didn't help him.

Everything is about balance. I feel like you're pushing the pendulum too far away from social control and judgement.

Phryxis wrote:

I'd prefer that you would avoid bringing my character into all of this, as I have not done so in your case.

It's not my intention to bring your character into this, at least not in a negative way.

I suppose I jumped to conclusions on that bit.

If anything, I think you're suffering from an 'excess' of compassion or empathy. You don't have a poor character, you have a character that's SO focused on fairness, SO focused on acceptance, that I think it's actually backfiring against your own goals and ideals.

You're basically trying to be TOO nice, and TOO noble. It's not evil, it's just impractical.

Hmm...

Well, I can agree with you in part here. I do lean towards idealism where pragmatism might work much better.

For example...

You feel so badly for the victims of the bullying, that it leads you to demonize the bullies beyond what's really necessary or correct. You're willing to be unfair to people in your rush to ensure fairness.

I don't actually feel that I have been demonizing bullies. Perhaps I was a bit muddy in my posts, though.

It is not my intention to run around screaming at people while wielding a broad brush. My opinion is that a person who has taken violent action against another person should be reprimanded in some way. Not to say that one must suspend every kid who ever shot a spitball at the teacher, because that would be a bit mental in itself. I'd like to bring in some outside information regarding all of this but I have done more than enough studying for today. I'll definitely drop what relevant information I can within the thread.

It'd be interesting to see how such actions as the a water bottle situation have been dealt with in general. I get your point in general on that. Was it empty? I am not actually sure about that. If one of my cousins were to have a full can of soda thrown at their face I would get pretty fething angry about it. If one of my cousins were to throw a can of soda at another kid I would be nearly as angry with them, but with different reactions involved.

Long story short I do not think it is unreasonable to suspend or expel a kid for pushing someone down stairs. It MAY depend on the stairs in question, but in general I can't see how such an action would merit no punishment at all. I just don't think that way. There may be circumstances where the level of reaction from authorities could be thrown into serious question. This is where I bring up my previous point about a flexible system that deals with bullying. A system designed to deal with specific circumstance.

This brings up issues of cost, but whatever.

You want so badly to give people their space, that you won't second guess anything anybody says. When the pink kid acts completely gay, but says he's not, you just take that at face value and accept it, rather than making a judgement. You're so unwilling to question others, you don't even do it when it's to their benefit.

I'm just going to disagree with you here. I have no serious grounds to base that presumption on.

As with the case of dealing with bullying on a specific basis I do not assume that each situation is the same. I can usually spot people with issues quite far off. It gets complicated when you start guessing what those issues are. In most cases I don't feel that it is my business, and in the case of a friend I would not jump to outing them. A question or two may be well placed, but it is not reasonable to assume that I know all that much about even the best of friends.

People hide stuff, and much of the time they aren't hiding what you think they are. Don't get me wrong, it is entirely possible that Mohat was gay. I really have no idea. You can have as many assumptions as you wan't. I'm not trying to stop you.

This is really a classic problem in the west these days. We've gotten so "tolerant" that we refuse to make judgements of any kind anymore. In some cases, this is good. It allows us to be accepting of people's differences. In the case of this pink kid, it's bad. People refused to judge what he was doing to the point that it was basically just ignored. That didn't help him.

Wait... People as in who? I guess you are talking about the people closest to him, but I'm not sure. It seems relatively obvious that not everyone held their judgment in reserve.

It is possible that Eric Mohat was gay. I know some very flamboyant people that may be a more sexually flexible than I am, but I do not assume they are homosexual because of it.

You are talking about a very in-depth tangent that I really don't have the time to discuss for quite a while. Realize that I do not actually think you are 100% wrong in some of your assumptions, but you would have to explain your position a bit more before I could agree. You can be seen as correct in some ways, but incorrect in others. Your position seems a bit convoluted, and I don't mean that negatively.

Everything is about balance. I feel like you're pushing the pendulum too far away from social control and judgement.

With balance comes the recognition that a scale is often tipped to one side over another. There are few scales that actually balance perfectly, and in many ways there aren't any social constructs that actually balance out like that at all.

Perhaps my position is a bit idealistic. Overall, sometimes I feel that one has to push much harder than you would think necessary to achieve your goals in their entirety. There is a point where I would not want further force to be applied. It does get a bit silly after a while. This is NOT that point, and I have not yet seen any argument to prove me wrong. You do bring up some interesting issues. I'll definitely give you that.

Again, though, I feel that this is a delicate issue that needs to be looked at from many perspectives. Even the unreasonable perspectives should be studied to some degree. I do not consider your opinion to be all that unreasonable. My statement on this point is more about the extremes of this issue. I do not think that either of us are particularly far into one extreme or another.

