Skinny little bully gets chopped in half by chubby kid.

[keltoi]

i was congratulated by the school head for fucking up a renowned school bully. he was laughing cos of the size difference. good times.

[Guest Gravity]

then one day, I snapped. what broke the camels back for me was when I was in the restroom taking a piss and I hear kids laughing and I feel a warm stream hit my back. I turn around and Ferdinand was taking a piss on my back. Other kids laughed and Ferdinand zipped up his pants and walked out... I stayed in the rest room crying and it felt like I was in there forever. Then the crying turned into rage. I burst out of the rest room and went around the playground looking for him. I found him hanging out with his friends and a bunch of girls and I started running towards him. I He saw me coming but it seemed he wasn't prepared for what I was about to do since he was smiling. I was a few feet from him and I guess he was thinking "oh shit he's still coming at me" and I basically jumped and kicked him in the chest knocking him down. He ended up on his belly and I stradled his back and just started punching the back of his head and manually turning his head and wail on his nose. I didn't remember anything else that day since my focus was on him. I do remember probably being punched by another kid, but i was practically unphased by it and just kept going. i was then taken by one of the adults on the playground to the principals office. It turned out that I broke the kids nose.

 

Absolutely beautiful. I'm not one for violence at all but as I said previously, bully stories annoy me to no end.

[encey]

once my apathy has subsided

Just random: This turn of phrase struck me. Can apathy 'subside'? I mean, to be apathetic is to lack feeling; it's a lack of something. To subside is to kind of sink away.

 

Can a lack 'sink away'? It makes sense to say, 'I am overcome by boredom' and 'My boredom has subsided'; but 'I am overcome by apathy'? 'My apathy has subsided'? I'm not sure. I wonder why that is. What is the difference between boredom and apathy that makes one pair of those claims make sense and the other nonsense?

 

I would think that, insofar as apathy is a lack, it goes away by being 'filled in,' rather than by sinking away. That would mean that apathy is not something you just wait to go away, like a cold or something, but rather, a condition that you counteract by doing something so as to feel once more. Plus, the feeling of caring about something doesn't seem to just come and go, like health or the weather. I guess we can find ourselves caring about something out of the blue, but I don't know if it makes sense to say, 'I will wait until I care about it,' which seems like a paraphrase of 'once my apathy subsides.'

[keltoi]

flacidnating

[encey]

flatulating

[Guest theSun]

it just seems very odd to me to not focus on this aspect of development in schools

 

why don't they teach a class in elementary school on having compassion for your fellow human being? trying to at least put in place a foundation for empathy and understanding at an early age. It seems like this is a very low priority and mostly left to parents

 

 

I've actually given this a lot of thought myself, I think it was the one big thing lacking in my pre-Uni education. Not ethics in the sense of "thou shalt not" - which I agree is completely counterproductive when it comes to kids - but a more pragmatic, real-world ethics that basically has to do with how to handle various real-world situations. It seems like that's a huge part of what growing up is all about - learning how to think strategically under pressure, how to communicate effectively and persuasively (more than just "debate"), how to develop a basic understanding of psychology and people with mental illness. I mean just a basic intro to psychology would have been very helpful.

 

I dunno but I think there's a real gap in the educational system in this regard.

 

Yeah, as far as early education goes, this is probably the most important thing that could be taught yet it seems to be a subject that's almost completely neglected (at least where I went to school, and I'm assuming it's like that most places). Most kids seem to either have a negligible understanding of how their behavior effects others, or they are just deliberately cruel. I like to hope it's mostly due to the lack of understanding that kids act like little bastards, and that situations like these can be averted with the right education. I don't think most people would actively seek to make someone else's life a living hell, though considering the number of personal anecdotes I've heard and experienced to the contrary, I'm sometimes not so sure. It is a very troubling aspect of human nature.

