As the cycle goes, it would seem that abuse is floating about as a topic of interest (angst perhaps might be a better word...).

We even have a thread dedicated to posting up examples of abuse, which, given a lot of what is posted prompted this thread.

What exactly do you see as personal abuse?

Is it someone disagreeing with your perspective?

Is it someone articulating that a point made was stupid, ill conceived, uninformed or somehow in error?

Is it someone calling you names?

Is it saying mean things about someone who is in no position to defend themselves? (that's a really tricky one, because, if one diligently follows the forum rules, they have no right to defend themselves from abuse...)?

Is it abuse to attack what is written?

Is it abuse to attack the poster?

Is it abuse to refer to people's life experience in negative terms?

Is it abuse to refer to people's capacity (to think, comprehend, understand, articulate, live, survive, use logic...)

Is it abuse to refer to (say for example) flawed logic used to support an argument?

Is a written idea or point that you find offensive abuse?

Is abuse deserved?

Whilst I most certainly have my own ideas about what constitutes abuse, I am interested in what others genuinely think this means...

Probably a crap poll really....

Would prefer comments to be honest.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 3:52pm:

Probably a crap poll really.... Would prefer comments to be honest.

To vehemently disagree with another's position is not abuse. It is abuse to target the person, but even then when someone says something manifestly idiotic, to say that it is so, is not abuse.

This is hardly an elevated platform for discussion so some of the rules need a bit more leeway. If for example you have someone who repeatedly says things that most of us know to be false and/or idiotic and is unable to be reasoned with (eg Unforgiven) at what point does calling them an idiot cease to be abusive and merely a statement of unequivocal fact?

In an environment such as this one it can be very challenging when presented with opponent who reject any and all evidence put to them from indisputable sources.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:04pm:

This is hardly an elevated platform for discussion so some of the rules need a bit more leeway. If for example you have someone who repeatedly says things that most of us know to be false and/or idiotic and is unable to be reasoned with (eg Unforgiven) at what point does calling them an idiot cease to be abusive and merely a statement of unequivocal fact?

I can't see a good reason to do this. Frustrating as it can be, nothing of value can be gained by attacking a poster by calling then names.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:04pm:

This is hardly an elevated platform for discussion so some of the rules need a bit more leeway.

That seems to say that we can set our personal standards based on, the "platform" we are using and, seemingly at least, the actions of others...

Interesting way to set personal standards...


Because...

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:04pm:

It is abuse to target the person, but even then when someone says something manifestly idiotic, to say that it is so, is not abuse.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:04pm:

at what point does calling them an idiot cease to be abusive

Depending on one's "personal standards" I suppose, but it would seemingly and reasonably be at no point


mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:04pm:

In an environment such as this one it can be very challenging when presented with opponent who reject any and all evidence put to them from indisputable sources.

Yep, I know what you're saying there, however, it seems that is something that we are ALL capable of doing. Demonstrably so on this platform.

I don't disagree with you that when people disagree with us it is frustrating.

I also agree that, at times that disagreement, even at our most tolerant and patient seems illogical and unreasonable in the face of facts... I am not convinced that there is such a thing as irrefutable evidence in forumite world (oh, I realise there is in the rest of the real world though...), perhaps it is slightly flawed thinking to consider evidence as irrefutable on a forum. Some people come here to oppose it would seem.

That opposition though, albeit at times unreasonable and ill conceived is not a given to either be abuse or justification for being abusive, is it?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:04pm:

To vehemently disagree with another's position is not abuse. It is abuse to target the person, but even then when someone says something manifestly idiotic, to say that it is so, is not abuse.

I think another thing about this that is relevant here at least, it seems that some, based on being offended at someone's robust dissection of a not too well thought out point, label that as abuse, which, it clearly isn't...

