Bullies and The Punishment of Victims

One of the most outrageous aspects of the recent bullying events was the failure to invoke consequences against the perpetrators. Many of the stories described teachers refusing to act at all. In other reports, punishment was meted out to the victim, a result of school authorities neglecting and even refusing to follow the violence to the source.

How we deal with those who disrespect others and how we deal with those affected by their disruptive actions is yet another set of social conventions that call for critical examination.

Provocateurs harass, stalk and otherwise assault their victims because they know how to fly just under the radar. They understand the rules and what will activate the alarms; and so, they are expert at operating just below that threshold, provoking others until they get a reaction.

The result is that the target reacts and is punished for breaking the rules. Meanwhile, the bully has once again skillfully manipulated the system.

When rules are applied mechanistically, without consideration for context and behavior patterns of those involved, such myopic "instant cures" are likely to be the result.

This is a phenomenon that is so common to human nature that it can even be observed, with regularity, here on DU.

Can this flawed method of keeping the peace be improved, and can attempts to find solutions within a small sample lead to answers that may apply in larger social institutions?

It is obvious, from evidence we see in all varieties of human interactions, that honest and equitable mediation requires willingness to analyze the chain of cause and effect back to the source--the initial provocation. It is there that the impulse to harm others originated, and it is there that remedies should focus.

So, if you dont want to get branded a problem, you had better not be the victim. And zero tolerance means, if one says he started it, and he was picking on me, they are told shut up, you to are in trouble. Simple for schools. So, victims have no advocate, no resbit. no safety. I did it the old fashion way, I beat the snot oughtta anyone that threatened me. My parents gave me permission. In fact, they said I would get beat, unless I beat them first. So, I told the vice principle he was a useless coward, and unless he was willing to protect me, I would continue to beat the snot out of them. I shamed teachers for not interfering. And deeply insulted any bullies in public. Right before.

The solution is to take the time to understand the dynamics of each bullying situation. And has exactly zero chance of happening.

being accountable for placing one's self in harm's way does nothing to "blame" anyone. It's pointing out that if one knows that it's dangerous to go somewhere or do something, however legal, and something happens, then other choices could have been made for future reference.

It in no way connects somebody's acceptance of risk as a cause of the bullying behavior or crime.

You cannot always have a blanket rule that applies equally to both a victim and perpetrator in the absence of context, or at the very least in the absence of monitoring and enforcement.

I know the nuance is lost on some here - put away the pitchforks, but observing that placing one's self in harms way increases the chances of an adverse event happening does not in any way imply that one deserves to have that adverse event happen.

The most perfect examples are right here before Skinner's last reminder about civility being the standard. It was fugly here without immediate response by the mods, exactly because IF one risked responding honestly on a hot topic the nastiness and slow monitoring engendered reaction and escalation, and lots of tombstones for both bullies and victims. The primary difference I see is exactly what Skinner concluded: you can't monitor topics so much as how people engage on topics. You can't monitor every social situation so much as how people engage in those situations - in real life inappropriate touching, verbal assault and intimidation and escalations all the way to destruction of property, physical assault and even threatening gesture and hyper aggressive driving are all the "crimes" in which bullying actually materializes.

Loss of civility is a form of assault and the first form of assault that bullying takes.

it's easy to see, for example, habitual harassers who show up strictly to strafe certain topics and make ugly remarks completely out of context (the topic of sexual objectification of women always brings out the provocateurs)....

yet, even with a clear record of who started the incivility, if they avoid certain trigger words, they escape consequences, it seems. Unfortunately, people do have a tendency to react in anger and self-defense, which is exactly what anti-social elements want; but the reaction of people otherwise truly participating in critical discussion gets them deleted or even banned, while the truly guilty party learns that his nasty methods work.

This failure to look closely is frustrating when it appears that initiation, context and patterns mean nothing, even though the whole exchange is right there and easy to see.

I wonder how a systemic change can begin on a larger scale when the trail isn't so easy to track.

We can place someone on ignore and just not respond to the escalation.

Eventually the predator will go away. Here the only thing we worry about are ephemeral qualities like our idea of what our "reputation" is on DU or being portrayed wrongly or poorly.

Bullying here requires that both people participate. Failure to participate does not constitute a victory for a real bully, so there really isn't any loss of face. I also think that if a pattern does exist, like stalking bullies (I've had more than a few), even though they're playing sub rosa you could still write to the admins with examples of consistent hounding and ask them to intervene directly.

In the real world it's a lot harder to add someone to your ignore list when they're standing in front of you being unpleasant . . .

you can see the bullies feed off t he negative energy. Sometimes I've actually wanted to nudge the "good guy" in the exchange to stop feeding the creep what it craves.

I usually only get into that crap in response to sexism--that's my trigger. Luckily I'm pretty sensitive to when it's time to give up and let them spin. But seeing them get away with it here---and in real life---THAT really sends me over the edge. Guess I just will never really be ok with that ol' bromide, "life is unfair".

yes, ignore is becoming my friend.....

Luckily I've never been stalked (here); in adulthood, I've managed unpleasant people pretty well...

but the experience here, of the "usual suspects" doing their thing and getting away with it pisses me off. Even when you alert, and it seems they've clearly stepped over the line, there seem to never be consequences for sexists--and they are so blatantly hateful. Seems like misogynistic comments and hectoring get a pretty free pass, and that angers me. Sexists can bully women and joke about sexualized humiliation against women they don't like, whereas racists and homophobes would be under a pizza pretty quick.

Such a reflection here of larger society. I have an ongoing real life situation that I am not permitted to involve myself in, for professional reasons. Very frustrating all around (grrrrr. Ugh, just thinking about the whole thing is getting my pressure up!), but I'm getting to observe some very disconcerting attitudes among young men...and typical reticence of young women, avoiding confrontation.

...so, the pattern here, aside from getting me full of hostility and other negative emotions, got me thinking about real life society, human nature, maintaining an ordered society and the recent discussions of bullying in the news and here.