OliveOilMom's Bullying Thread: Universal Definitions needed
10 May 2013, 12:32 pm
MiahClone wrote:
I do find it sort of ironic that people that by definition have social difficulties, and are very likely to do or say something rude, insensitive or likely to be interpreted as mean by others would want to take such a hard line on others one time unintentional rudeness, insensitivity, or meanness. If you follow the definition that even a single act of annoyance toward you can be called bullying of you by the other person, then every Aspie is a bully, because every Aspie has at some point misjudged the social situation and done something offensive. In fact, every person everywhere is a bully, because even NT's sometimes misjudge social situations.
I think the difference between making a social mistake and bullying is, as in many crimes, INTENT.
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
10 May 2013, 1:47 pm
MiahClone wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
It would be like saying that someone who murdered someone by skinning them alive and draining their blood slowly was a worse murderer than someone who slipped some arsenic into someone's drink or shot them from twenty feet away. It's all murder.
And yet one of those is going to get the maximum version of the varying possibilities in the sentencing. Where maybe the shooting wasn't even planned ahead of time, had some kind of extraordinary circumstances attached to it and might end up charged with second degree murder and get the bare minimum sentence. So even with something as serious and final as murder, the law will recognize degrees.
I didn't think the discussion was about what level of repercussions bullies should get, but about the definition of bullying, so that's a side issue really.
I do find it sort of ironic that people that by definition have social difficulties, and are very likely to do or say something rude, insensitive or likely to be interpreted as mean by others would want to take such a hard line on others one time unintentional rudeness, insensitivity, or meanness. If you follow the definition that even a single act of annoyance toward you can be called bullying of you by the other person, then every Aspie is a bully, because every Aspie has at some point misjudged the social situation and done something offensive. In fact, every person everywhere is a bully, because even NT's sometimes misjudge social situations.
How can rudeness be unintentional? Thoughtlessness (which might breed insensitivity) is a totally different thing than intentional acts or words. Having a bad day is no excuse to be mean to another person without provokation. I will always defend someone's right to defend themselves though.
You're kind of muddying the waters here. An Aspie saying something too honest which is perceived by NTs as rudeness was not done deliberately. Either way, even an Aspie is a bully if they intended to hurt someone with bad intent. This isn't about the differences between Aspies and NTs, it's just about bullies overall as I understand it. Having said that, an Aspie could possibly intend to be rude or nasty but not always have the same understanding as an NT of the impact of their words on the victim.
To my knowledge, the only mean words I have ever said have been in retaliation to others that were mean to me first. I may have put my foot in it, but it didn't occur to me on any of the occasions that it was the wrong thing to do in any way.
Like they said on The Incredibles movie. The mom: Everyone is super in their own way, Dash. Dash: That's just a way of saying that no one is.
The idea being that if you fuzz the definition enough to include every minor thing then the word loses its original meaning entirely. It doesn't mean that the original thing is gone. It just means that we no longer have a way to talk about the original thing.
_________________
*Truth fears no trial*
DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum
10 May 2013, 1:53 pm
Okay everyone, oliveoilmom's problem with the term bullying is a symptom of what I believe the true problem is. Let's say there are 1000 people in a given area and these 1000 people have different definitions to many different words how do they have effective communication between themselves?
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
10 May 2013, 2:08 pm
People don't necessarily use words precisely, but I do not think it is quite as subjective as each person having their own individual definition. There is some variance, though definitely. I think when people who are communicating have different definitions that create issues it tends to be hashed out in the conversation. People clarify what they specifically mean and will ask their fellow conversationalists to clarify what they mean. Yes, there are sometimes unaddressed ambiguities that stand and create confusion, but there is not much of way, in real life to get around it.
People learn language from context when they read and listen to others. I would be surprised if anyone has actually looked up the formal definition of every single word he/she has used or will use. If I tried to do so, today, I would not even be able to, because I would not be able to remember every word buried in my brain's database. I probably use some words (maybe many words) without the proper nuance, or maybe even with a wrong meaning.
It is not intentional, certainly, but it happens. The only way to deal with it that I can think of is to just be mindful of being as precise as possible and to clarify and ask for clarifications when needed.