Kytro wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:09pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: This is hardly an elevated platform for discussion so some of the rules need a bit more leeway. If for example you have someone who repeatedly says things that most of us know to be false and/or idiotic and is unable to be reasoned with (eg Unforgiven) at what point does calling them an idiot cease to be abusive and merely a statement of unequivocal fact? I can't see a good reason to do this. Frustrating as it can be, nothing of value can be gained by attacking a poster by calling then names.

As a rule I would agree. There are however the rare poster(s) where calling them an idiot or stupid would be nothing more than a statement of medical fact. Tactless for sure. Rude, definitely. But not incorrect!

This however is a day when I was accused by the obviously drunk Cods of being a paedo-supporter which according to one PM message is her standard response on the topic of children unless you subscribe to her ignorant and bile-fuelled idiocy. So perhaps not a good day for me to respond to this question.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:26pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: This is hardly an elevated platform for discussion so some of the rules need a bit more leeway. That seems to say that we can set our personal standards based on, the "platform" we are using and, seemingly at least, the actions of others... Interesting way to set personal standards... Because... mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: It is abuse to target the person, but even then when someone says something manifestly idiotic, to say that it is so, is not abuse. mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: at what point does calling them an idiot cease to be abusive Depending on one's "personal standards" I suppose, but it would seemingly and reasonably be at no point mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: In an environment such as this one it can be very challenging when presented with opponent who reject any and all evidence put to them from indisputable sources. Yep, I know what you're saying there, however, it seems that is something that we are ALL capable of doing. Demonstrably so on this platform. I don't disagree with you that when people disagree with us it is frustrating. I also agree that, at times that disagreement, even at our most tolerant and patient seems illogical and unreasonable in the face of facts... I am not convinced that there is such a thing as irrefutable evidence in forumite world (oh, I realise there is in the rest of the real world though...), perhaps it is slightly flawed thinking to consider evidence as irrefutable on a forum. Some people come here to oppose it would seem. That opposition though, albeit at times unreasonable and ill conceived is not a given to either be abuse or justification for being abusive, is it?

'Irrefutable evidence' is a difficult concept because in truth, NOTHING can ever be proven beyond doubt. However, when I present a substantial quote from an eminent scientist making a very clear and unambiguous statement I take umbrage who say that the quote never happened or that he actually meant something different entirely.

There comes a point in time when the evidence for a fact is so overwhelming that refutation requires an equally mountainous supply of evidence. For example, I was in a thread about the warming pause. Now the causes and meaning of the pause are certainly highly contentious. The fact of its existence is largely not refuted by both sides of the debate. NOAA's best efforts to rejig previous temperature data has largely been met with scepticism from alarmists and sceptics alike who quite simply see raw data that rejects that conclusion. I provided literally dozens of links and quotes from very highly regarded sources, but they were rejected.

So yes, there are people who come in here to support an ideology which is frankly, probably everybody. But when ideology confronts fact and ideology still wins then there is a very real problem.

Justification for abuse? Probably not. But justified or not, a stupid person remains a stupid person regardless of what I or anyone else says.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: To vehemently disagree with another's position is not abuse. It is abuse to target the person, but even then when someone says something manifestly idiotic, to say that it is so, is not abuse. I think another thing about this that is relevant here at least, it seems that some, based on being offended at someone's robust dissection of a not too well thought out point, label that as abuse, which, it clearly isn't...

There are certainly some thin skins who take enormous offense at being challenged, never mind refuted. Take any Climate Change thread for example.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:46pm:

There are certainly some thin skins who take enormous offense at being challenged, never mind refuted. Take any Climate Change thread for example

I guess you realise it is a given that BOTH sides of that debate could and would probably say the same thing...

Thanks for responding though, for my part, I will refrain from further comment, because I am interested to see;

a) What (if anything) others might think.

b) If others are interested in stating their opinion, or, if refuting what you, Kytro or I have said so far.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:04pm:

If for example you have someone who repeatedly says things that most of us know to be false and/or idiotic and is unable to be reasoned with (eg Maria)

fixed it for you

people need to lighten up (especially Aussie) ... it's only abuse if you let it be. Seriously, Who gives a fig what some anonymous person on the internet says about you?

