Ridiculing and Bullying depends on the intent of the individual commenting on another person's behavior, and how one receives those comments
For instance, if one states another's shoes are tattered, it can be taken by another individual as either ridicule, bullying, or just an obsevation depending on the situation.
If they like wearing tattered shoes, the comment may not mean anything negative, to the person receiving it, even if the person making the comments intent was to ridicule, or bully the individual.
On the otherhand if someone just makes the observation, and the individual is constantly harrassed because he or she doesn't have enough money to buy shoes, they could see it as ridicule or bullying. This is certainly not a black and white area of understanding that one can can necessarily fully understand by watching the social interaction as a third party.
If Chris Chan's motivation to do this, is motivated to gain attention, and he gets what he wants, regardless of his condition, he may not feel either ridiculed or bullied, instead he may feel happy to get the attention.
I haven't studied the issue in depth, and doubt any of us understand the internal workings of Chris Chan's mind and how he interprets the attention he is getting by the results of his behavior whether it is intentional or non-intentional.
Is it ever morally right to bully another individual, from a human perspective? People will tell you it's not, but turn around and do it the next second, whether they realize they are doing it or not, but it's part of the same animal behavior in human's seen in almost every social animal, when there is competition for resources.
We are primates and primates definitely bully other primates to establish a pecking order. It's everywhere you look in society, subtle at times or extreme, but it's not going away as long as humans are primates, and it doesn't require any disorder to be either the server or receiver of it.
Some comedians make a living off of being ridiculed, many of them were made fun of, bullied, before their careers, and they learned to take advantage of it for themselves. More power to them, good for them, they do ridiculous things, people laugh at them, and they make a living.
If they judged the laughing they received as bullying, not likely they would go into that profession. If they couldn't deal with ridicule, not likely they would go into that profession either.
When a person says something to another person, and it is misunderstood, and that person explains the miscommunication, but the person that misunderstood it continues to insist that they understand what the person said better than they did, no matter how many times that person tries to explain it to them. Is that bullying?
Yes it could be perceived that way depending on how one perceives it. Most people would probably just ignore it and move on, others might think someone was ridiculing their intelligence, and still others might think they are being bullied by another individual.
And then if that person was questioned what their intent was to continue the point after it was explained, they could easily state that they weren't bullying, or ridiculing, they just understood what the other person meant better than they did, and mean it with every fiber of their being.
So who is morally right and who is morally wrong. It depends on whom one talks to, the server the receiver or another perceiver.
This thing about Chris Chan isn't a black and white issue, it is extremely complex; and reflective of human nature on many levels.
And it is obvious, regardless of Chris Chan's intentions or limitations, that his actions towards others could be considered as ridicule by some others, if not bullying as well.
13 Nov 2011, 1:53 pm