10 May 2013, 2:29 pm
whirlingmind wrote:
MiahClone wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
It would be like saying that someone who murdered someone by skinning them alive and draining their blood slowly was a worse murderer than someone who slipped some arsenic into someone's drink or shot them from twenty feet away. It's all murder.
And yet one of those is going to get the maximum version of the varying possibilities in the sentencing. Where maybe the shooting wasn't even planned ahead of time, had some kind of extraordinary circumstances attached to it and might end up charged with second degree murder and get the bare minimum sentence. So even with something as serious and final as murder, the law will recognize degrees.
I didn't think the discussion was about what level of repercussions bullies should get, but about the definition of bullying, so that's a side issue really.
I do find it sort of ironic that people that by definition have social difficulties, and are very likely to do or say something rude, insensitive or likely to be interpreted as mean by others would want to take such a hard line on others one time unintentional rudeness, insensitivity, or meanness. If you follow the definition that even a single act of annoyance toward you can be called bullying of you by the other person, then every Aspie is a bully, because every Aspie has at some point misjudged the social situation and done something offensive. In fact, every person everywhere is a bully, because even NT's sometimes misjudge social situations.
How can rudeness be unintentional? Thoughtlessness (which might breed insensitivity) is a totally different thing than intentional acts or words. Having a bad day is no excuse to be mean to another person without provokation. I will always defend someone's right to defend themselves though.
You're kind of muddying the waters here. An Aspie saying something too honest which is perceived by NTs as rudeness was not done deliberately. Either way, even an Aspie is a bully if they intended to hurt someone with bad intent. This isn't about the differences between Aspies and NTs, it's just about bullies overall as I understand it. Having said that, an Aspie could possibly intend to be rude or nasty but not always have the same understanding as an NT of the impact their words on the victim.
To my knowledge, the only mean words I have ever said have been in retaliation to others that were mean to me first. I may have put my foot in it, but it didn't occur to me on any of the occasions that it was the wrong thing to do in any way.
Like they said on The Incredibles movie. The mom: Everyone is super in their own way, Dash. Dash: That's just a way of saying that no one is.
The idea being that if you fuzz the definition enough to include every minor thing then the word loses its original meaning entirely. It doesn't mean that the original thing is gone. It just means that we no longer have a way to talk about the original thing.
I am not trying to muddy the waters. Rudeness can be quite unintentional if you let the person perceiving the rudeness be the one that defines it. Look a couple of posts down for the person whose child is getting repeatedly sent to ISS for rudeness. It was not intentional on his part, but any non ASD person hearing what he was saying would interpret it as rude. Everyone here agreed that he was not being intentionally rude and should be receiving help learning the social rules, not punishment (and I agree). It doesn't change the fact that he was being rude by standard definitions. What about the teen boy in previous posts who was sending racial slurs and degrading and offensive pictures to girls. Pretty much any of those girls or the target of the slur would be able to say he was a bully. By the definitions being put forth here, he was being one. He sent those pictures, he thought they were funny even though he was aware at least on some level that they were offensive. It wasn't the first time, so there was a pattern. Yet, the general consensus was that he needs training and education and to not blame him too strongly. I agree that he does need those things, and yet there are all those kids that have received the pictures and slurs from him that could be considering him a bully that has just gotten off lightly. I am not trying to muddy the waters, but I am saying that I think they are already muddy. Especially if we use a very loose definition of the term bullying.
I am drawing on personal experience here. I have done or said things that were rude without meaning to. Without any awareness of how it was rude until someone pointed it out to me. Was it not rude because I didn't know any better? I don't believe so. I believe it was still rude. The difference being that a person being unintentionally rude needs training and assistance where the person doing it purposefully needs something else. Punishment, therapy? I don't know what they need.