If your self esteem is that low that what some random person, whom you've never met nor are likely to ever meet, opinion is that important then you have more pressing issues to deal with than abuse.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:46pm: There are certainly some thin skins who take enormous offense at being challenged, never mind refuted. Take any Climate Change thread for example I guess you realise it is a given that BOTH sides of that debate could and would probably say the same thing...

To some degree that is true, but I can (and have been) in forums where you literally get banned for expressing any opinion not in 100% agreement with the IPCC version of Climate Change. Serious. You are expressly forbidden to quote from 'denier sites' while they happily quote from Sceptical Science - the most misnamed site on the planet!

I cant tell you of any sceptic sites that do that. I dont know of any authors calling for warming alarmists to be jailed or killed but I can find a fair few on the other side.

Yes, it IS BOTH. But not in equal quantity.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:58pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: If for example you have someone who repeatedly says things that most of us know to be false and/or idiotic and is unable to be reasoned with (eg Maria) fixed it for you people need to lighten up (especially Aussie) ... it's only abuse if you let it be. Seriously, Who gives a fig what some anonymous person on the internet says about you? If your self esteem is that low that what some random person, whom you've never met nor are likely to ever meet, opinion is that important then you have more pressing issues to deal with than abuse.

What, are you the last neanderthal who has never heard of cyber-bullying?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:05pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:58pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: If for example you have someone who repeatedly says things that most of us know to be false and/or idiotic and is unable to be reasoned with (eg Maria) fixed it for you people need to lighten up (especially Aussie) ... it's only abuse if you let it be. Seriously, Who gives a fig what some anonymous person on the internet says about you? If your self esteem is that low that what some random person, whom you've never met nor are likely to ever meet, opinion is that important then you have more pressing issues to deal with than abuse. What, are you the last neanderthal who has never heard of cyber-bullying?

If I were a neanderthal I would have clubbed you over the head ages ago ...

you think I should cry because you call me a neanderthal?

what part of my comment did you disagree with?

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:58pm:

Seriously, Who gives a fig

Ironically, the problems start when someone does give a fig and, that someone often does for a range of reasons.

Sure, you can disagree with their reasons, however, if you allow your dismissal of verbal abuse guide your choices to abuse - then you are inflicting your view onto others... Being an abuser or, as was pointed out a cyber bully.

Now, logically, if cyber bullying wasn't a real world issue in our very modern world - there would not be a term for it, or research into managing it or, for that matter, ideas and debate about legislation changes (some changes have been implemented in some jurisdictions) making cyber bullying a real world crime.

I think perhaps you might not be keeping up with modern cultural norms here. Now days, the interactions we have with others online have mandated real world ramifications - they did not previously have...

Significant self harm and suicide have been demonstrably linked to issues of cyber bullying (and yes at times, in conjunction with real world bullying as well)...

For my part, I think that actually quite pointedly challenges your assertion that it is
Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:58pm:

only abuse if you let it be.

That may have been the case once, however, now days it might also be abuse if it is reported to a statutory authority who agrees that it is abuse...

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:58pm:

Seriously, Who gives a fig

Ironically, the problems start when someone does give a fig and, that someone often does for a range of reasons.

Sure, you can disagree with their reasons, however, if you allow your dismissal of verbal abuse guide your choices to abuse - then you are inflicting your view onto others... Being an abuser or, as was pointed out a cyber bully.

Now, logically, if cyber bullying wasn't a real world issue in our very modern world - there would not be a term for it, or research into managing it or, for that matter, ideas and debate about legislation changes (some changes have been implemented in some jurisdictions) making cyber bullying a real world crime.

