Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mo_reese]

If you don't see picking on a subordinate for ideological or practical reasons as bullying, what would you call it?

Do the labels we use matter so much? We agree on the essentials, and only disagree (not even seriously) on the term to use.

My personal feeling is that is makes sense to differentiate between tormenting someone for personal entertainment (sadism), or for commercial reasons (capitalism). But if you want to call them both "bullying", I'm not going to argue about the choice of label. It isn't important enough.

I think we agree there are different types of bullying. I have learned from this thread and my personal life that some people conflate the different types of bullying they think that bullying is part of competition and advancement and therefore acceptable. While I think all bulling is harmful to society, I think that the bullying, especially with children, where one takes advantage of an imbalance of power to degrade and humiliate another should be differentiated from other bullying and strongly discouraged.
With regard to the question of this thread, I think bullying is learned and not human adaptation.

[Pattern-chaser]

...some people [...] think that bullying is part of competition and advancement and therefore acceptable. While I think all bullying is harmful to society...

Me too. I think competition, meaningful competition, can exist without it descending into bullying. But is it part of "Human Adaptation" (to what)? I'm not sure. When it comes to nature vs. nurture discussions, the answer nearly always seems to be 'both', doesn't it?

[Mo_reese]

...some people [...] think that bullying is part of competition and advancement and therefore acceptable. While I think all bullying is harmful to society...

Me too. I think competition, meaningful competition, can exist without it descending into bullying. But is it part of "Human Adaptation" (to what)? I'm not sure. When it comes to nature vs. nurture discussions, the answer nearly always seems to be 'both', doesn't it?

Yes, most behavior has aspects of nature and nurture IMO. I have a very good friend that is a very nice person mostly, but if they get in an argument over an issue they become very aggressive and won't compromise. They admit that they are a bully and don't like that about themselves. They don't do it to advance just to "win". They said they learned it from their father.

[Sy Borg]

If you don't see picking on a subordinate for ideological or practical reasons as bullying, what would you call it?

Do the labels we use matter so much? We agree on the essentials, and only disagree (not even seriously) on the term to use.

My personal feeling is that is makes sense to differentiate between tormenting someone for personal entertainment (sadism), or for commercial reasons (capitalism). But if you want to call them both "bullying", I'm not going to argue about the choice of label. It isn't important enough.

You are the one playing with labels, not me. You disagreed with me that bullying for personal or commercial reasons is not bullying, and focused only on sadism. I disagreed back. Rather than taking my point, you now say it doesn't matter.

You are simply wrong. All bullying is difficult for those in the firing line. Sadistic bullying in the workplace is less common than for commercial/personal/ideological reasons but it is more common in schools.

[Pattern-chaser]

You are the one playing with labels, not me. You disagreed with me that bullying for personal or commercial reasons is not bullying, and focused only on sadism. I disagreed back. Rather than taking my point, you now say it doesn't matter.

Yes, the only difference between us, that we discovered quite quickly, is that I felt, and still feel, that it would be helpful and useful to distinguish "bullying for personal or commercial reasons" from "[bullying] focused only on sadism".

But we agree on everything else. In particular, we don't disagree about the types of bullying that exist. There was no point for me to take, because we were and are in agreement. We are not in dispute, and I thought I'd made that clear. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. I intended no disrespect.

[Sy Borg]

You are the one playing with labels, not me. You disagreed with me that bullying for personal or commercial reasons is not bullying, and focused only on sadism. I disagreed back. Rather than taking my point, you now say it doesn't matter.

Yes, the only difference between us, that we discovered quite quickly, is that I felt, and still feel, that it would be helpful and useful to distinguish "bullying for personal or commercial reasons" from "[bullying] focused only on sadism".

But we agree on everything else. In particular, we don't disagree about the types of bullying that exist. There was no point for me to take, because we were and are in agreement. We are not in dispute, and I thought I'd made that clear. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. I intended no disrespect.