Also, what if the children involved are behaving the exact same way they do with all other children. No other child feels bullied or offended in any way. However one child is feeling offended and bullied. How is the child doing the acting in that case to know how the offended child is feeling if the offended child never speaks up? When I was in fifth grade this one girl was always picking on me--I thought to be mean. I finally got fed up with it and hit her. She was honestly, genuinely surprised that I had been bothered the whole time. She was behaving the way she did with everyone else. Everyone else enjoyed her behavior. I had never actually spoken up and said how it bothered me. If you had asked me at pretty much any point during that year before I hit her whether her actions were intentionally aimed at hurting me, I would have answered with a resounding yes. She stopped as soon as she knew. Looking back at it, I don't think she was being a bully, even though at the time I did think she was. I was pretty miserable for a lot of that year, and she had no idea she was being rude and hurting my feelings.
It sucks to be in those misunderstandings situations. It sucks to not be invited places when you'd like to be invited. It sucks to always be on the periphery of groups because you don't know how to move in to the main group. I don't think those are bullying situations. I really do think that the word bullying should be left for serious things. If you throw in every case of mild teasing or misunderstanding then it does lessen the impact of the word. It is a word that should be kept serious. When people hear the word bullying, they should think dangerous to physical and mental health not kinda uncomfortable and overly sensitive.
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
10 May 2013, 3:36 pm
...you are completely ignoring the point I made in a previous post, that how a victim feels is entirely subjective. As I said, a relatively minor incident to one victim may affect them more than a more serious incident to a more robust person/child. You can't measure it the way you are measuring it.
_________________
*Truth fears no trial*
DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum
10 May 2013, 5:02 pm
whirlingmind wrote:
...you are completely ignoring the point I made in a previous post, that how a victim feels is entirely subjective. As I said, a relatively minor incident to one victim may affect them more than a more serious incident to a more robust person/child. You can't measure it the way you are measuring it.
But if there is no objectivity then there can be no qualitative discussion on the subject. There can be no social rules constructed. There can be no expectations ever that any sort of behavior is going to be accepted with anyone you don't know intimately, and apparently even if you do know them intimately, according to these posts, you can have no expectations about them or how they are going to react based on your previous interactions.
If there is no objective measure of what constitutes bullying (or any other topic) then it is hopeless to even try to learn social rules to avoid it, because someone, somewhere might find the rule offensive and since it is entirely subjective based on how the offended person feels they are 100% right and the rule is 100% wrong and all social interaction is therefore an arbitrary minefield.
People don't have to have perfectly matching interpretations of a concept, but if they can't agree on something within the same time zone they can't have a conversation about it.
Also, I think you missed my point that sometimes the person whose feelings have been hurt is the person who is not seeing the situation clearly. Sometimes they are the ones who need to be taught to see things or react to things differently. Sometimes people, especially ASD people, experience the world so much more intensely than others or misinterpret things when presented with them that they feel bullied. Where the solution to the problem there is to help that person manage their feelings and learn to interpret things less rigidly.
Take it from a different perspective. There are people in this world who are deathly allergic to peanuts. I heard about one girl who had an anaphylactic shock reaction after her grandpa hugged her an hour after he shook hands with someone who had eaten food that had came into contact with peanuts. The child had to get a dog that precedes her into rooms and areas sniffing for peanut residue. I can't imagine living in a world that is so actively hostile to the continued life of my child, yet this girl's parents face that every day. Where does society's responsibilities to this child and others similar to her end? Should the sale of all peanuts and peanut products be banned everywhere? Should all peanuts and peanut products be removed from all schools all over the country? When she grows up and gets a job, should her employer be required to ban all peanuts and peanut products from the workplace as a reasonable accommodation of her disability? Is it reasonable to make her as the one who doesn't fit in with the world get a dog and learn what to avoid and how to avoid it? Where is the balance point of accommodating her special needs as a member of society with societies wants and needs?
At what point do people with very sensitive emotional systems need to learn to cope with the world as it is, and how far should the world be required to move its standards to accommodate that extraordinarily sensitive person?
(I've already gotten beyond my personal comfort zone as far as the discussion of sensitive topics go, so I am stopping now. I am sorry if anything I have said is offensive. It was not intended as such.)