My opinion is that you can offer support to bullies and their targets alike. It isn't a matter of me suggesting exactly what that would be in every situation imaginable. I just feel that in a great deal of circumstances both parties can benefit from varied forms of support, and the whole school can benefit from that as well. Not to say that every kid needs to see a therapist or anything like that. It could be a matter of every kid having the opportunity to gain support through their school, but again we are talking about systems that are in all likelihood far beyond what an average school could manage.

If a system can only effectively offer support to one group then that group should definitely be the most vulnerable children. No doubt. In some cases those children can be both the target of bullying in one environment, and the bully in another. I don't have any information to back this up, but it wouldn't surprise me if the most serious cases of bullying involved a bully of this kind. There are problems with throwing around terms like bully, though.

Interesting subject nonetheless.

"You punch them in the face", was what the Dean of my high school suggested so long ago and is still suggesting.

It has worked to curb physical violence, but I can't say the same for other types of harrassment/bullying.

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:sorry I had to be that guy. but there it is.

You didn't have to be that guy. You could have held your tongue. Suppose some relative of these girls are members of this site? You simply have no consideration for other people.

Don't be so emotional. I'm not in a position to help any of the people who were hurt by bullying. If I were my advice would be something to the effect of "fight back, whether you win or lose you'll be sticking up for yourself." ofcpurse bullying is a problem and i wish teachers and administrators could handle it more effectively. OP solicited opinions and he got some. That mine is offensive to your personal sensibilities is regrettable, but it is not a violation of any dakka rules. If you find these conversations so disturbing that you can't participate without losing your cool and sending me nasty PMs, maybe you shouldn't participate.
AF

I am perfectly capable of participating in a civilised conversation, and your comment was not civilised, it was thoughtless cruelty.

If you were.... you wouldn't need to abuse your position as a mod to get your point across. Whatever man. It's your sand box. You don't have any more power than I choose to give you by..... participating. Ciao

My opinion is that a person who has taken violent action against another person should be reprimanded in some way.

I agree, it's a bad thing to be violent for no good reason. I'm merely saying that the police don't have to be involved, and words like "criminal" and "assault" aren't necessarily merited in all cases. This is what I'm calling "demonizing." It's perhaps a stretch for that word, but basically it seems as though you're trying to accentuate the negatives of the bully with these words, and I'm saying it's not always appropriate to do so.

Long story short I do not think it is unreasonable to suspend or expel a kid for pushing someone down stairs.

No question at all, could be very reasonable. But, as I said, it's really a matter of what the push was like, what the stairs were like, etc.

To me, if you mention "smack with water bottle" and "push down stairs" in the same sentence, then the push couldn't have been that bad. It'd stand on its own, otherwise.

Still, falling down stairs is dangerous. It's quite possible it was bad enough to merit suspension, expulsion, whatever.

A question or two may be well placed, but it is not reasonable to assume that I know all that much about even the best of friends.

Well, neither of us knows this kid, and we never will, because he's dead.

To me, it seems pretty obvious. Wearing pink, singing soprano, monkey named Georges... The kid is gay. Can't prove it, I realize I'm not an authority, but it seems pretty obvious.

Now, I understand, you want to be reasonable, you want to take the kid's assurances of heterosexuality in good faith, and give him the benefit of the doubt. Ok, cool. What if you could have saved his life by NOT doing that? How reasonable is it then?

Or, think about it in reverse... One day you see a guy yelling at a girl, getting in her face and calling her some really mean stuff. Based on what you've said, I'm assuming you're going to get in the middle, try to break it up, maybe "drop kick" this bully. But how do you know that girl didn't just beat up that guy's little sister? How do you know she didn't do something awful, and he's intervening just the way you now want to?

Maybe a bit contrived, but it's a WHOLE lot more likely than Mohat not being gay.

The point I make here is that you're somewhat selective in when you choose to refrain from judgement, and when you don't.

Wait... People as in who?

People as in the American mainstream.

There's an odd sort of cognitive dissonance going on with homosexuality here. It's like everyone is ok with people acting gay, but not really ok with people BEING gay. I mean, if the kid acts gay, he's gay, right? Oh, no, I wouldn't want to ACCUSE him of being gay! That'd be mean!

Why? Why is it mean to assume somebody is gay if being gay is fine?

Personally I think it's because America is, in a majority, homophobic, and is being bullied into silence on that subject by a relatively small minority of vocal activists. They're so bullied that they actually BELIEVE they're not homophobic, when at their core, they are.

My opinion is that you can offer support to bullies and their targets alike.