I think perhaps you might not be keeping up with modern cultural norms here. Now days, the interactions we have with others online have mandated real world ramifications - they did not previously have...

Significant self harm and suicide have been demonstrably linked to issues of cyber bullying (and yes at times, in conjunction with real world bullying as well)...

For my part, I think that actually quite pointedly challenges your assertion that it is
Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:58pm:

only abuse if you let it be.

That may have been the case once, however, now days it might also be abuse if it is reported to a statutory authority who agrees that it is abuse...

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:58pm: Seriously, Who gives a fig Ironically, the problems start when someone does give a fig and, that someone often does for a range of reasons. Sure, you can disagree with their reasons, however, if you allow your dismissal of verbal abuse guide your choices to abuse - then you are inflicting your view onto others... Being an abuser or, as was pointed out a cyber bully. Now, logically, if cyber bullying wasn't a real world issue in our very modern world - there would not be a term for it, or research into managing it or, for that matter, ideas and debate about legislation changes (some changes have been implemented in some jurisdictions) making cyber bullying a real world crime. I think perhaps you might not be keeping up with modern cultural norms here. Now days, the interactions we have with others online have mandated real world ramifications - they did not previously have... Significant self harm and suicide have been demonstrably linked to issues of cyber bullying (and yes at times, in conjunction with real world bullying as well)... For my part, I think that actually quite pointedly challenges your assertion that it is Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:58pm: only abuse if you let it be. That may have been the case once, however, now days it might also be abuse if it is reported to a statutory authority who agrees that it is abuse...

It was stone-age thinking prior to the internet to simply believe that your words and writings have no power to harm. In the internet-era such thinking is beyond ignorant and becoming literally criminal.

a couple of points

people tend to clutch to their opinions even more firmly when they are abused. its human nature (and its lao tzu's finding in art of war)  to fortify your position when under attack .
so if someone is attacking someone, they have to realise, no one is going to have an A Ha moment and suddenly do an about turn....in fact the very opposite will occur.

i like to see other peoples opinions as it is simply the "comfortable position" to surround yourself with syncophants and indulge in group think.  no one ever learnt a thing from this.

i will sometimes express an opinion which is totally contrary to my actual opinion.
usually i will do this when someone i have had no comeback to someones opinion in the real world, so i will post that and pick through the responses so as to formulate a better way of expressing myself.

for example, i have no problem with gay marriage or abortion but i know people who do.
by posting a position opposed to gay marriage or abortion, one gets some very cool responses which can then be used in real time (sort of like "i wish i had said that")  is this trolling.
perhaps.
i view the internet as a place to "tinker with ideas"  see what works before applying it in real world dynamics.
i find it a fairly light hearted forum and i think most people mean well.
i think there are some very intelligent posters on here and i enjoy reading all their opinions.
i'm a very self confident person and if you arent, you can always use an abuser as a source of resilience training and then this becomes a win/win

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

the problems start when someone does give a fig and, that someone often does for a range of reasons

I don't disagree, but like I said, they have bigger problems they should deal with first before they worry about the abuse


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

I think perhaps you might not be keeping up with modern cultural norms here

why? Who ever said cyber bullying doesn't exist?


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Significant self harm and suicide have been demonstrably linked to issues of cyber bullying (and yes at times, in conjunction with real world bullying as well)...

is the real problem the cyber bullying, or did they perhaps have other underlying problems that led to them not dealing with the cyber bullying in a reasonable manner?