10 May 2013, 6:15 pm
whirlingmind wrote:
...you are completely ignoring the point I made in a previous post, that how a victim feels is entirely subjective. As I said, a relatively minor incident to one victim may affect them more than a more serious incident to a more robust person/child. You can't measure it the way you are measuring it.
whirlingmind, I don't understand your thinking on this. I thought a person's feelings was based upon their perception of things and/or their reaction to a stimulus. Can't the human senses be fooled? I believe it is does by magicians. In addition, there are sounds dogs can hear that humans can't.
Why would one rely upon his perception and emotions instead of trying to obtain objective truth and objective facts? Wouldn't it be better to obtain the facts and weigh them as much as possible so one can come to the best objective truth that they can? I would prefer 100% absolute objectivity but I know it isn't possible?
Can you explain your thinking to please if you do not mind?
ASDMommy, I apologize but I was exaggerating. I was using exaggeration to try to make a point. I think things have gone to much into the subjective and relativistic realm to much. I think we need more objectivity. I think we need a bit more objectivity than MiahClone suggests.
To both ASDMommy and Whirlingmind, I try to set my feelings aside on things. To me, my emotional state and feelings are flawed and just because I perceive something as true does not mean it is true. Am I wrong here and if I am where is my reasoning flawed?
11 May 2013, 1:46 am
CubeDemon, I do not disagree with you in theory; it is in practice where I think the issue arises. People use the rational and emotional parts of their brains at the same time. Most people have to get to where they are really focusing to separate the different impulses (rational/logical and irrational/emotional.) Most people cannot do it perfectly, even when trying. Some people rely more on one than the other. People rely on all the information their brain is processing, not just the the rational stuff, so it is hard to get uniformity. People are informed by the individual experiences they have and how their brains process these events.
This is true of anything. The posters here all bringing these individual factors to the discussion, and the definition of "bully." Some people are especially concerned about overlabeling for a variety of reasons and some are more worried about underlabeling, for a different variety of reasons. (See people's individual posts for examples) That is why fuzzy set theory exists. Not everything is cut and dried.
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
11 May 2013, 7:27 am
MiahClone wrote:
But if there is no objectivity then there can be no qualitative discussion on the subject. There can be no social rules constructed. There can be no expectations ever that any sort of behavior is going to be accepted with anyone you don't know intimately, and apparently even if you do know them intimately, according to these posts, you can have no expectations about them or how they are going to react based on your previous interactions.
I'm finding it harder to focus on this now, because it's getting ever more in-depth. I'm not saying there should be no qualitative discussion. What I'm saying is, that you cannot rule out more minor incidences of bullying because they are 'less serious' than others. We are only (as I understand it) talking about behaviours that are consciously belitting or harmful in some way, not any possible human behaviour that exists. Of course there has to be common sense as to what constitutes bullying, but I don't think it being a minor incident in the eyes of others should make it not bullying. if the victim feels bullied that is what matters. If someone was mentally defective and considered someone just talking to them normally as bullying then obviously that would be just their anomalous belief because of their mental defectiveness.
If there is no objective measure of what constitutes bullying (or any other topic) then it is hopeless to even try to learn social rules to avoid it, because someone, somewhere might find the rule offensive and since it is entirely subjective based on how the offended person feels they are 100% right and the rule is 100% wrong and all social interaction is therefore an arbitrary minefield.
Socialising is, and always has been a minefield. It is just that many of the mines are duds for NTs and most, if not all of them are live for Aspies. Of course there are some people more sensitive than others, that goes without saying, and if someone is being ridiculous because of psychological issues (see above paras) that's different. But I don't think people should diminish someone's suffering just because they deem the incident to not be that serious. Sometimes, subtle incidents can build up over time and totally destroy someone's self-confidence, self-worth and trust in others.
People don't have to have perfectly matching interpretations of a concept, but if they can't agree on something within the same time zone they can't have a conversation about it.
I don't agree that people with differing viewpoints or conceptions can't have a conversation, it's what's known as a healthy debate. People just respectfully disagree and put their own points across.
Also, I think you missed my point that sometimes the person whose feelings have been hurt is the person who is not seeing the situation clearly. Sometimes they are the ones who need to be taught to see things or react to things differently. Sometimes people, especially ASD people, experience the world so much more intensely than others or misinterpret things when presented with them that they feel bullied. Where the solution to the problem there is to help that person manage their feelings and learn to interpret things less rigidly.