Human motivations can be varied, shifting, opportunistic and multifarious. It's a complex enough issue to administer (which is why laws so often fail to cub the behaviour) without adding loosely-defined layers based on a bully's internal motivation/s.

[Chris_winW]

I don’t think bullying is something we need for adaptation, but it’s definitely been part of human behavior for a long time. It might have originally come from survival instincts or the way people formed social groups, but now it just causes harm. From what I’ve seen, when people show empathy and respect for each other, things tend to work out better in the long run. It’s a reminder that we can adapt in healthier ways, focusing on kindness instead of putting others down.

[LuckyR]

This thread would make more sense with an accepted definition of "bullying".

[Mo_reese]

Up thread I made this attempt at a definition: "Typically bullying is aggressive behavior usually via a imbalance of power of the aggressor over the victim(s). It can take the form of verbally mocking to actual physical violence. We usually think of the big kid that pushes around smaller kids, but the kids that side with the big bully, to mock the victims, are themselves bullies, just not as physically aggressive.
On a larger scale, the US invasion of Iraq was IMO bullying as was the destruction of the Nord Stream Pipeling." The US used their power to illegally invade a country and dare anyone to stop them.

[Pattern-chaser]

This thread would make more sense with an accepted definition of "bullying".

Yes. So often, a usable definition is the hardest part of a subject to address. Without one, misunderstanding is almost inevitable.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don’t think bullying is something we need for adaptation, but it’s definitely been part of human behavior for a long time. It might have originally come from survival instincts or the way people formed social groups, but now it just causes harm. From what I’ve seen, when people show empathy and respect for each other, things tend to work out better in the long run. It’s a reminder that we can adapt in healthier ways, focusing on kindness instead of putting others down.

I wholeheartedly agree. But others here feel that bullying is part of competitive behaviour, and that without competition, we (our species) will be out-competed and disappear. I'll leave it to them, though, to present their views as they would wish them to be presented...

[LuckyR]

Up thread I made this attempt at a definition: "Typically bullying is aggressive behavior usually via a imbalance of power of the aggressor over the victim(s). It can take the form of verbally mocking to actual physical violence. We usually think of the big kid that pushes around smaller kids, but the kids that side with the big bully, to mock the victims, are themselves bullies, just not as physically aggressive.
On a larger scale, the US invasion of Iraq was IMO bullying as was the destruction of the Nord Stream Pipeling." The US used their power to illegally invade a country and dare anyone to stop them.

I'm not getting what you feel sets bullying apart from ordinary aggression or conflict.

[Lagayascienza]

Bullying is what happens when one party takes advantage or their stronger position to intimidate, coerce obedience or extract some benefit form a weaker party. For some bullies, it's about intimidation just for the fun of it. Pushing one's weight around probably does have roots in evolution but it would be hard to tease these out. Bullying may be adaptive in some some circumstances but not in others. It depends what we mean by "adaptive". If it means enhancing one's own fitness in order to better launch one's genes onto the future then I can see how that might work in some circumstances. In other circumstances it would be counter productive.

[Pattern-chaser]

In the discussion here, some apologists for bullying have suggested that bullying might be part of competition, and that competition is essential. The latter is seemingly presented as an axiom, that competition is necessary for us, or for any species. I wonder if this is so?


I don't question whether competition is present in our real world, I wonder if it is *essential* or necessary?

[Mo_reese]

Up thread I made this attempt at a definition: "Typically bullying is aggressive behavior usually via a imbalance of power of the aggressor over the victim(s). It can take the form of verbally mocking to actual physical violence. We usually think of the big kid that pushes around smaller kids, but the kids that side with the big bully, to mock the victims, are themselves bullies, just not as physically aggressive.
On a larger scale, the US invasion of Iraq was IMO bullying as was the destruction of the Nord Stream Pipeling." The US used their power to illegally invade a country and dare anyone to stop them.

I'm not getting what you feel sets bullying apart from ordinary aggression or conflict.

Bullying is a specific form of aggression where one takes advantage of an imbalance of power to intimidate and dominate another. Terrorism is bullying on steroids.