Is There a Bullying Epidemic in the U.S.?: Nick Gillespie in the Wall Street Journal

I've got a piece in the Wall Street Journal that questions the conventional wisdom that bullying and school violence in America is a growing problem. The immensely powerful documentary Bully opens this weekend and Cartoon Network recently aired Speak Up, an anti-bullying movie introduced by President Barack Obama. While I think both films deserve huge audiences, I also think that we should guard against a moral panic that's not supported by the available evidence and threatens to yet again divert school resources away from education. (Read Kurt Loder's review of Bully here.)

Here's some snippets and a video discussion of the piece I did with the Journal's Ryan Sager. Snippets:

I have no interest in defending the bullies who dominate sandboxes, extort lunch money and use Twitter to taunt their classmates. But there is no growing crisis. Childhood and adolescence in America have never been less brutal. Even as the country's overprotective parents whip themselves up into a moral panic about kid-on-kid cruelty, the numbers don't point to any explosion of abuse. As for the rising wave of laws and regulations designed to combat meanness among students, they are likely to lump together minor slights with major offenses. The antibullying movement is already conflating serious cases of gay-bashing and vicious harassment with things like…a kid named Cheese having a tough time in grade school.

How did we get here? We live in an age of helicopter parents so pushy and overbearing that Colorado Springs banned its annual Easter-egg hunt on account of adults jumping the starter's gun and scooping up treat-filled plastic eggs on behalf of their winsome kids. The Department of Education in New York City—once known as the town too tough for Al Capone—is seeking to ban such words as "dinosaurs," "Halloween" and "dancing" from citywide tests on the grounds that they could "evoke unpleasant emotions in the students," it was reported this week....

Despite the rare and tragic cases that rightly command our attention and outrage, the data show that things are, in fact, getting better for kids. When it comes to school violence, the numbers are particularly encouraging. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between 1995 and 2009, the percentage of students who reported "being afraid of attack or harm at school" declined to 4% from 12%. Over the same period, the victimization rate per 1,000 students declined fivefold.

When it comes to bullying numbers, long-term trends are less clear. The makers of "Bully" say that "over 13 million American kids will be bullied this year," and estimates of the percentage of students who are bullied in a given year range from 20% to 70%. NCES changed the way it tabulated bullying incidents in 2005 and cautions against using earlier data. Its biennial reports find that 28% of students ages 12-18 reported being bullied in 2005; that percentage rose to 32% in 2007, before dropping back to 28% in 2009 (the most recent year for which data are available). Such numbers strongly suggest that there is no epidemic afoot (though one wonders if the new anti-bullying laws and media campaigns might lead to more reports going forward).

Read the whole piece here. I will also be doing a live chat about the story and topic on Monday at 11am ET. Go here to participate or follow it.

The video with Sager is below:

My 1997 story, "Child-Proofing the World," is online here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    As with so many things, the internet has made it worse. Because of the internet, there are more child abduction attempts, more autism and more bullying than ever before. Not actually, of course, but there's more information about these things and easier access to it.

    As far as bullying in all its degrees, it's always been around and always will. Unpleasant as it is, it can help build character in the bullied and teach dealing with adversity as adults. (Speaking of unpleasant, as I recall, the girls were usually the absolute worst to each other.)

  • Skip||

    Of course the internet has increased bullying. In the old days, the bully at least had to be in physical sight of the target in order to do any taunting. I'm just glad the internet was just starting to get mainstream as I was exiting high school.

  • Bully||

    You're stupid and ugly and have a gay name, Skip.

  • Um||

    You forgot to threaten to publish his personal information.

    And you call yourself a bully!

  • MARY STACK||

    Don't forget libertarians bullying me and posting my personal information online for other libertarian bullies.

  • WHAAAABULANCE!||

    Call me!

  • ||

    I told you not to come around here anymore!

  • ||

    "He had yellow eyes...YELLOW"

    Um, Scut, you might wanna get checked for liver problems with those jaundiced eyes of yours. I'm not aware of any liver maladies that would increase aggression.