Please see my comments above regarding exceptions to this, (mental deficits meaning an "abnormal" view). Those individuals aside, you can't change the depth of someone's feelings as a person, that is their genetics, physiological make-up (AS or not). I don't think peoples' feelings should be brushed aside, it seems like you're saying they should "toughen up" and it's their fault.
Take it from a different perspective. There are people in this world who are deathly allergic to peanuts. I heard about one girl who had an anaphylactic shock reaction after her grandpa hugged her an hour after he shook hands with someone who had eaten food that had came into contact with peanuts. The child had to get a dog that precedes her into rooms and areas sniffing for peanut residue. I can't imagine living in a world that is so actively hostile to the continued life of my child, yet this girl's parents face that every day. Where does society's responsibilities to this child and others similar to her end? Should the sale of all peanuts and peanut products be banned everywhere? Should all peanuts and peanut products be removed from all schools all over the country? When she grows up and gets a job, should her employer be required to ban all peanuts and peanut products from the workplace as a reasonable accommodation of her disability? Is it reasonable to make her as the one who doesn't fit in with the world get a dog and learn what to avoid and how to avoid it? Where is the balance point of accommodating her special needs as a member of society with societies wants and needs?
That's a difficult analogy to compare as that is a physical ailment, so I don't really know that this can be answered.
At what point do people with very sensitive emotional systems need to learn to cope with the world as it is, and how far should the world be required to move its standards to accommodate that extraordinarily sensitive person?
It's by sensitive people being told to "toughen up" and trying all their lives to fit in and not show others that they are upset (because they are unlikely to be able to change their internal feelings) that people end up with severe mental ill-health. Society is unbalanced, and much more balance is needed. You can't keep saying forever that the minority is wrong and needs changing.
(I've already gotten beyond my personal comfort zone as far as the discussion of sensitive topics go, so I am stopping now. I am sorry if anything I have said is offensive. It was not intended as such.)
I don't know if this is to me, but you haven't offended me, and likewise I'm just being factual and not investing emotions in my replies and I haven't intended to offend you or anyone else either. I'm puzzled where this has come from as I haven't noticed anyone seeming offended in the thread.
I'm finding it harder to focus on this now, because it's getting ever more in-depth. I'm not saying there should be no qualitative discussion. What I'm saying is, that you cannot rule out more minor incidences of bullying because they are 'less serious' than others. We are only (as I understand it) talking about behaviours that are consciously belitting or harmful in some way, not any possible human behaviour that exists. Of course there has to be common sense as to what constitutes bullying, but I don't think it being a minor incident in the eyes of others should make it not bullying. if the victim feels bullied that is what matters. If someone was mentally defective and considered someone just talking to them normally as bullying then obviously that would be just their anomalous belief because of their mental defectiveness.
If there is no objective measure of what constitutes bullying (or any other topic) then it is hopeless to even try to learn social rules to avoid it, because someone, somewhere might find the rule offensive and since it is entirely subjective based on how the offended person feels they are 100% right and the rule is 100% wrong and all social interaction is therefore an arbitrary minefield.
Socialising is, and always has been a minefield. It is just that many of the mines are duds for NTs and most, if not all of them are live for Aspies. Of course there are some people more sensitive than others, that goes without saying, and if someone is being ridiculous because of psychological issues (see above paras) that's different. But I don't think people should diminish someone's suffering just because they deem the incident to not be that serious. Sometimes, subtle incidents can build up over time and totally destroy someone's self-confidence, self-worth and trust in others.
People don't have to have perfectly matching interpretations of a concept, but if they can't agree on something within the same time zone they can't have a conversation about it.
I don't agree that people with differing viewpoints or conceptions can't have a conversation, it's what's known as a healthy debate. People just respectfully disagree and put their own points across.
Also, I think you missed my point that sometimes the person whose feelings have been hurt is the person who is not seeing the situation clearly. Sometimes they are the ones who need to be taught to see things or react to things differently. Sometimes people, especially ASD people, experience the world so much more intensely than others or misinterpret things when presented with them that they feel bullied. Where the solution to the problem there is to help that person manage their feelings and learn to interpret things less rigidly.