I agree. There are a class of people, which we've discussed, who have SERIOUS problems with cruelty, insecurity, whatever. They're acting out in ways that are desctructive to others, rather than destructive to themselves. They'd certainly be termed "bullies" and they certainly need help.

That said, I think that the GREAT majority of kids who are "bullying" are just normal kids, much in the way that the GREAT majority of victims of bullying are also normal kids. They're really all the same people, at different times, and they don't really need any special attention.

The thing is, though, the "extreme bully" mentioned above, the one that needs help... He's not likely to kill anybody. But the "extreme victim" is the most likely to kill somebody, namely themselves. That's why I think they need to be focused on more than anybody else. They're the greatest risk.

I just ignored bullies. They aren't worth wasting my spit on. I know I way more smarter than they will ever be.

Bullying is one problem that has been around a long time. There are more school interventions in place for this than when I was a child. However, this is not the only problem to discuss. As someone expressed earlier, bullying is not the cause of the suicides. Neither is video games or heavy metal music. The media used to blame Ozzy Osbourne music for teen suicides, now they are on about the "bullying epidemic".

Sadly, teen suicide is not a new problem. The major physical changes that are going on in their bodies make teens vulnerable to depression. Their hormones are in an uproar and similar to PMS or postpartum depression. That is, teenagers are not in their "right" minds. More interventions to spot the warning signs for teen depression and suicide need to be instituted. For example, Education for parents and teachers, programs to make help readily and discreetly available, etc.

utan wrote:Bullying is one problem that has been around a long time. There are more school interventions in place for this than when I was a child. However, this is not the only problem to discuss. As someone expressed earlier, bullying is not the cause of the suicides. Neither is video games or heavy metal music. The media used to blame Ozzy Osbourne music for teen suicides, now they are on about the "bullying epidemic".

Sadly, teen suicide is not a new problem. The major physical changes that are going on in their bodies make teens vulnerable to depression. Their hormones are in an uproar and similar to PMS or postpartum depression. That is, teenagers are not in their "right" minds. More interventions to spot the warning signs for teen depression and suicide need to be instituted. For example, Education for parents and teachers, programs to make help readily and discreetly available, etc.

You have a point. The youngins are O So Moody and everything is a Big Damned Deal. they just radiate hormones.

Phryxis wrote:

My opinion is that a person who has taken violent action against another person should be reprimanded in some way.

I agree, it's a bad thing to be violent for no good reason. I'm merely saying that the police don't have to be involved, and words like "criminal" and "assault" aren't necessarily merited in all cases. This is what I'm calling "demonizing." It's perhaps a stretch for that word, but basically it seems as though you're trying to accentuate the negatives of the bully with these words, and I'm saying it's not always appropriate to do so.

I say criminal because I consider the actions I was talking about to be criminal. It seems that you take offense to the words even though I made clear that I do not feel the term 'bully' is a particularly specific one. Don't get me wrong though, I get what your saying here.

Don't think on it too much.

Long story short I do not think it is unreasonable to suspend or expel a kid for pushing someone down stairs.

No question at all, could be very reasonable. But, as I said, it's really a matter of what the push was like, what the stairs were like, etc.

To me, if you mention "smack with water bottle" and "push down stairs" in the same sentence, then the push couldn't have been that bad. It'd stand on its own, otherwise.

Still, falling down stairs is dangerous. It's quite possible it was bad enough to merit suspension, expulsion, whatever.

I don't entirely get your point in sentence two here... whatever, though. Dunna matter.

I'm glad you generally agree with me about people being pushed down stairs.

A question or two may be well placed, but it is not reasonable to assume that I know all that much about even the best of friends.

Well, neither of us knows this kid, and we never will, because he's dead.

To me, it seems pretty obvious. Wearing pink, singing soprano, monkey named Georges... The kid is gay. Can't prove it, I realize I'm not an authority, but it seems pretty obvious.

It may seem pretty obvious, and I have not said you're actually wrong, but it doesn't seem all that obvious to me. I have known some really out there people. Attention grabbing raving lunatics if the fancy strikes them. By your standards I assume that you think something is wrong with them. There probably is. Beyond that I really couldn't tell you what specifically is wrong, and I certainly couldn't tell you how to go about addressing those problems.

I just don't fething know. People are really complicated. A+B=C just doesn't work most of the time.

Now, I understand, you want to be reasonable, you want to take the kid's assurances of heterosexuality in good faith, and give him the benefit of the doubt. Ok, cool. What if you could have saved his life by NOT doing that? How reasonable is it then?

I said that I do not know, but did not hesitate to suggest that you could be wrong. That is all.

How do you know she didn't do something awful, and he's intervening just the way you now want to?