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

however, now days it might also be abuse if it is reported to a statutory authority who agrees that it is abuse...

that's because as a society we are increasingly wrapping our kids up in cotton wool, which means they then cannot deal with reality so the authorities have to wrap them up in cotton wool as adults too.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: the problems start when someone does give a fig and, that someone often does for a range of reasons I don't disagree, but like I said, they have bigger problems they should deal with first before they worry about the abuse Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: I think perhaps you might not be keeping up with modern cultural norms here why? Who ever said cyber bullying doesn't exist? Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: Significant self harm and suicide have been demonstrably linked to issues of cyber bullying (and yes at times, in conjunction with real world bullying as well)... is the real problem the cyber bullying, or did they perhaps have other underlying problems that led to them not dealing with the cyber bullying in a reasonable manner? Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: however, now days it might also be abuse if it is reported to a statutory authority who agrees that it is abuse... that's because as a society we are increasingly wrapping our kids up in cotton wool, which means they then cannot deal with reality so the authorities have to wrap them up in cotton wool as adults too.

You sound like Fred Flintstone with these attitudes. If your kids are every cyber-bullied you will clearly be of no help or probably even aware.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 3:46pm:

As the cycle goes, it would seem that abuse is floating about as a topic of interest (angst perhaps might be a better word...). We even have a thread dedicated to posting up examples of abuse, which, given a lot of what is posted prompted this thread. What exactly do you see as personal abuse? Is it someone disagreeing with your perspective? Is it someone articulating that a point made was stupid, ill conceived, uninformed or somehow in error? Is it someone calling you names? Is it saying mean things about someone who is in no position to defend themselves? (that's a really tricky one, because, if one diligently follows the forum rules, they have no right to defend themselves from abuse...)? Is it abuse to attack what is written? Is it abuse to attack the poster? Is it abuse to refer to people's life experience in negative terms? Is it abuse to refer to people's capacity (to think, comprehend, understand, articulate, live, survive, use logic...) Is it abuse to refer to (say for example) flawed logic used to support an argument? Is a written idea or point that you find offensive abuse? Is abuse deserved? Whilst I most certainly have my own ideas about what constitutes abuse, I am interested in what others genuinely think this means...

Welcome to 21st century democracy via social media technology.

Its not really such a bad world, even with that lol

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:46pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:40pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: the problems start when someone does give a fig and, that someone often does for a range of reasons I don't disagree, but like I said, they have bigger problems they should deal with first before they worry about the abuse Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: I think perhaps you might not be keeping up with modern cultural norms here why? Who ever said cyber bullying doesn't exist? Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: Significant self harm and suicide have been demonstrably linked to issues of cyber bullying (and yes at times, in conjunction with real world bullying as well)... is the real problem the cyber bullying, or did they perhaps have other underlying problems that led to them not dealing with the cyber bullying in a reasonable manner? Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: however, now days it might also be abuse if it is reported to a statutory authority who agrees that it is abuse... that's because as a society we are increasingly wrapping our kids up in cotton wool, which means they then cannot deal with reality so the authorities have to wrap them up in cotton wool as adults too. You sound like Fred Flintstone with these attitudes. If your kids are every cyber-bullied you will clearly be of no help or probably even aware.

I suspect I will be of more help than you. You can pretend deal with the anonymous person on the other side of the WWW by comparing them to Fred Flinstone or some other such character, I'll deal with the underlying issues so that when you do compare them to Fred, they won't lose a seconds sleep over it.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

I don't disagree, but like I said, they have bigger problems they should deal with first before they worry about the abuse

That seems contradictory. I mean, if one does not inadvertently (or intentionally) blame the victim then the point is, they should not actually have to worry about the abuse at all - that is something the abuser should not cause them to worry about!


Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

is the real problem the cyber bullying,

Yes...


Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

they perhaps have other underlying problems that led to them not dealing with the cyber bullying in a reasonable manner?

Again we have a little bit of victim blaming.

What is "dealing with the cyber bullying in a reasonable manner" in your opinion?

It might not hurt to consider, is the act of bullying reasonable itself?


Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

that's because as a society we are increasingly wrapping our kids up in cotton wool,

Funny how with all that cotton wool about the place Youth suicide rates are significant. Not to mention self harm, mental health issues etc etc etc...

What exactly is the cotton wool wrapping you reckon is happening and where is it located? Pretty thin on the ground where I come from.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:15pm:

That seems contradictory.

not at all ...