 

just to be clear, I didn't mean that in the sense that it would in any way prevent kids from being cruel to each other. As everyone else has said, kids are human and humans are capable of mob behavior, sadism, etc. I'm more talking in terms of a practical sort of ethics or just "life wisdom" that would give kids more life-coping skills and strategies.

 

The closest my school got to presenting material that was relevant to kids' day-to-day lives was sex ed class.

 

I suppose my acknowledgment was more directed at Awepittance's point about teaching the foundations of empathy, which your idea about teaching pragmatic ethics would tie into. It wouldn't necessarily curb the impulse within kids to be cruel, but it could at least start kids thinking more about the effects of their actions on others, etc. Most of the time with kids it's a case of "hey, everyone else is picking on ___ so I better do the same so as to not be left out", but if topics like bullying are brought up as a serious point of discussion at an early age it may encourage more kids to at least start thinking critically about the shitty actions of their peers rather than blindly following them in kind. I mean, instilling critical thought in kids isn't exactly the easiest task in the world, but with enough focus on it I think a difference could be make in how people interact with one another from childhood into adolescence. Maybe that's a bit on the idealistic side, but it seems like a good place to start.

 

i think the general thinking of the schools is that that part of education should be taught at home. with the beaurocratic nature of the school districts, some class like that would probably be some hippy bullshit. i'm not saying it couldn't be worthwhile, just that it probably wouldn't be.

[TwiddleBot]

I suppose my acknowledgment was more directed at Awepittance's point about teaching the foundations of empathy, which your idea about teaching pragmatic ethics would tie into. It wouldn't necessarily curb the impulse within kids to be cruel, but it could at least start kids thinking more about the effects of their actions on others, etc. Most of the time with kids it's a case of "hey, everyone else is picking on ___ so I better do the same so as to not be left out", but if topics like bullying are brought up as a serious point of discussion at an early age it may encourage more kids to at least start thinking critically about the shitty actions of their peers rather than blindly following them in kind. I mean, instilling critical thought in kids isn't exactly the easiest task in the world, but with enough focus on it I think a difference could be make in how people interact with one another from childhood into adolescence. Maybe that's a bit on the idealistic side, but it seems like a good place to start.

 

i think the general thinking of the schools is that that part of education should be taught at home. with the beaurocratic nature of the school districts, some class like that would probably be some hippy bullshit. i'm not saying it couldn't be worthwhile, just that it probably wouldn't be.

 

I'm certainly all for teaching ethics, critical thinking, logic, etc but kids still have young, developing brains, and it takes time for them to grasp these kinds of concepts. Also let's face it no matter how good the education is a percentage of humans are always going to be unrestrained sadists, sociopaths and narcissists.

 

Nifty study, crossing over into the Japan thread, delving into how young kids think and formulate thoughts and reason.

 

Scientific American: Signs, signs, everywhere signs: Seeing God in tsunamis and everyday events

[oscillik]

once my apathy has subsided

Just random: This turn of phrase struck me. Can apathy 'subside'? I mean, to be apathetic is to lack feeling; it's a lack of something. To subside is to kind of sink away.

 

Can a lack 'sink away'? It makes sense to say, 'I am overcome by boredom' and 'My boredom has subsided'; but 'I am overcome by apathy'? 'My apathy has subsided'? I'm not sure. I wonder why that is. What is the difference between boredom and apathy that makes one pair of those claims make sense and the other nonsense?

 

I would think that, insofar as apathy is a lack, it goes away by being 'filled in,' rather than by sinking away. That would mean that apathy is not something you just wait to go away, like a cold or something, but rather, a condition that you counteract by doing something so as to feel once more. Plus, the feeling of caring about something doesn't seem to just come and go, like health or the weather. I guess we can find ourselves caring about something out of the blue, but I don't know if it makes sense to say, 'I will wait until I care about it,' which seems like a paraphrase of 'once my apathy subsides.'

as a person who speaks English, i can say that "subsided" to me means "to wear off", ergo i have to wait for the apathy to wear off.

 

hope this helps in the understanding of my use of the English language.