Is he pushing her down a set of stairs? Can I do something immediate about it, or are my options limited to calling emergency services as soon as I notice what is going on?

Maybe a bit contrived, but it's a WHOLE lot more likely than Mohat not being gay.

Yep, maybe sounds about right.

The point I make here is that you're somewhat selective in when you choose to refrain from judgement, and when you don't.

Such is the case with pretty much every person on the planet. Welcome to the club.

Wait... People as in who?

People as in the American mainstream.

Gotcha.

There's an odd sort of cognitive dissonance going on with homosexuality here. It's like everyone is ok with people acting gay, but not really ok with people BEING gay. I mean, if the kid acts gay, he's gay, right? Oh, no, I wouldn't want to ACCUSE him of being gay! That'd be mean!

Why? Why is it mean to assume somebody is gay if being gay is fine?

Beyond the case of people in what you consider to be Mohat's situation I am not entirely sure I see the problem here.

It is their decision. From what I know most people come out when they feel comfortable doing so. It is unfortunate that some people would have so much inner hatred that they would resort to killing themselves over it. I can't solve everyone's problems. I certainly support the concept of coming out, but I also understand that there are some very thorny issues surrounding the subject.

I mean, it sounds like you want to be pragmatic. I would elaborate but I want to know a bit more about what you are suggesting with the term 'accuse'.

Personally I think it's because America is, in a majority, homophobic, and is being bullied into silence on that subject by a relatively small minority of vocal activists. They're so bullied that they actually BELIEVE they're not homophobic, when at their core, they are.

What...

That was a jump. A pretty hefty one at that.

Hey, don't get me wrong, that was a pretty good hook. Makes you think at the very least. Kinda subtle too. I will tell you that I regard your statements on this point as similar to your suggestions about the existence of racism. I am not trying to stop you from having those opinions. Own them.

My opinion is that you can offer support to bullies and their targets alike.

I agree. There are a class of people, which we've discussed, who have SERIOUS problems with cruelty, insecurity, whatever. They're acting out in ways that are desctructive to others, rather than destructive to themselves. They'd certainly be termed "bullies" and they certainly need help.

That said, I think that the GREAT majority of kids who are "bullying" are just normal kids, much in the way that the GREAT majority of victims of bullying are also normal kids. They're really all the same people, at different times, and they don't really need any special attention.

I get your point on this as well. What I don't agree with about this is where many people can 'do just fine', because they would benefit greatly from receiving help. I don't want psychs pulling people out of class at random and testing them for god knows how long. It just isn't a bad idea to offer some form of support to kids who want and/or need it.

If a kid would have gone on to have their own business because they weren't bullied, is that not something we should try to support? What if the bully received support and went on to be a great father and a generally admirable citizen if they received support; is that not something we should try to support.

This may sound a bit softy-feely, but I genuinely believe you can make the world a better place by helping out those in need. I don't think that everyone wants that help, nor could they receive it if they wanted to. Some people can better themselves, and in my opinion they should be given the opportunity.

The thing is, though, the "extreme bully" mentioned above, the one that needs help... He's not likely to kill anybody. But the "extreme victim" is the most likely to kill somebody, namely themselves. That's why I think they need to be focused on more than anybody else. They're the greatest risk.

On average you may be right. I don't have any information to have any opinion beyond what I have suggested so far. I don't know how much support any given party should receive, but I do feel that all parties involved should see some part of their issues resolved. And again, I do believe that targets should receive support before bullies on most occasions.

It depends a lot on circumstance.

Yeah, you dragged me back in to this conversation and you did a pretty good job of it. I don't agree with what you have to say on some of these points, but you make interesting and pretty well composed arguments. Hopefully I have made my opinion regarding some of this clear.

By your standards I assume that you think something is wrong with them.

No... Again, it's about the kid KILLING HIMSELF. My standards is that if somebody kills themselves, then something was wrong with them.

If a kid acts totally gay, but says he's not gay, then whatever. Maybe he's not. I know people like that. If they seem generally happy with their life, then whatever they can seem how they want to seem, be how they want to be.

But then if they kill themselves, that throws up all sorts of flags. Then you have to ask what it was all about. If the person exhibits obviously conflicted behaviors, do those behaviors not predict the conflict that caused them to take their own life?

Consider: A guy gets divorced. He says he's ok, but he becomes progressively more distant and listless. Insists he's ok, just tired from work. Ok. Then he kills himself. You're telling me that you're not gonna assume, right away, that it probably was the thing with the divorce that pushed him over? "Oh, he said that wasn't an issue, must not be." No way. You think about what conflicts there were in the person's life, what stresses they were responding to. Chances are, by the time somebody is killing themselves, they've put out a LOT of signals.