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:15pm:

I mean, if one does not inadvertently (or intentionally) blame the victim then the point is, they should not actually have to worry about the abuse at all -

if they worked on their self esteem they wouldn't worry about what someone says on the net


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:15pm:

Again we have a little bit of victim blaming.

not at all ... I just don't see how someone can care so much what some anonymous person on the www says ... if they do they have bigger problems than what the person on the www says


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:15pm:

What is "dealing with the cyber bullying in a reasonable manner" in your opinion?

for that you need a clear cut definition


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:15pm:

unny how with all that cotton wool about the place Youth suicide rates are significant.

thats exactly WHY suicide rates are so high. They don't learn to deal with reality and all that it encompasses because they've been wrapped up in wool for their whole life. Life isn't all about hugs and kisses and medals for coming last. Life is full of disappointments and learning to deal with them appropriately is was part of the growing up process, until now.

Do you know that according to 'The politically incorrect parenting guide' (I think it was Australia although it could have been referring to the UK) , 50% of kids aren't even allowed to go out into their own backyards unsupervised because their parents are afraid they'll get hurt? Plus 80% of todays kids have NEVER climbed a tree ... I find those stats quiet sad.

I voted other, which isn't there. Its politics, get over it.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:45pm:

if they worked on their self esteem they wouldn't worry about what someone says on the net

Actually its resilience more so than self esteem on its own. However, the they you speak of are the victims.... So rather than say abuse is wrong, you say the victim should harden up.

By definition mate, that is victim blaming, you can deny it all you like, but it is what it is.

I am all for us building up our kids resilience, however, not every individual has the same capacity there.

Please stop blaming the victims, it is the bully after all who is in the wrong don't you think?


Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:45pm:

I just don't see how someone can care so much what some anonymous person on the www says ... if they do they have bigger problems than what the person on the www says

So because your vision in this is limited (by your own admission) you should set the bench mark for others?

No mate, victim blaming is exactly what you are doing.

The bully needs to learn not to be a bully.

The rest was opinionated (yep I know its all OPINION) and ill informed rubbish.

The high incidents of self harm and youth suicide, directly relating to bullying are because of the despicable actions of bullies. A lot has been done on building resilience, particularly with young people, however, there are sound reasons why a significant amount of work goes into STOPPING BULLYING - Having good resilience is helpful generally in life, however, it is not and should not be used as a defense, justification or excuse to allow bullies to run the race...

The issue is the bully, not whether their target needs to harden up or not.

It's pretty amazing, even in this tawdry little microcosm that you can't recognise how people target each other - you even do that....

Let's face it, no one doing the targeting goes for people who might be a challenge, ignore them etc etc etc - bully's deliberately pick their marks...

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 7:32am:

So because your vision in this is limited (by your own admission) you should set the bench mark for others?

I set my bench mark by my standards Phem ... you think I should set my benchmark based on others standards?


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 7:32am:

The issue is the bully, not whether their target needs to harden up or not.

according to your standards .... I disagree, I think it has to do with both. There are two parts to every story . Your just looking at one side and ignoring the other

Anything derogatory towards Bogarde, his posts, his personal appearance, his sexual fantasies (list available on request), his age or any other matter hereinafter thought of,will be considered as abuse.
And aanyone found guilty of this offence is liable to a period of 2 years detention in the Greens Party.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:35pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:09pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:04pm: This is hardly an elevated platform for discussion so some of the rules need a bit more leeway. If for example you have someone who repeatedly says things that most of us know to be false and/or idiotic and is unable to be reasoned with (eg Unforgiven) at what point does calling them an idiot cease to be abusive and merely a statement of unequivocal fact? I can't see a good reason to do this. Frustrating as it can be, nothing of value can be gained by attacking a poster by calling then names. As a rule I would agree. There are however the rare poster(s) where calling them an idiot or stupid would be nothing more than a statement of medical fact. Tactless for sure. Rude, definitely. But not incorrect! This however is a day when I was accused by the obviously drunk Cods of being a paedo-supporter which according to one PM message is her standard response on the topic of children obviously drunk Cods . So perhaps not a good day for me to respond to this question.