 

still waiting for the apathy to subside, btw

[Guest theSun]

lol

[Squee]

from Kindergarten to about 8th grade, i've had my share of being bullied. I was a small dude back then and didn't react much to being bullied. I've had one dude that bullied me constantly from K to 2nd grade, His name was Ferdinand (i'm not saying his last name incase he's searchable) and he had lots of friends and girls hung out with him all the time. He would always single me out whenever I walked by by mostly shoving me, name calling, and wrestling me down and punching me. I would tell my dad about this and his only response was to be a man and beat the shit out of him (his approach was pretty old school and he was pretty much a raging alcoholic). days, weeks, months, and a couple years went by and it was practically the same thing everyday.

 

then one day, I snapped. what broke the camels back for me was when I was in the restroom taking a piss and I hear kids laughing and I feel a warm stream hit my back. I turn around and Ferdinand was taking a piss on my back. Other kids laughed and Ferdinand zipped up his pants and walked out... I stayed in the rest room crying and it felt like I was in there forever. Then the crying turned into rage. I burst out of the rest room and went around the playground looking for him. I found him hanging out with his friends and a bunch of girls and I started running towards him. I He saw me coming but it seemed he wasn't prepared for what I was about to do since he was smiling. I was a few feet from him and I guess he was thinking "oh shit he's still coming at me" and I basically jumped and kicked him in the chest knocking him down. He ended up on his belly and I stradled his back and just started punching the back of his head and manually turning his head and wail on his nose. I didn't remember anything else that day since my focus was on him. I do remember probably being punched by another kid, but i was practically unphased by it and just kept going. i was then taken by one of the adults on the playground to the principals office. It turned out that I broke the kids nose. needless to say, I never saw him again since I was expelled from that school and sent to a catholic school.

 

At that young age is when I found out I was able to inflict damage and I knew it was wrong. an older cousin of mine after that taught me some self defense moves so I won't have to break someones face unless necessary. Basically he taught me how to restrain myself if I'm ever in that situation again which did happen a couple of times more but I was more street wise by then and most of the times the situations defused when they realized I wasn't messin' around.

 

So basically, I've probably had about 4 different bullies all my life. One I broke his nose, never saw him again. and the rest didn't last long since I defended myself. Nothing ever escalated with those guys. What I learned from these experiences was control and restraint since the first bully.

 

You should look him up on the interwebs and see if his nose is crooked or something. If it is I'll be waiting in this thread to high five you.

[encey]

once my apathy has subsided

Just random: This turn of phrase struck me. Can apathy 'subside'? I mean, to be apathetic is to lack feeling; it's a lack of something. To subside is to kind of sink away.

 

Can a lack 'sink away'? It makes sense to say, 'I am overcome by boredom' and 'My boredom has subsided'; but 'I am overcome by apathy'? 'My apathy has subsided'? I'm not sure. I wonder why that is. What is the difference between boredom and apathy that makes one pair of those claims make sense and the other nonsense?

 

I would think that, insofar as apathy is a lack, it goes away by being 'filled in,' rather than by sinking away. That would mean that apathy is not something you just wait to go away, like a cold or something, but rather, a condition that you counteract by doing something so as to feel once more. Plus, the feeling of caring about something doesn't seem to just come and go, like health or the weather. I guess we can find ourselves caring about something out of the blue, but I don't know if it makes sense to say, 'I will wait until I care about it,' which seems like a paraphrase of 'once my apathy subsides.'

as a person who speaks English, i can say that "subsided" to me means "to wear off", ergo i have to wait for the apathy to wear off.

 

hope this helps in the understanding of my use of the English language.

 

still waiting for the apathy to subside, btw

I catch your drift, but I'm going to keep quibbling, just for fun:

 

Now, the closest analogy I can think of to the phrase 'apathy wears off' is 'numbness wears off.' That makes sense; numbness is a state of lacking feeling -- sensory feeling -- and it can beset one or be induced in one, and can be counteracted perhaps, by moving or rubbing your limbs, or just waiting (e.g., for the effects of an anesthetic to wear off).