    Methinks you have aneuploidy of the XYY variety there, Scutster.

  • MARY STACK||

    Don't forget libertarians bullying me and posting my personal information online for other libertarian bullies.

  • WHAAAABULANCE!||

    Call me!

  • wareagle||

    Of course the internet has increased bullying.
    --------------
    I disagree; the Internet has increased our ability to talk about bullying and, to an extent, to redefine it. The bigger problem lies in the ridiculous "zero tolerance" rules schools have regarding violence. Those have neutered the kid being screwed with by effectively taking away his ability to fight back since retaliation is treated no differently from instigation.

    Bullying has always existed but before these moronic rules, either a kid would take up for himself and things would stop or someone would stand up for the kid and it would stop. Fighting back has been removed from the list of options.

  • Skip||

    Do you really think that kid pictured above would be fighting back if not for zero tolerance laws? I did fight back when I got a little older and even then, it only did good sometimes.

  • ||

    Those have neutered the kid being screwed with by effectively taking away his ability to fight back since retaliation is treated no differently from instigation.


    What is the worst that can happen by fighting back?

  • free2booze||

    Expulsion

  • ||

    Expulsion


    Forty years after the fact, who is going to care?

  • ||

    A smarter me at gradeschool age would've taken a bat to my bullies, got expelled, and gone to a better school.

  • JB||

    Yup. If a kid getting punched isn't a big deal, then it isn't a big deal if his bully ends up in the hospital.

    There are different types of bullying, but physical assault is physical assault. Self-defense isn't assault.

  • ||

    Not according to left/libtards... self-defense is horrible "violence" but the bully is just "acting out" his "issues" (or something). Bullies, they let go on; regular, decent folk get the shaft because "all violence is wrong."

  • Brandon||

    Could this be because the bullies are the ones who go on to become IRS agents, DEA agents, and various other "Public Servants?"

  • free2booze||

    ^^^THIS^^^

  • Thomas O.||

    I was bullied a fair amount in grade school, and thanks to my high sensitivity I was a whiny bitch about it. Fighting back only got me in trouble at home. My parents told me to just ignore them. Yeah, how do you ignore a fist?

    Now that I've got a couple kids of my own, I'm making damn sure they develop a thick skin. My wife and I joke around with our son a lot and he knows it's just joking. And I'll tell him it's okay to defend yourself, but it's never okay to start fights. Hopefully I'll be ready for whatever problems he comes to me with as he goes through the horrors of the social clique environment at school.

  • db||

    The internet made machineguns more expensive. Stupid internet.

  • anon||

    Yeah, technology makes incidents more apparent. Kinda like hurricane/tornado detection.

    Back when I was in school the rules were pretty simple. If someone tells you to give them your lunch money, you tell them to fuck off.

    I think that the nanny state is just trying to put the kids "in their place" earlier in life... You know, get a head start.

  • Thomas O.||

    At least "lunch money" is becoming a thing of the past... the school that my son goes to has a debit system where we load up an internet account with cash and he tells them a six-number code at the cafeteria. So at least the archetypal bully nowadays has to find something else to extort from their victims.

  • Mel||

    Yeah, if current trends continue, the number of people with autism will outnumber the number of people without it, and nonautism will be the disease. The autistic will team up with increasingly intelligent computers to enslave the nonautistic (who will be referred to as "the Ebullients").

    So, yes, bullying will always be around.

  • Ice Nine||

    who will be referred to as "the Ebullients"

    OK, that's funny.

  • ||

    That sounds like a great re-imagining of the original story of "I am Legend."

  • ||

    Don't be silly Mel, we could never do something like that, how ridiculous... now put your control anti-bullying collar back on. NOW.

  • Ryan||

    The tendency toward removing children from unpleasant experiences, leading to unprepared adults, is frightening.

    And it coincides nicely with the government's objectives, so it's unsurprising to see them involved.

