principal: "kids who are bullied need to be less annoying"; cyber-bullying and digital self harm

The kid who shot everyone clearly had no coping skills. His response to being picked on was extreme because he hadn't learned another way.

I don't even think the kid was bullied to any extreme extent. By all accounts, he was a psychotic and violent kid that people avoided because he was scary. Turning him into some decent kid who was just bullied too much is irresponsible, I think.

Remember those Columbine kids? The story was that they were bullied, and finally snapped. That was complete bullshit, it turned out that the kids weren't bullied at all. They were treated fine, and had friends.

One of them was completely sociopathic, and was able to convince the other one to go along with his insane plan. That's all. No bullying caused that, it was just a person with severe mental problems that wanted to kill people.
 
Nah, no one bit on this. Try again some other day.
2nd dick tuck and concession noted. By allowing the abuse to continue you solve nothing. IT only creates problems.. Yet you seam to think it is ok.
 
Social isolation is cruel, but unfortunately you can't necessarily change that dynamic. I still see it in the workplace with adults, and as a manager I can address it, but I can't force most mentalities to change despite professional mediators, informal conflict management resolution ( 2nd step in the process after my initial intervention). In 12 years, I can't recall a case of social ostracism to be reversed long term, despite harassment grievances against several people in the group. It's really not pleasant.

Alas, isolation is cruel and the only meaningful change that can be made in its regard is within the individual, which I think is the whole point of cruel principal whoeverthefuck’s rant. The dynamic can’t be changed but an individual can make changes so that they aren’t the ostracized one.

I had a neighbor as an adult who could get a girls number every week, but he could never keep one interested to last the week and would complain about it all the time. Jobs went the same way for him. Money the same. Within two months of knowing me I was his best friend. I got him a job and fought for him at it but soon enough he was fired from there. In none of his relationships was I confused about what people saw, or didn’t see, in him. I did my best over the course of our friendship to help him along in areas he was “deficient” in. But somewhere along the way my other friends asked me to stop bringing him out with us. And somewhere along the way I stopped being interested in helping along a grown man whom I had met when I was a grown man as if he was a child. I stopped hanging with the guy. I still wish him the best but it’s not my fight and I’m sure I became another figure of abandonment in his life.

When I met this guy it was to late to make an impactful difference. I think this type of person is the type that can be helped by this principals message though they need someone to help them implement the changes early enough in life for it to make a difference.
 
A kid that's being annoying, shouldn't be beaten up. But the other kids should still be allowed to tell him that he's being a prick.

The adults should steer the kids away from bullying, and towards "constructive criticism" of others. But that shouldn't happen at the expense of making kids incapable of expressing their frustrations, about others when necessary.

We don't want to enable and protect whacky behaviour, that never gets called out on, until it's too late. Being pampered and entitled, and out of reach from the criticism of your peers, is no "gift" to a child, believe that. The worst sons of bitches in the world's history, were brought up that way. The ones who took their lumps, mostly turned out alright.

While I don't condone bullying, there's a degree of complexity to this issue that most people would prefer not to admit. Any group of people, that has been made to work together, including classmates, must reach a level of unity and common understanding between each other. Their means of reaching this sort of consensus, as kids, are simply more primitive and impulsive, than those of the adults, often resulting in bullying and ostracization. It's on the shoulders of the adults to teach them ways, that lead to more productive results for all.
 
Last edited:
"Annoying" isn't a synonym for socially awkward. One would think a principle would know this.
 
I don't even think the kid was bullied to any extreme extent. By all accounts, he was a psychotic and violent kid that people avoided because he was scary. Turning him into some decent kid who was just bullied too much is irresponsible, I think.

Remember those Columbine kids? The story was that they were bullied, and finally snapped. That was complete bullshit, it turned out that the kids weren't bullied at all. They were treated fine, and had friends.

One of them was completely sociopathic, and was able to convince the other one to go along with his insane plan. That's all. No bullying caused that, it was just a person with severe mental problems that wanted to kill people.

This.

Ten years after Columbine, one of the detectives in the case wrote a book. Within it, he stated that much of the early reporting was simply wrong. The kids were not bullied. The kids had friends. There was no "trench coat mafia". They were not targeting the "jocks".

Instead, one of the murderers was a sociopath. Within his book, he stated that whether in high school, or as an adult, he assumed the guy was going to kill someone.


Regarding the guy in Florida: has it been confirmed that he was bullied? One of the girls who was a student at the school stated that people stayed away from him because he made people feel uncomfortable: swearing at classmates, staring at her chest while she was supposed to tutor him, etc.

Staying away from someone that makes you feel uncomfortable is not being a bully.

Heck, if Ted from accounting makes Sally feel creeped out, Sally doesn't have to go on a date with him. If she turns him down, she would not be considered a bully....would she?
 
Might motivate the kid to do something with his/her life. Might get off the couch and not be a fat ass, might stop playing Fortnite and study, might work hard and not be a fucking leech on society. Kids should be bullied. Teaches them to deal with problems.
That social darwinist thinking. Those are all big *mights* . More chance the kid becomes even more maladjusted and deteriorates. The bullying will negatively impact his academics, mental health and all round ability to function properly. It's not up to the bullies to provide the external motivation for the kid, that's the parent's job.
 
If Urkel didn't want to shoved in his locker all the time he'd have stopped acting like such a goddamn nerdlinger.

This is actually true though, because Stephen was cool as shit. You forgot about the cool Erkel didn't you?

Erkel did choose to be annoying. Bad example.
 
That social darwinist thinking. Those are all big *mights* . More chance the kid becomes even more maladjusted and deteriorates. The bullying will negatively impact his academics, mental health and all round ability to function properly. It's not up to the bullies to provide the external motivation for the kid, that's the parent's job.

True, but he isn't just talking about social darwinism, he is also talking about unintended consequences.

With all the things he pointed out, lets add, what about the kid who is punished for bullying?

Bullying is human nature, it is a natural evolution of social hierarchy.

Are we going to punish kids for doing what comes naturally?

Are we going to expel a kid who gets straight A's, is active in the community, but who repeatedly bullies a kid they have a problem with?
 
Might motivate the kid to do something with his/her life. Might get off the couch and not be a fat ass, might stop playing Fortnite and study, might work hard and not be a fucking leech on society. Kids should be bullied. Teaches them to deal with problems.
Teaches them nothing but pain and fear. They learn nothing good from that. Only outcome is depression and suicide or shooting up classmates..
 
This is actually true though, because Stephen was cool as shit. You forgot about the cool Erkel didn't you?

Erkel did choose to be annoying. Bad example.
I remember that episode, and Stephan Urkel was an asshole. Selfish and narcissistic.
 
Teaches them nothing but pain and fear. They learn nothing good from that. Only outcome is depression and suicide or shooting up classmates..

BS!! And saying shit like this, is what turns me off to the arguments that we should do something.

I need an actual crisis to justify action without regard for unintended consequences. Bullying has always existed. If the problem is they can't escape it because of social media, their is a easy solution to that.

Let's put an age cap on social media.
 
BS!! And saying shit like this, is what turns me off to the arguments that we should do something.

I need an actual crisis to justify action without regard for unintended consequences. Bullying has always existed. If the problem is they can't escape it because of social media, their is a easy solution to that.

Let's put an age cap on social media.
ASShole, I am talking about in person bullying. Kids are literally trapped with their tormenters, and people like you give no cares. Getting beatings at school all the time, getting called names every hour of every day is not in any way a good thing. You want the victim to fight back? How in fuck is that going to work when the victim of physical abuse is almost always smaller and weaker then his tormentor? Here is a clue. IT wont.
 
Back
Top