 

Apathy, I suppose, is quite similar -- it can just beset you ('I just don't care anymore'), it can be induced ('Fuck it, I don't care'), and you can surely counteract it ('Tell me, why should I care?'). But unlike numbness, it's a lack of emotional or motivational feeling, so the sense in which it could 'wear off' would not be the same as in the case of numbness. Numbness wears off with a physiological change. But I don't think of motivations or feelings as being simply physiological phenomena. In the normal case, we feel things (emotionally) and have motivations for reasons. Of course, there may be changes in the body that correlate with certain mental states we are in, but on my view the mental state itself, e.g., having a belief, is different from the physiological state, e.g., something or other going on with my brain or hormones or whatever.

 

That's why, to me, to speak of apathy as 'wearing off' is to treat a psychological phenomenon as if it were merely a physical or physiological phenomenon -- as, to be sure, we sometimes do, for instance when we 'explain' a state of depression in terms of neurochemical concepts. But in that case, the only sense I can make of your claim is that you are something like depressed; you could care about the education debate itt, and maybe even want to care about it, but something in your brain (or whatever) is just preventing you, and you have to wait for those physiological conditions to wear off so that you can care once again.

 

Is that what you meant?

[oscillik]

once my apathy has subsided

Just random: This turn of phrase struck me. Can apathy 'subside'? I mean, to be apathetic is to lack feeling; it's a lack of something. To subside is to kind of sink away.

 

Can a lack 'sink away'? It makes sense to say, 'I am overcome by boredom' and 'My boredom has subsided'; but 'I am overcome by apathy'? 'My apathy has subsided'? I'm not sure. I wonder why that is. What is the difference between boredom and apathy that makes one pair of those claims make sense and the other nonsense?

 

I would think that, insofar as apathy is a lack, it goes away by being 'filled in,' rather than by sinking away. That would mean that apathy is not something you just wait to go away, like a cold or something, but rather, a condition that you counteract by doing something so as to feel once more. Plus, the feeling of caring about something doesn't seem to just come and go, like health or the weather. I guess we can find ourselves caring about something out of the blue, but I don't know if it makes sense to say, 'I will wait until I care about it,' which seems like a paraphrase of 'once my apathy subsides.'

as a person who speaks English, i can say that "subsided" to me means "to wear off", ergo i have to wait for the apathy to wear off.

 

hope this helps in the understanding of my use of the English language.

 

still waiting for the apathy to subside, btw

I catch your drift, but I'm going to keep quibbling, just for fun:

 

Now, the closest analogy I can think of to the phrase 'apathy wears off' is 'numbness wears off.' That makes sense; numbness is a state of lacking feeling -- sensory feeling -- and it can beset one or be induced in one, and can be counteracted perhaps, by moving or rubbing your limbs, or just waiting (e.g., for the effects of an anesthetic to wear off).

 

Apathy, I suppose, is quite similar -- it can just beset you ('I just don't care anymore'), it can be induced ('Fuck it, I don't care'), and you can surely counteract it ('Tell me, why should I care?'). But unlike numbness, it's a lack of emotional or motivational feeling, so the sense in which it could 'wear off' would not be the same as in the case of numbness. Numbness wears off with a physiological change. But I don't think of motivations or feelings as being simply physiological phenomena. In the normal case, we feel things (emotionally) and have motivations for reasons. Of course, there may be changes in the body that correlate with certain mental states we are in, but on my view the mental state itself, e.g., having a belief, is different from the physiological state, e.g., something or other going on with my brain or hormones or whatever.

 

That's why, to me, to speak of apathy as 'wearing off' is to treat a psychological phenomenon as if it were merely a physical or physiological phenomenon -- as, to be sure, we sometimes do, for instance when we 'explain' a state of depression in terms of neurochemical concepts. But in that case, the only sense I can make of your claim is that you are something like depressed; you could care about the education debate itt, and maybe even want to care about it, but something in your brain (or whatever) is just preventing you, and you have to wait for those physiological conditions to wear off so that you can care once again.