  • ||

    I agree with this completely. I used to work on a children's psychiatric unit at a St. Louis are hospital. The whole approach of the unit from the management seemed to be one of insulating kids from any kind of stress, or making sure they felt absolutely no discomfort at all. Basically we were there to pacify them, and when the didn't get what they wanted, they would act out. This is the kind of adults we're going to end up with in 20 to 15 years. The worst is yet to come, and they'll make the OWS protesters seem reasonable and dignified in comparison.

  • ||

    Bullying epidemic? More like a pandemic. There are goons in every airport feeling people up.

    -jcr

  • HeroicMulatto||

    It would be interesting to research what percent of bullys enter professions such as law enforcement.

  • ||

    wouldn't it be easier to count the number of LEOs who WERENT bullies as children/adolescents?

  • ||

    I had a gradeschool classmate who was an huge asshole, even gave me a hard time. Was also a huge wuss, cried easily when he got hurt. He's now a federal prosecutor.

  • Suki||

    Worse than the Holocaust, the government needs to do something.

  • anon||

    the government needs to do something.

    I know you're being sarcastic, but my fucking god am I sick of seeing/hearing this. I want to scream.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • ||

    Yeah... somehow bullying is about homosexuality and, therefore, requires redistributive "social-justice" policies and left/liberal government. (Or we could just punish bullying, support self-defense and vote Republican... guess which option left/liberals would prefer?)

  • ||

    When I was a child I both took beatings and inflicted them. And as an adult I can do both without flinching. It's one of the things that's made me a success out in the real world. Kids today are all a bunch of pussies who need to get over it.

  • anon||

    Kids today are all a bunch of pussies who need to get over it.

    Thread win. Nothing left to see here folks, it's over.

  • Except||

    The part about "inflicting beatings" (and attributing success to brutality) was telling.

  • Yikes||

    When I was a child I inflicted [beatings]. As an adult I can [inflict beatings] without flinching. It's...made me a success...

    Please tell us you don't have any children, and that all Texans are not like you.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I can only presume he's using "beating" in a metaphorical sense. Or he's a boxer.

  • Yikes||

    Or a professional meringue maker.

  • ||

    Judge Adams, is that you?

  • chickenhawk||

    Brian of Texas: I'm pretty sure that inflicting beatings is not a part of the NAP.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Depends. I inflicted a beating on a classmate back in the late 90's and it was perfectly in line with the NAP. If he's gonna jump me from behind he's got to do a better job with his first hit.

  • Empress McNastypants||

    Maybe your kids are all pussies.

    Not the fruit of my magnificent loins.

  • ||

    Damn straight, teach your that self-defense is where it's at!

  • Question||

    Yup (see up). Haven't rtfa, but: Do statistics on bullying reveal anything about how many of the bullied bully a bit themselves? So to speak. Who doesn't like to bully a little, huh H & R?

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Looks like someone's up early at camp retard.

  • The Shepard||

    Shut up rectal!

  • The comentariot||

    Go fuck yourself Mary Stack. No one bullies you. You are mentally ill moron who comes here to bully and slander people and destroy the board. You are a worthless piece of garbage who is no doubt hated by everyone in your life. No one bullies you. You only think they do because you are a paranoid nut.

  • QFT||

    You are a mentally ill moron

  • The comentariot||

    Truth hurts Mary. Projecting it onto other people doesn't help. Soon there will be registration and you will be banned and spend most of your time trying to create new aliases after the old ones have been banned. No one will miss you.

  • Joey Lawrence||

    Whoa.

    Just whoa.

  • Update||

    "The comentariot" is John.

  • Update||

    (Mary broke his brain.)

  • ||

    Stow the "all violence is wrong" trip, comrade. Methinks thou doth protest too much with that all-controlling liberal rap.

  • db||

    When I was in high school, I spent some time being bullied as a freshman. I was fairly skinny but not particularly small, but I was fresh meat, having come from a Catholic elementary/middle school. After one fight, which cost me a couple of teeth, I was never bullied again. Sometimes all it takes is standing up for yourself. My parents would have preferred to avoid the dental bill, I'm sure, but it all worked out well in the end.