I would elaborate but I want to know a bit more about what you are suggesting with the term 'accuse'.

Well, think about the previous example. If a friend just had a divorce, and seemed down, would you hesitate to ask if they were upset? Probably not. You'd think "this guy seems upset," and you'd have no problem asking them as much, and if you can help.

So why is it such a bad thing to ask somebody if they're gay? It's supposed to be fine to be gay, so why would it be upsetting to ask them? People take it as an accusation. An insult. "Are you gay?" That's literally an insult.

So, my point here is that we're at a strange place with regards to homosexuality. We're supposed to think it's totally fine, but at the same time we have to understand that asking somebody if they're gay is an insult. It doesn't make much sense.

But, notice what it's done here... You seem like a pretty concerned sort of dude. You like the idea of helping people out. I can picture you asking somebody if they're upset about their divorce, trying to help them through it. Then, along comes Mohat. He's clearly got some conflicts going on that don't add up. But you don't want to say anything, because it'd be politically incorrect to quiz somebody about being gay.

"Who CARES if he's gay, you homophobe! Leave him ALONE!" So you don't ask.

And what did political correctness do for us? It prevented a real discussion about real issues a real kid was facing.

Instead of being able to just talk through it, everyone had to pretend reality didn't exist. "Oh, he's dressing in pink, singing soprano... But he's not gay! And who am I to judge?"

That's what political correctness is all about. Denying people access to reality. It killed that kid.

That was a jump. A pretty hefty one at that.

Well, how else would you explain the fact that we as a society have decided it's ok to be gay, but also insulting to be asked if you're gay?

It just isn't a bad idea to offer some form of support to kids who want and/or need it.

Sure, that's fine. All I'm saying is that virtually ALL kids do some bullying, and virtually ALL kids get bullied. Low grade stuff. "I'm older than you," type stuff. Making fun of somebody for tripping in the lunch line. It's minor, it passes. The victim's feelings are badly hurt, but they get over it.

They don't REALLY need help with that. In many ways, it's a good experience for them to learn to absorb and process negative emotions on their own. Big part of growing up.

But, beyond those kids, there are people with genuine social disorders who are looking to be violent to others, or to themselves. Both these types need help, but the kids that are violent to themselves, I think, are a bigger risk (obviously only to themselves, though).

Damn. You fast. You're a bit prolific in your posting today. Cool stuff.

I'll work through this post and get back to you in a few minutes.

Another thing to consider:

People tend to kill themselves when they feel alone, and like nobody can understand them.

It seems like Mohat had some friends, people who liked his style, and played into it. Those are the people rushing to his defense, saying he was a great guy, not gay.

Ok, so picture a day in his life...

He's in class, acting completely gay, because he is, and he wants it out there and for people to accept it, because it's important to human beings to be understood and accepted.

A bully comes up. "You're gay." Which is true. But the bully is saying it SPECIFICALLY to be clear that he does NOT accept it. He may as well have just said "I don't accept you." Message delivered.

But then one of Mohat's buddies rushes to his defense. "Shut up, he is NOT gay!"

What did that person just tell Mohat? They're his friend, and even THEY don't accept that he's gay. They think it's an insult to be gay, so they reject the idea as such.

So nobody accepts Mohat. Not the bullies, not his friends and family. Even people who care about him don't accept him.

It's actually the people that care about him that have to hurt the most. Some people are just dicks. They'll refuse to accept you just to hurt your feelings. People can deal with that. But when your friends and family can't accept you? There's nobody who can love you or care about you more than them. If they can't accept you, NOBODY can accept you.

That conclusion is step 1 to killing yourself.

Phryxis wrote:

By your standards I assume that you think something is wrong with them.

No... Again, it's about the kid KILLING HIMSELF. My standards is that if somebody kills themselves, then something was wrong with them.

It definitely reads like you are talking about much larger issues than this one case.

If a kid acts totally gay, but says he's not gay, then whatever. Maybe he's not. I know people like that. If they seem generally happy with their life, then whatever they can seem how they want to seem, be how they want to be.

But then if they kill themselves, that throws up all sorts of flags. Then you have to ask what it was all about. If the person exhibits obviously conflicted behaviors, do those behaviors not predict the conflict that caused them to take their own life?

Definitely. If I agree with anything you said so far this is most definitely it. I agree with you because flags are being thrown up. Really noticeable flags.

I don't actually have the experience to read those particular flags. You can call that handing my power to authority if you want. I don't feel it is, but you may given what I consider to be your general position so far.