Please see my comments above regarding exceptions to this, (mental deficits meaning an "abnormal" view). Those individuals aside, you can't change the depth of someone's feelings as a person, that is their genetics, physiological make-up (AS or not). I don't think peoples' feelings should be brushed aside, it seems like you're saying they should "toughen up" and it's their fault.
Take it from a different perspective. There are people in this world who are deathly allergic to peanuts. I heard about one girl who had an anaphylactic shock reaction after her grandpa hugged her an hour after he shook hands with someone who had eaten food that had came into contact with peanuts. The child had to get a dog that precedes her into rooms and areas sniffing for peanut residue. I can't imagine living in a world that is so actively hostile to the continued life of my child, yet this girl's parents face that every day. Where does society's responsibilities to this child and others similar to her end? Should the sale of all peanuts and peanut products be banned everywhere? Should all peanuts and peanut products be removed from all schools all over the country? When she grows up and gets a job, should her employer be required to ban all peanuts and peanut products from the workplace as a reasonable accommodation of her disability? Is it reasonable to make her as the one who doesn't fit in with the world get a dog and learn what to avoid and how to avoid it? Where is the balance point of accommodating her special needs as a member of society with societies wants and needs?
That's a difficult analogy to compare as that is a physical ailment, so I don't really know that this can be answered.
At what point do people with very sensitive emotional systems need to learn to cope with the world as it is, and how far should the world be required to move its standards to accommodate that extraordinarily sensitive person?
It's by sensitive people being told to "toughen up" and trying all their lives to fit in and not show others that they are upset (because they are unlikely to be able to change their internal feelings) that people end up with severe mental ill-health. Society is unbalanced, and much more balance is needed. You can't keep saying forever that the minority is wrong and needs changing.
(I've already gotten beyond my personal comfort zone as far as the discussion of sensitive topics go, so I am stopping now. I am sorry if anything I have said is offensive. It was not intended as such.)
I don't know if this is to me, but you haven't offended me, and likewise I'm just being factual and not investing emotions in my replies and I haven't intended to offend you or anyone else either. I'm puzzled where this has come from as I haven't noticed anyone seeming offended in the thread.
_________________
*Truth fears no trial*
DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
11 May 2013, 7:45 am
cubedemon6073 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
...you are completely ignoring the point I made in a previous post, that how a victim feels is entirely subjective. As I said, a relatively minor incident to one victim may affect them more than a more serious incident to a more robust person/child. You can't measure it the way you are measuring it.
whirlingmind, I don't understand your thinking on this. I thought a person's feelings was based upon their perception of things and/or their reaction to a stimulus. Can't the human senses be fooled? I believe it is does by magicians. In addition, there are sounds dogs can hear that humans can't.
I don't know what more I can explain, I think I have been pretty clear. I don't at all understand your associations or what you mean.
Why would one rely upon his perception and emotions instead of trying to obtain objective truth and objective facts? Wouldn't it be better to obtain the facts and weigh them as much as possible so one can come to the best objective truth that they can? I would prefer 100% absolute objectivity but I know it isn't possible?
Can you explain your thinking to please if you do not mind?
Please see my post above. We are only talking about intentionally nasty acts and words, not the whole spectrum of all different human behaviours. Just any act/words that intentionally belittles or harms another.
ASDMommy, I apologize but I was exaggerating. I was using exaggeration to try to make a point. I think things have gone to much into the subjective and relativistic realm to much. I think we need more objectivity. I think we need a bit more objectivity than MiahClone suggests.
To both ASDMommy and Whirlingmind, I try to set my feelings aside on things. To me, my emotional state and feelings are flawed and just because I perceive something as true does not mean it is true. Am I wrong here and if I am where is my reasoning flawed?
I don't think anyone is questioning any one individual's "rightness or wrongness". We are just stating what we believe and why.
_________________
*Truth fears no trial*
DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Observed manipulative strategy thread? |
09 Nov 2024, 12:30 pm |
| One Song Per Reply: A Music Discovery Thread |
14 Jan 2025, 6:26 pm |