  • db||

    The current trend of trying to make everything from childhood to adult life as smooth as possible, lacking challenge and confrontation, will, I think, kill human drive to better things. Life thrives on differentials. Whether it is a chemical potential differential that drives certain processes, a gravitational differential that moves the mightiest rivers, or a differential in satisfaction with where one is in life versus where he wants to be, deltas power change. When no satisfaction differential exists, when no longer are we faced with challenges or uncomfortable situations, life will stagnate. This may well result in the death of a society. Stasis = death.

  • db||

    Fucking 900-char limit.

  • I||

    Brevity is a virtue.

  • db||

    900<<<10000

  • I||

    LOL

  • ||

    Don't worry, db. As demonstrated daily, humans have an almost innate ability to manufacture drama and conflict from the whole cloth. As soon as one crisis abates, Top Men Pearl Clutchers are working day and night to find the next crisis that dooms us to oblivion and causes the wrinkle free fabric of our lives to excessively wrinkle.

    We will never be safe. NEVER.

  • db||

    As demonstrated daily, humans have an almost innate ability to manufacture drama and conflict from the whole cloth.

    Why is this? I recognize it's true, but I'm not one of those types of people. What is it that makes some people want to make things harder on themselves and those around them by dreaming up problems where there are none? You see this from private problems, to personal relationships, all the way up through international incidents and wars, all over the stupidest shit.

  • ||

    People crave attention in order to feed their superiority complex.

  • ||

    You mean like that time you spent two hours not getting the joke and not understanding the language while insisting that you did and do?

    Yeah, you're a joke.

  • Dr. Freud||

    People crave attention in order to feed their superiority complex

    Heller commited a me slip.

  • ||

    Why are you so angry Mary?

  •  ||

    John|3.26.12 @ 9:46AM
    But somehow knowing who she is makes it imminently easier to just ignore her.

  • ||

    "Why are you so angry "

    "Yeah, you're a joke."

    See, this is why you spent two hours not getting the joke and not understanding the language while insisting that you did and do.

    You think "joke" (us laughing at you) is "mad".

    Which, obviously, is because you're mad and trying too hard.

    Go ahead, you can have the last word.

  • heller||

    [scurries away]

  • chickenhawk||

    Life can be challenging enough without having to depend on bullying to provide enough of it. Hey, why don't we bring back torture as a punitive measure in the judicial system? That'll toughen us all up.

  • ||

    Statism = Stasis = death.

    ExpandedTFY.

  • wareagle||

    Sometimes all it takes is standing up for yourself.
    --------
    ding, ding, ding; game, set, and match. That ability - to defend yourself - has been taken away from kids by zero tolerance bullshit that punishes fighting back as harshly as starting a fight. The system sanctions fighting back and too few parents are willing to stand up to that decree.

  • ||

    "All violence is wrong" = "Peace for our time" at Munich 1938 (sure stopped Hitler, didn't it?).

  • D.D. Driver||

    I wish mental illness and depression were more part of the conversation than they are. Throughout history people have endured terrible shit and not killed themselves. Except in cases of extreme torture, killing yourself is not a rationale choice. It is unthinkably irrational to kill yourself because people hurt savagely hurt your feelings. And yet now we are developing polices and passing laws premised on the belief that bullying "causes" kids to kill themselves.

    Bullying might be the trigger in some of these cases, but nobody kills themselves because of bullying. They kill themselves because they have unaddressed medical issues and we are doing a disservices to these kids. In the meantime we criminalizing being a teenager--who lets face it can be self-centered cruel little assholes (but it gets better for them too as they mature).

  • ||

    I wish mental illness and depression were more part of the conversation than they are. Throughout history people have endured terrible shit and not killed themselves. Except in cases of extreme torture, killing yourself is not a rationale choice. It is unthinkably irrational to kill yourself because people hurt savagely hurt your feelings. And yet now we are developing polices and passing laws premised on the belief that bullying "causes" kids to kill themselves.


