Why are we concentrating on gay specific bullying instead of all bullying?

[Dembadon]

"Emotional and verbal bullying" has a far different solution, though: Ignore it. Unlike assault, we don't imprison people for calling someone names. And unlike assault, even the smallest child can be taught the not-so advanced skill of ignoring someone.

...

I thought there were/are laws against threatening language, though. For instance, if someone were to say, "I'm going to kill you unless...," and they had the ability to do so, I was under the impression that such acts could be criminalized if they were committed by someone who could reasonably be taken seriously. Conditional threat laws probably vary by county/state, but I believe they're enforced.

 

[Al68]

No Al68, you do not simply ignore it.

Yes, in fact, I do. If it escalates to a physical attack, I fight, but never before.

At the risk of invoking a very flammable strawman, I point you to the insitutionalized racism of blacks up until the 60's. Verbal and emotional bullying is oppression.

That's a strawman, indeed, since that institutionalized racism consisted of far more than name-calling. And note that we never outlawed name-calling.

If you think "verbal and emotional bullying" was the biggest problem of the 60's, I would suggest watching a documentary or two about it.

 

[Al68]

I thought there were/are laws against threatening language, though. For instance, if someone were to say, "I'm going to kill you unless...," and they had the ability to do so, I was under the impression that such acts could be criminalized if they were committed by someone who could reasonably be taken seriously. Conditional threat laws probably vary by county/state, but I believe they're enforced.

Of course threats of violence are illegal, but that constitutes physical bullying, not verbal/emotional bullying.

 

[FlexGunship]

I thought there were/are laws against threatening language, though. For instance, if someone were to say, "I'm going to kill you unless...," and they had the ability to do so, I was under the impression that such acts could be criminalized if they were committed by someone who could reasonably be taken seriously. Conditional threat laws probably vary by county/state, but I believe they're enforced.

What are you talking about? I was referring to "emotional and verbal" bullying, not physical bullying. Did you misunderstand my post?

Do you disagree that children should be taught how to ignore name-calling instead of (physically) fighting over it?

No Al68, you do not simply ignore it.

At the risk of invoking a very flammable strawman, I point you to the insitutionalized racism of blacks up until the 60's. Verbal and emotional bullying is oppression.

Okay, the thread of discussion is kind of deteriorating. Let's see if we can reassemble it.

Bullying is characterized as an assault on the well-being of an individual. Emotion and verbal bullying are not trivial actions. Frankly, if you believe that "ignoring it" is an option, then you have revealed that you don't understand the phenomenon.

Threat-induced coercion is a crime. But is not necessarily bullying since it has, at it's core, the goal of performing a crime, not the actual emotional or physical determent of the coerced.

 

[JaredJames]

What are you talking about? I was referring to "emotional and verbal" bullying, not physical bullying. Did you misunderstand my post?

Do you disagree that children should be taught how to ignore name-calling instead of (physically) fighting over it?

No misunderstanding. You do not ignore verbal / emotional bullying. You say you don't agree with pacifism when it comes to physical bullying and yet you advocate it in this situation.

No, don't fight over verbal insults, but you also don't have to be quiet about it. Bullying, regardless of what form it takes, is bullying none the less and should be treated equally.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed pending Moderation. Some recent posts have also been placed in Moderation, so they are not visible at this time...