that as you can see phem is not longweekends idea of ABUSE its stating a fact... ::) ::) the facts are.. are dont bring the topic he is referring to into the conversation....and I dont call him names or suggest he is a drink... I just tell it as he has said it in the past.......

which obviously he cannot stand.. one of the reasons to change his ID I am sure even tough its fooled no one...

have I reported his abuse.. as I call it that... no I havent...it makes me laugh like in aussies case where they attack others in the most unbecoming way... yet have the hide to talk about what they see as others abuse.... ;D ;D ;D..

I do my level best to not call people names especially drunk.. I do not call maria a paedo...I just say what he has said in the past....he can deny all he likes but we have had many arguments over this and I have never once stooped to the level he does on every occasion...

my answer to abuse is.. this phem''
if you have to come down to the level of say what marie has said about myself.. then as far as I am concerned you have somethign to worry about...only those with a weak argument stoop to that level...just like name calling in the playground...I have little time for it.. and do my best to avoid these people as I know I would never ever like to be in the same place as them...

I expect you to find somewhere where I have personally abused someone  check with aussies fun thread I am sure he would have somethign on me....is it low and spiteful...like these comments

obviously drunk Cods

PM message is her standard response on the topic of children obviously drunk Cods


btw phem I have never ever PMd this person....

  its also  very noticable she/he never denies what I say.. its always this kind of personal  response....

Ask bushy (ozzie).......he does after all personally abuse most on this forum by way of his patronisation.....

How can a f##king taxi driver think he's in any way superior?

Ask bushy (ozzie).......he does after all personally abuse most on this forum by way of his patronisation.....

How can a f##king taxi driver think he's in any way superior?

Muttley wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 10:18am:

Ask bushy (ozzie).......he does after all personally abuse most on this forum by way of his patronisation..... How can a f##king taxi driver think he's in any way superior?

Taxi driver would have to be pretty much bottom of the pile of jobs surely?

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 7:37am:

I set my bench mark by my standards Phem

Well you appear to be arguing other than this to me. Must be my mistake then.


Johnsmith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 7:37am:

I think it has to do with both.

That actually has not been at all evident in your posts so far (to be absolutely honest and responsible, I would have to admit the same can be said about my posts too).

I can absolutely agree with that though. Both parties need some help and support.

You mentioned self esteem earlier, it is widely accepted that, apart from biological issues (i.e. mental health etc) bullies generally come from a position of low self esteem...

So, bullies need to be held to account, but also supported in developing their self esteem.

Victims, biggest need is to be supported/helped to develop their resilience (this will also have knock on benefits for self esteem).


Johnsmith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 7:37am:

our just looking at one side and ignoring the other

I think it is arguable that both our posts could be viewed that way. Until now at least.

Muttley wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 10:18am:

How can a f##king taxi driver think he's in any way superior?

How can anyone?


mariacostel wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 10:24am:

Taxi driver would have to be pretty much bottom of the pile of jobs surely?

Wow - that's an incredibly dumb thing to say just for the sake of being nasty...

Let's face it, "bottom of the pile of jobs" is subjective and also dependent on a whole range of factors. For some, being an accountant (for example) or a solicitor, or a real estate agent might be at the "bottom"...

Let's face it, one would only make a comment like that to be personally abusive...

Further, what are you going to do if all those people with the jobs at the "bottom" of the pile stop doing them?

Whatever the complainant feels it to be... you know that.. you live in the 21st Century where there are no boundaries any more....

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 12:48pm:

Well you appear to be arguing other than this to me. Must be my mistake then.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

I don't disagree,

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

why? Who ever said cyber bullying doesn't exist?