    A Stolen Life: A Memoir by Jaycee Dugard

    Even if those bullied kids who killed themselves had an unhappy life at home, even involving physical or sexual abuse, it is not as bad as the events described in the book.

  • MNG||

    It seems to me some distinctions should be made: bullying could be name calling, or it could be violence (against persons and property) and the threat of violence. Why should anyone, including libertarians, say we shouldn't combat the latter? Should we repeal lawa against vandalism and beating people up in the adult world? Would it "build character" to let adults take a beating every now and then?

    Then we should also distinguish between social responses, like campaigns to portray bullying as uncool, and government responses, which often lead to overbroad, zero tolerance type stuff.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Two things. First, bullying is a part of life. Adults are bullies. So to some degree learning to deal with them is a part of life.

    Second, you are right solution is social. People need to teach their kids not to be bullies. And also, helicopter parenting has made it worse. Kids pick up on the emotions of their parents. When parents obsess about their kids too much, the kids get the message that childhood is life and death. And of course it is not. If parents would work to give help their kids get some perspective rather than constantly obsessing over them and pushing them towards success, the bullying would have less affect on kids.

  • MNG||

    "First, bullying is a part of life. Adults are bullies. So to some degree learning to deal with them is a part of life."

    Well, Mary, assaults and vandalism are common parts of life, should we not combat them?

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Those are crimes. Bullying, takes a lot of forms, a lot of which are not crimes. And yes, it should be discouraged. But it will never be eliminated. And dealing with that fact is a part of growing up. No matter what you do, kids, being kids and humans, will always be bullying each other and making each other miserable.

    And think hard and I bet you can figure out who I am. ;-)

  • MNG||

    This is one reason why I'm one of the seemingly growing number of people who are convinced you are Mary's new persona. You just post to keep the conversation going, often totally ignoring what you even responded to.

    "Bullying, takes a lot of forms, a lot of which are not crimes."

    This was, of course, the entire point running through my initial post. So you don't really disagree, you just needed a bunch of posts to acknowledge it.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    I wish I could spell it out for you MNG. But God you are dense. Think about the name. Think about history. Think about how I constantly tweak you on here.

    You know who it is MNG. And it ain't Mary, our resident griefer.

  • Joe M||

    I was wondering what happened to you.

  • MNG||

    Charlotte is John? I doubt that. john was an unimaginative Hannity-ite, sure, but he didn't seem to have the kind of mental problems that would make him change his handle to some cute thing and go around posting a lot hoping people would notice his new cute handle. That's pretty mental.

  • Um||

    he [John] didn't seem to have the kind of mental problems that would make him change his handle

    That was before "Mary" broke his brain. John is in a bad place now.

  • ||

    I wish I could spell it out for you MNG. But God you are dense. Think about the name. Think about history. Think about how I constantly tweak you on here.

    You know who it is MNG. And it ain't Mary, our resident griefer.

    Good SOD, MNG! Do you need a mother fucking NEON SIGN?

    Unobtanium has nothing on your elemental density.

  • MNG||

    You mean to tell me John thought it would be cute to change his name to a woman and post a lot coyly hinting about who he was?

    That's John T. level derangement there. Get a life dude.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Color me skeptical. Charlotte has been too diligent at checking the spelling.

  • MNG||

    If it's John and he's taking especial care to spell to "throw off" people, then that is really serious derangement there. I mean, that would be a guy so into his little play deception on a freaking chatboard that he sees it as a level of "craft." And that's Patton Oswald "Big Fan" derangement there.

  • ---||

    "If it's John and he's taking especial care to spell to "throw off" people,"

    I believe John was outed as a govt. employee posting from work. How else could he come back?

  • Yes or No||

    John was outed as a govt. employee posting from work

    Is that bullying?

    a) Yes
    b) No
    c) Maybe
    d) All of the above

  • ||

    You mean to tell me John thought it would be cute to change his name to a woman and post a lot coyly hinting about who he was?