Consider: A guy gets divorced. He says he's ok, but he becomes progressively more distant and listless. Insists he's ok, just tired from work. Ok. Then he kills himself. You're telling me that you're not gonna assume, right away, that it probably was the thing with the divorce that pushed him over? "Oh, he said that wasn't an issue, must not be." No way. You think about what conflicts there were in the person's life, what stresses they were responding to. Chances are, by the time somebody is killing themselves, they've put out a LOT of signals.

I don't actually consider that analogy to be particularly accurate. The person you bring up had a relationship that I was aware of. Interaction between themselves and another person took place. Romantic interactions took place; one could guess that they stopped taking place long before the relationship ended, but that is neither here nor there.

My point is, do you know how to step in and tell the person word for word what their flags are saying? Very few people are good at that. I am only good at it in very specific circumstances. People are fething confusing most of the time. I can read facial expressions and get an idea of what they may be thinking. Problem is, I am not trained to read emotions to the extent where I can interpret messages that people send through them; explicit messages where you can see that clearly through their defenses.

You know what people do a lot of? They read facial expressions wrong. You may know that someone is happy or sad, but I'll be good god damned if you really know why.

Now, it is important to note beyond what I have said that the situation you bring up has a lot more literalism tied to it. A man just broke from a long-term relationship that represented a very significant part of their lives. It would be less difficult, in my opinion, to say that suicide under these circumstances is easily deciphered as a clear message that all of us should be able to see. It is easier for me to agree with you on this point, but I do not feel that it ties particularly well into our current discussion.

Our current discussion covers much more subtle issues in my opinion.

I would elaborate but I want to know a bit more about what you are suggesting with the term 'accuse'.

Well, think about the previous example. If a friend just had a divorce, and seemed down, would you hesitate to ask if they were upset? Probably not. You'd think "this guy seems upset," and you'd have no problem asking them as much, and if you can help.

Makes sense, but I still disagree on the grounds of your analogy being a bit misplaced.

So why is it such a bad thing to ask somebody if they're gay? It's supposed to be fine to be gay, so why would it be upsetting to ask them? People take it as an accusation. An insult. "Are you gay?" That's literally an insult.

Yeah, I get it. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't reading you wrong.

People who are gay may not even understand what that means. Especially in the case of teenagers they may not even understand what their sexuality is.

Confusion is a bitch. I think that many people have questioned their sexuality on grounds that go far beyond distinctions of gay/straight. Most people have done so in one form or another. I would suggest that sexuality IS the driving force in our minds. It is what we think about. Not to say all you are here to do is get laid, but it definitely seems to work it's way into just about everything we do.

There is a reason so many architectural structures are sexual. We interact with those structures on a daily basis. Not to say you are inside of a giant boob, or a massive wang, but sexuality is an intrinsic part of human life.

So, my point here is that we're at a strange place with regards to homosexuality. We're supposed to think it's totally fine, but at the same time we have to understand that asking somebody if they're gay is an insult. It doesn't make much sense.

There is a lot in this statement, and where I said that in a questioning tone before, I do not do so here.

I could pick on your use of the word 'we', but it just isn't necessary. What you said here is very important.

But, notice what it's done here... You seem like a pretty concerned sort of dude. You like the idea of helping people out. I can picture you asking somebody if they're upset about their divorce, trying to help them through it. Then, along comes Mohat. He's clearly got some conflicts going on that don't add up. But you don't want to say anything, because it'd be politically incorrect to quiz somebody about being gay.

At this point I will ask you what person the divorced man was in my life. Are you talking about a close family member or a random dude on the street?

Again, I consider your analogy relatively misplaced.

"Who CARES if he's gay, you homophobe! Leave him ALONE!" So you don't ask.

I can't actually respond to this as I still disagree with your premise.

If you are correct in your assumptions then it is unfortunate people close to Mohat did not ask him those questions. To be frank, it certainly sounds like they did.

You are talking about questioning a persons sexuality. It really isn't most peoples business what a persons sexual preferences are, unless those preferences present a threat to others.

There is a harassment, and then there is trying to help a friend or a family member. It is pretty offensive that you would turn and blame the family for their child's suicide. It really didn't seem anywhere near that simple, and it usually never is. They were not necessarily responsible for the instability of their child.

And what did political correctness do for us? It prevented a real discussion about real issues a real kid was facing.

Or it didn't, and you're trying to make a political point. Accuse me of the same as much as you'd like.

Instead of being able to just talk through it, everyone had to pretend reality didn't exist. "Oh, he's dressing in pink, singing soprano... But he's not gay! And who am I to judge?"

That's what political correctness is all about. Denying people access to reality. It killed that kid.

