WTF Article claims Positive Effects of Bullying Autistics

Post Reply New Topic

So there is in fact a benefit to bullying-- for Coca Cola, Nestle, and McDonald's.

Sophistry has its place though often it seems to be used/misused to derail threads rather than illuminate an OP's topic and can degenerate into a pointless point-scoring contest of whose logic is right.

Yes, indeed. I'm only surprised Ms. Kabaki-Sisco didn't mention this in her article. Could have been the eleventh "perk."

Here in Europe it's the European Charta of Fundamental Rights beginning with the words: "Human dignity is inviolable".
There is a Fundamental Right to life, security, freedom, dignity and physical and emotional integrity.
These are also once more specified for disabled people.
Bullying violates these Fundamental Rights.

I’ve been told this message has been reported. I’m sorry if it offended anyone. I guess I phrased my thoughts poorly, but I wasn’t calling anyone worthless scum; the words “since you’re worthless scum who deserves it” are meant to describe the ideas bullying tends to make you accept and which are, in my opinion, the only way to see bullying as something “positive”. If you keep your self-esteem, I don’t think there’s any rational way to conclude bullying is “positive”.

I’m quite familiar with the ideas and feelings I referred to, because I’m not comfortable disregarding them when I have no solid reason to consider myself better than my bullies in any way, and that’s why I like debating the topic, but I didn’t want to apply such ideas to anyone else, as it’s not my business.

This very quickly became an ad hominem, didn't it?

In the space of a few threads, the issue became one of questioning my motives: you've both turned the debate on me, rather than dealing with the points raised.

NowhereWoman - I ask again - can you give me an example of bullying that doesn't involve limiting?


Bullying will never be stamped out until it has a legally-accepted definition. And even then - it can't be 'stamped out' (just as murder can't be stamped out), but it can be dealt with appropriately, should it happen.

Until such time, any retaliatory act against bullying could be construed as a form of bullying.

Which is the point I was making.

Since the questioning was turned against me - do I condone bullying? Of course not.
But that's not - and never was - the point.

The legally accepted definition of bullying in the United States (which can be modified by state statutes, so this is the general federal one at this time) is:

"Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.

In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:

An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.
Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.

Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose."

(source: stopbullying.gov)

The definition in Canada is generally:

""Bullying means repeated and aggressive behaviour by a pupil where, (a) the behaviour is intended by the pupil to cause, or the pupil ought to know that the behaviour would be likely to cause, harm, fear or distress to another individual, including psychological harm or harm to the individual’s reputation, and (b) the behaviour occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the pupil and the individual based on factors such as size, strength, age, intelligence, peer group power, economic status, social status, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, family circumstances, gender, race, disability or the receipt of special education.""

In Ontario in 2009 the government there issued a statute which included this definition of bullying for legal purposes:

""Bullying is typically a form of repeated, persistent, and aggressive behaviour directed at an individual or individuals that is intended to cause (or should be known to cause) fear and distress and/or harm to another person’s body, feelings, self-esteem, or reputation. Bullying occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance.... Bullying is a dynamic of unhealthy interaction that can take many forms. It can be physical (e.g., hitting, pushing, tripping), verbal (e.g., name calling, mocking, or making sexist, racist, or homophobic comments), or social (e.g., excluding others from a group, spreading gossip or rumours)."

(source: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/Bullying.aspx)

I have no idea if any of this helps but I am enjoying reading this thread for the most part and hope that this will help keep it on track instead of continually floating down random side-tracks based almost solely on semantics and apparent desires of some to always take the opposite side of whatever someone else is saying (which is not conducive to actual conversation, as noted by others - my husband often will say "well, now you're just being contrary merely for the sake of being contrary" in situations like this). I'm keeping out of it because I already said what I think - the lady who wrote the article did a dumb thing by writing it, and further by having it published on a site for autistic people. It's like writing an article about the perks of women being raped and having it published specifically in a newsletter for rape survivors. Uncouth, crass, stupid, unthinking, etc. are my own opinions abut this entire thing, regardless of the content of the article.

I believe, within today's world, that the term "bullying" has been extended into adult contexts. Obviously, it has always existed--but, semantically, it has become "bullying" over the last generation or so.

Perhaps, there's less of the physical component and more of the emotional/economic.

Guys threaten to leave women in the lurch, or even threaten physical violence. Bosses attempt to keep workers in line by constantly threatening termination.

This might not be "bullying" in the above legal definitions--but it most definitely parallels it, in my opinion.

Any attempt to make logical sense out of bullying will, inevitably, be met with a swift denunciation of such attempts of logic by the victims of bullying, who were subjected to actions which belie the laws of logic, and belie logical solutions.

If somebody wants to bully me, I will not employ logic. I will employ prevention...and, failing that, retribution.

And anti-bullying statutes DO have teeth (provided they are enforced).

Within a US context, a good majority of bullying would fall under "harassment" in most US states. A decent amount also falls under "assault/battery." If there's a racial/ethnic/anti-gay component to the bullying, in many states, the charge could be bumped up into felony territory, even if the action itself is not a felony.

I tend to agree with all three of these most recent posts of yours.

I felt compelled to add "hate crimes" to your list of areas where bullying potentially could fall within the US legal system.

When I was a kid, I thought hurting people was bad, even if they hurt me, but I've changed. Now, I could even kill if I had to in order to protect my loved ones. My philosophy in this is protection for my loved ones above all, and I literally mean mean ALL.

No mercy for bullies! High five!

Those "perks" have no "benifit" to the fearful parents she is marketing her "treatments" to.

I am glad to see the widespread condemnation of this article and Autism Daily Newscast by many sectors of our community. Wrong Planet is one of many online locations protesting this. Sure she has her defenders but everybody will never be in agreement about any issue.

Killing has a benefit, that it reduces the possibility of overpopulation.

anyone find that amusing

I don't read her article as condoning bullying.

It seems to be a way of trying to see the positives in a situation that is statistically more prevalent for autistics.

Yes - bullying should be dealt with in a more formal/structured manner. But until such time, what can the autistic individual/parent of autistic child do to help?

I think she's trying to help.

Agreed - her wording isn't brilliant - but cut her some slack rather than taking the moral high-ground.

Bloody activists