    Which is more important, MNG: the truth value of the statements of argument and it's validity or is the person making the argument?

    I would hope you would embrace principle over personality. To do so otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

  • MNG||

    Of course, that's why I addressed the arguments throughout this thread. I come here only to argue points and issues, which is always find it incredible to hear there are people who come on here and engage in such fantastic games. Not just John-as-Charlotte (if that is what is going on), but WI, or John T.-Suki, etc. What kind of normal person does those kinds of things? Why not come on a discussion board and simply...discuss things. I know, how novel.

  • Joe M||

    Certain posters were persistently spoofing others posters' names, such that it became impossible to tell who was who for a day or two.

  • MNG||

    sloop told me about that. WTF is wrong with people? Can't people just come here and discuss shit?

  • ||

    sloop told me about that. WTF is wrong with people? Can't people just come here and discuss shit?

    That is precisely what is happening. It would appear the one with the hang up is you. And with your over-developed romance with Utilitarianism certainly disqualifies you from making value judgements of derangement, much less DX the mental state of a bunch of pixels.

    Focus on the argument, not the person. I assume this was covered in Ph Doctorate school.

  • MNG||

    Yes, because I changed my name and posted around as a woman coyly trying to get people to guess my name.
    Or something Groovus. You're so busy attacking the utilitarian you don't know wtf you are talking about anymore.

  • Joe M||

    Well, you used to go by Mr. Nice Guy, so you did change your name.

  • ||

    Well, you used to go by Mr. Nice Guy, so you did change your name.

    You beat me to it, Joe.

  • ---||

    I've recently come to think John and MNG were the same mentally ill individual.

  • MNG||

    See, this is the kind of pedantic tribalism that passes for argument here.

    You want to equate me posting under my handles initials (I don't use auto form to put my handle in every time) and someone having an entirely different handle and denying they were a former poster?

    That's just attacking me because I'm a non-libertarian regular around here.

  • ---||

    "See, this is the kind of pedantic tribalism that passes for argument here."

    And you of all people would recognize it, being the grand master.

  • ---||

    "You want to equate me posting under my handles initials (I don't use auto form to put my handle in every time) and someone having an entirely different handle and denying they were a former poster?"

    Nope.

    Can't read worth a fuck can you?

  • Joe M||

    The point is that neither name change is a big deal, and both of you had your reasons. You're the one that is trying to make a freakin' name change into a big issue. I personally don't give a fuck.

  • Anacreon||

    Thanks for explaining. I always thought "MNG" either meant "Multi-National Goon" or "Monday Night Grabass".

  • ||

    You're so busy attacking the utilitarian you don't know wtf you are talking about anymore.

    Oh grow up! I'm not attacking you at all. I'm just pointing out that it appears with whom you are arguing a point is more important than the point itself. Kinda like how I postulated that the act of bullying is paramount to the reason behind it.

    Good grief you are touchy.

  • MNG||

    What are you talking about? I always addressed the arguments with Mary/John/rather whoever. I did indicate my suspicions that it was not a new poster, as it has held out at times. But I still addressed the arguments substantively. Look at the thread.

  • ||

    But I still addressed the arguments substantively.

    If by "substantively" you mean "circularly", then yes, that's true.

  • MNG||

    Now this is nice. Before you accused me of responding to the person based on who the person was, now your beef is that, yeah, while I responded my arguments were not good ones in your opinion.

    See, it's just tribalism for you. Get the utlitarian!

  • ||

    I was pointing out "how" you were responding, to both the person and the quality of the the argument, with a premium on the person.

    See, it's just tribalism for you. Get the utlitarian!

    So, MNG, am I bullying you now? Or are you just being a wee bit oversensitive?

    This is important, as bullying is very subjective, which one of the main points of this discussion.

  • Mary Stack||

    WTF is wrong with people? Can't people just come here and discuss shit?