Or it didn't, and you're trying to make a political point.

That was a jump. A pretty hefty one at that.

Well, how else would you explain the fact that we as a society have decided it's ok to be gay, but also insulting to be asked if you're gay?

You should read a bit more into the context of this issue. Asking and accusing are not the same things, and in situations involving close friends and family the whole situation shifts into an entirely new light.

In most situations I would guess that the question of sexuality pertaining to an individual, is discussed within a family or close group, and is addressed through those interactions.

Perhaps Mohat was gay, but he also had a loving family that DID talk to him about most of this in any way they could. Maybe they were not clear enough as to promote a sense of self that would override his self hatred, but I would not promote the idea that the family, and further all of us is at fault for this kids death. It is unfortunate and I wish he had received whatever help he did need.

It just isn't a bad idea to offer some form of support to kids who want and/or need it.

But, beyond those kids, there are people with genuine social disorders who are looking to be violent to others, or to themselves. Both these types need help, but the kids that are violent to themselves, I think, are a bigger risk (obviously only to themselves, though).

They are a more direct risk to themselves, and as I suggested earlier I do think that one 'bully' can present a larger risk than any target could. You could argue that by virtue of violent reaction many targets discredit that concept. I disagree.

Phryxis wrote:Another thing to consider:

People tend to kill themselves when they feel alone, and like nobody can understand them.

It seems like Mohat had some friends, people who liked his style, and played into it. Those are the people rushing to his defense, saying he was a great guy, not gay.

Ok, so picture a day in his life...

He's in class, acting completely gay, because he is, and he wants it out there and for people to accept it, because it's important to human beings to be understood and accepted.

A bully comes up. "You're gay." Which is true. But the bully is saying it SPECIFICALLY to be clear that he does NOT accept it. He may as well have just said "I don't accept you." Message delivered.

But then one of Mohat's buddies rushes to his defense. "Shut up, he is NOT gay!"

What did that person just tell Mohat? They're his friend, and even THEY don't accept that he's gay. They think it's an insult to be gay, so they reject the idea as such.

So nobody accepts Mohat. Not the bullies, not his friends and family. Even people who care about him don't accept him.

It's actually the people that care about him that have to hurt the most. Some people are just dicks. They'll refuse to accept you just to hurt your feelings. People can deal with that. But when your friends and family can't accept you? There's nobody who can love you or care about you more than them. If they can't accept you, NOBODY can accept you.

That conclusion is step 1 to killing yourself.

Thats... a very well thought argument, and is probably a good representation of what happened. If the kid feels that even his closest friends won't accept him thens that going to be damn near impossible to live with. They're have been various times when i've considered offing my self, but it was the fact that i had friends and family i could trust in. IF they werent there i don't know what i would've done

Phryxis wrote:Another thing to consider:

People tend to kill themselves when they feel alone, and like nobody can understand them.

It seems like Mohat had some friends, people who liked his style, and played into it. Those are the people rushing to his defense, saying he was a great guy, not gay.

Ok, so picture a day in his life...

He's in class, acting completely gay, because he is, and he wants it out there and for people to accept it, because it's important to human beings to be understood and accepted.

A bully comes up. "You're gay." Which is true. But the bully is saying it SPECIFICALLY to be clear that he does NOT accept it. He may as well have just said "I don't accept you." Message delivered.

But then one of Mohat's buddies rushes to his defense. "Shut up, he is NOT gay!"

What did that person just tell Mohat? They're his friend, and even THEY don't accept that he's gay. They think it's an insult to be gay, so they reject the idea as such.

So nobody accepts Mohat. Not the bullies, not his friends and family. Even people who care about him don't accept him.

It's actually the people that care about him that have to hurt the most. Some people are just dicks. They'll refuse to accept you just to hurt your feelings. People can deal with that. But when your friends and family can't accept you? There's nobody who can love you or care about you more than them. If they can't accept you, NOBODY can accept you.

That conclusion is step 1 to killing yourself.

If you are correct then it is unfortunate that Mohat ended up in such an endless lack of self.

I am not sure that is what happened, and it is still entirely possible that Mohat was just a flamboyant guy who suffered from mental illness.

He could have been gay or straight, but your argument puts an awful lot of responsibility on other kids that were close to Mohat. The guy needed help, but there is no reason to assume that any of his friends or family was capable of providing that support. It is a sad story and I do not know why he chose to kill himself. If your example can stand to help some people that is a good thing.

You're a pretty quick cat, Phryxis. Have a good one.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Phryxis wrote:Another thing to consider:

People tend to kill themselves when they feel alone, and like nobody can understand them.