 

Is that what you meant?

i meant that i'm waiting for the apathy to subside

[encey]

*jots it down*

[Guest ezkerraldean]

i'm waiting for my boner to subside

[oscillik]

Boner Index = +245

required Boner Index = +106

 

conclusion: subsidify

[chenGOD]

it just seems very odd to me to not focus on this aspect of development in schools

 

why don't they teach a class in elementary school on having compassion for your fellow human being? trying to at least put in place a foundation for empathy and understanding at an early age. It seems like this is a very low priority and mostly left to parents

 

 

I've actually given this a lot of thought myself, I think it was the one big thing lacking in my pre-Uni education. Not ethics in the sense of "thou shalt not" - which I agree is completely counterproductive when it comes to kids - but a more pragmatic, real-world ethics that basically has to do with how to handle various real-world situations. It seems like that's a huge part of what growing up is all about - learning how to think strategically under pressure, how to communicate effectively and persuasively (more than just "debate"), how to develop a basic understanding of psychology and people with mental illness. I mean just a basic intro to psychology would have been very helpful.

 

I dunno but I think there's a real gap in the educational system in this regard.

because parents should actually parent?

 

I always tell my daughter, if someone is bothering you, tell them stop. If they don't stop, then move away from them. If they keep bothering you, tell the teachers. I try and instill values of accepting difference in my daughter. Like hexson, I've seen what bullying can do (in Korea it's similar to Japan) and it's bullshit.

Of course the fact that teachers aren't allowed to discipline kids anymore (and I don't mean corporal punishment) for fear of some insane parent trying to sue the school/teacher/whoever as long as the parent doesn't have to take responsibility doesn't help the situation any.

 

Oscillik are you seriously saying that there is a positive aspect to bullying? It had some positive influence in your life?

[Rubin Farr]

the skinny kid got sucked off by that skinny girl, so it's all good.

[oscillik]

Oscillik are you seriously saying that there is a positive aspect to bullying? It had some positive influence in your life?

no, i'm saying that fighting back against a bully had a positive influence on my life.

[chenGOD]

Ah ok...just wanted to clarify. See I agree with Iain (fuck me, that's something I never thought I'd say) - it should never have been allowed to get this far at school. Fighting back is not the worst thing though, the worst is to let it build inside you until it overwhelms...

[oscillik]

Ah ok...just wanted to clarify. See I agree with Iain (fuck me, that's something I never thought I'd say) - it should never have been allowed to get this far at school. Fighting back is not the worst thing though, the worst is to let it build inside you until it overwhelms...

i agree with Iain in some respects.

 

but i accept that no amount of intervention from the school is going to change the fact that some people are bullies, and that sometimes violence is necessary.

 

we do not live in a fucking utopia, and we never will. it is not within the nature of human kind to live in peace. that is a disappointing and sad fact, but it is fact.

[chenGOD]

Yeah you gotta be a realist some of the time...

[oscillik]

Yeah you gotta be a realist some of the time...

i'd say i try to be a realist.

 

most of the time i just come across as a cunt.

 

edit: anyways - Skinny little bully gets chopped in half by chubby kid

[YEK]

yeah but what if the picked on has a gun ala columbine or other cases.

[TiffanyHalderman]

what if?

[essines]

 

And that's a big if

 

but not really. fuck bullies. was lucky enough to be a huge fucker so making friends and avoiding bullies was easy. stood up for anyone who didn't deserve a good cunting. but bullying wasn't a huge problem where i grew up, at least not in school. it was strange cause i lived in a hick town in northern buttfuck canada. what evs.

 

but being big and nice was an easy way to send out a "don't fuck with people i know" vibe. i don't know. i guess my experience is limited.

 

oh, and we are canada so gun violence and violence in general isn't really as big a deal as in, say, the states.