I never once disagreed with the basic gist of what you were saying, I was just trying to show a different perspective on the argument.  (maybe I did a bad job of it)


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 12:48pm:

So, bullies need to be held to account, but also supported in developing their self esteem.

again, you are yet to define a bully. So far I've yet to see any sort of general consensus . I have a low tolerance for people that make stupid disjointed comments, especially if they are unrelated to the topic being discussed, and I'll call people on it if I think I need to. Some may think I am bullying them for doing so. I disagree.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 12:53pm:

Muttley wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 10:18am: How can a f##king taxi driver think he's in any way superior? How can anyone? mariacostel wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 10:24am: Taxi driver would have to be pretty much bottom of the pile of jobs surely? Wow - that's an incredibly dumb thing to say just for the sake of being nasty... Let's face it, "bottom of the pile of jobs" is subjective and also dependent on a whole range of factors. For some, being an accountant (for example) or a solicitor, or a real estate agent might be at the "bottom"... Let's face it, one would only make a comment like that to be personally abusive... Further, what are you going to do if all those people with the jobs at the "bottom" of the pile stop doing them?

I will stay with taxi driver being the bottom of the pile. It doesn't have to be offensive, but it doesn't stop it from being true.

Free Speech...Free Speech...Free Speech.

Once we start censoring we are done. :)

@

mariacostel wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:

I will stay with taxi driver being the bottom of the pile. It doesn't have to be offensive, but it doesn't stop it from being true.

It's still just being nasty...

The thing stopping it from being true by the way is that it has no evidence to back it up and it is entirely subjective...

So, it's just being nasty...

That of course is absolutely your choice, but, it quite clearly says far more about you than the vast number of taxi drivers out there.

This definition pretty much fits my view of what bullying is....

It is broadly copied from NSW Dept of Ed.

A definition of bullying
Bullying is repeated verbal, physical, social or psychological behaviour that is harmful and involves the misuse of power by an individual or group towards one or more persons.

Cyberbullying refers to bullying through information and communication technologies.

Bullying can involve humiliation, domination, intimidation, victimisation and all forms of harassment including that based on sex, race, disability, homosexuality or transgender. Bullying of any form or for any reason can have long-term effects on those involved including bystanders.

Bullying can happen anywhere: at school, travelling to and from school, in sporting teams, between neighbours or in the workplace.

Bullying behaviour can be:

verbal eg name calling, teasing, abuse, putdowns, sarcasm, insults, threats
physical eg hitting, punching, kicking, scratching, tripping, spitting
social eg ignoring, excluding, ostracising, alienating, making inappropriate gestures
psychological eg spreading rumours, dirty looks, hiding or damaging possessions, malicious SMS and email messages, inappropriate use of camera phones.

Conflict or fights between equals and single incidents are not defined as bullying. Bullying behaviour is not:

not getting along well
a situation of mutual conflict
single episodes of nastiness or random acts of aggression or intimidation.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 2:59pm:

and involves the misuse of power by an individual or group towards one or more persons.

and there is where your definition falls flat in reference to this forum. Unless it's Aussies abuse you are commenting on

your own definition says


Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 2:59pm:

Conflict or fights between equals and single incidents are not defined as bullying. Bullying behaviour is not: not getting along well a situation of mutual conflict single episodes of nastiness or random acts of aggression or intimidation.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 2:57pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:59pm: I will stay with taxi driver being the bottom of the pile. It doesn't have to be offensive, but it doesn't stop it from being true. It's still just being nasty... The thing stopping it from being true by the way is that it has no evidence to back it up and it is entirely subjective... So, it's just being nasty... That of course is absolutely your choice, but, it quite clearly says far more about you than the vast number of taxi drivers out there.

Of course it is subjective! What else could it be? And the taxi drivers are not exactly graduates from university. The vast majority dont even speak the language well (or at all).