It seems like Mohat had some friends, people who liked his style, and played into it. Those are the people rushing to his defense, saying he was a great guy, not gay.

Ok, so picture a day in his life...

He's in class, acting completely gay, because he is, and he wants it out there and for people to accept it, because it's important to human beings to be understood and accepted.

A bully comes up. "You're gay." Which is true. But the bully is saying it SPECIFICALLY to be clear that he does NOT accept it. He may as well have just said "I don't accept you." Message delivered.

But then one of Mohat's buddies rushes to his defense. "Shut up, he is NOT gay!"

What did that person just tell Mohat? They're his friend, and even THEY don't accept that he's gay. They think it's an insult to be gay, so they reject the idea as such.

So nobody accepts Mohat. Not the bullies, not his friends and family. Even people who care about him don't accept him.

It's actually the people that care about him that have to hurt the most. Some people are just dicks. They'll refuse to accept you just to hurt your feelings. People can deal with that. But when your friends and family can't accept you? There's nobody who can love you or care about you more than them. If they can't accept you, NOBODY can accept you.

That conclusion is step 1 to killing yourself.

If you are correct then it is unfortunate that Mohat ended up in such an endless lack of self.

I am not sure that is what happened, and it is still entirely possible that Mohat was just a flamboyant guy who suffered from mental illness.

He could have been gay or straight, but your argument puts an awful lot of responsibility on other kids that were close to Mohat. The guy needed help, but there is no reason to assume that any of his friends or family was capable of providing that support. It is a sad story and I do not know why he chose to kill himself. If your example can stand to help some people that is a good thing.

You're a pretty quick cat, Phryxis. Have a good one.

Many people are different than others. Young kids are more sensitive than adults and take insults more seriously (even if the bully does or doesn't mean it) As we get older we mature and take insults less seriously and endure them. We don't dwell and cry over them as young kids do. Adults get fired up and insult back, but they don't cry over insulting words.
In other words. Teens are weaker in emotion than adults.

I gotta go beddy bye

I don't actually consider that analogy to be particularly accurate.

It's just a comparison to give context. It's not meant to be deeply accurate, it's just meant to give you a perspective to consider. Mainly I wanted you to think about how you'd feel about asking somebody if they're sad about a divorce, vs asking somebody if they're gay.

Seems to me that most people would have minimal trouble with the former, and considerable trouble with the latter... Because:

Asking and accusing are not the same things

Even an innocent question can become an accusation if it's sufficiently serious. If you just randomly said to somebody, "hey, have you ever had inappropriate sexual contact with a child," they're not just gonna say "nah," and keep watching the baseball game. They're gonna say "no, and what the hell are you even asking me that for?"

"Are you gay," is that sort of question. It implies that, to you, it's within the realm of possibility that the person is gay. If being gay was totally fine, then that wouldn't be an insult. But, really, people DON'T think it's ok, no matter how much they pretend. So if you ask, you're slightly accusing them, and even the slightest accusation is offensive to some people.

Or it didn't, and you're trying to make a political point.

I'm not really trying to make it political. I wanted a less controversial phrase than "politically correct" but there isn't one. Bottom line, there is a lot of social baggage around homosexuality, and that social baggage stilts the conversation in ways that are not helpful. That's my point, not like "Barack Obama killed this kid!!!!"

If you are correct in your assumptions then it is unfortunate people close to Mohat did not ask him those questions. To be frank, it certainly sounds like they did.

It sometimes takes more than just asking... And more than just once.

Consider:

Bully: "Hey, Mohat, you're gay!"
Mohat: "F U, Biff."
Bully: "Ha ha."
Mohat Friend: "What a jerk."
Mohat: "Totally."
Mohat Friend: "Yeah. I mean, you're not gay, right?"
Mohat: ".... Yeah, right."

Know what I'm saying?

Plus, life happens when you're least prepared. Mohat is struggling with being gay. He goes to school one day, he's READY to come out. He just wants it to come up so he can say "you know, I think I am." But it doesn't come up. Mohat is sad, but moves on.

Then it's finals, and Mohat is stressed. He's worried about his grades, he's feeling a bit beat down. One of his friends is worried he's upset about bullying, and asks, very kindly, if Mohat is gay. He wants to say he is, but he just doesn't have the energy to take that step, that day. And so on it goes. And the friend doesn't ask again, and Mohat realizes he's further trapped himself beyond the possibility of acceptance.

He could have been gay or straight, but your argument puts an awful lot of responsibility on other kids that were close to Mohat.

Depends how you define responsibility. I think, realistically, they were the only ones who had a chance to save him. So that's a pretty big responsibility. But it's not like I think poorly of them for failing to live up to it. It sounds like a tough deal.