    Because I don't like that and have decided to destroy the board. When registration comes and I have been banished, it can go back to that.

  • The Spoofer||

    "Can't people just come here and discuss shit?"

    Shut the fuck up.

    First, I'm not Mary Stack. I'm also not White Indian. They may be the same person, but they're not me. Whoever thought that there was more than one spoofer was right.

    I did it first, and the uber-troll just saw it working.

    Now, to why.

    YOU. YOU and John really, but mostly YOU. I cam here in good faith trying to "discuss shit" for weeks.

    On three separate occasions I tried to engage in discourse with you, MNG. On all three occassions you resorted to lying and trollish behavior when you were wrong. It is YOUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.

    So, once you'd proven YOU had no REAL desire to "discuss shit", I had no desire to pretend I did either.

    You have only your own stupidity and mendacity to blame.

    And no, I'm not kidding. You'll try to minimize it even now, knowing it was your fault MNG.

  • MNG||

    Because you're the one that John used to call "the griefer." It's obvious pretty quick. I give everyone, even WI and rather, the benefit of the doubt and converse with them, but there's a point you know the person is just some crazed person who wants back and forth and has no care about what is being talked about. I'm not interested in that.

    On the thread I remember you, and it's only one, sloop had identified you as the griefer, and when I looked at your posts I agreed with him it looked that way, so I stopped feeding you. If you want to be treated differently, act so. But no one is going to hold their breath on that; I'd be money you're the one all butthurt and posting as -- now.

  • The Spoofer||

    I said

    "You'll try to minimize it even now, knowing it was your fault MNG."

    And he did.

  • MNG||

    Because you're the one that John used to call "the griefer."

    IT'S YOUR FAULT ALL MY ARGUMENTS DESCEND INTO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND LIES! YOURS!!!!

  • MNG||

    If you want to be treated differently, act so

    I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THIS APPLIES TO ME TOO!!! I COMPLAINED ABOUT SOMETHING AND WHEN TOLD WHY IT HAPPENED COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT THIS ADVICE WOULD HAVE STOPPED IT!!!!

    I'M THAT FUCKING STUPID

  • MNG||

    And it wonders why people don't converse with it...

  • The Spoofer||

    1) you already HAVE conversed with it. LOL @ U.

    2) no, it doesn't, you read like you think, poorly "I tried to engage in discourse with you, MNG. On all three occassions you resorted to lying and trollish behavior"

    it's not that you don't converse, you've already proved that a lie, it's that you say shit like "And it wonders why people don't converse with it...", just like I said in the post you REPLIED to.

    Thanks for irrefutably proving my point, I win.

    I'll let you have the last word because your mental illness requires you do so.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm not interested in that.

    Your combative, content-free posts aimed at attacking people and not ideas indicate otherwise.

  • Um||

    MNG|3.31.12 @ 10:10AM
    WTF is wrong with people?
    Can't people just come here and discuss shit?

    Freudian slip, MNG?

  • ||

    To do so otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

    Doc, you are talking about minge. Of course, he is being intellectually dishonest, it is what he does.

  • Phat Indian||

    Shut up rectal!

  • VG Zaystev||

    It's John, dumbass.

  • ---||

    "It's John, dumbass."

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/03.....nt_2953230

    A dick. Suck it.

  • Mary Stack||

    Likes to pretend to be lots of different people.

  • ---||

    "Likes to pretend to be lots of different people"

    Don't care about your mental issues.

  • Mary Stack||

    Hates it when people know it is her.

  • ---||

    "Hates it when people know it is her."

    I'm sure you do, but I still don't care.

  • Dr. Freud||

    It's John. Have some sympathy. Mary broke his brain.

  • ||

    Charlotte = TAO?

  • ||

    Would it "build character" to let adults take a beating every now and then?

    I propose Congress be the guinea pig for this hypothesis to confirm or R/O.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    The answer to that question definitely depends on the adult. With some adults it might and much more so than children.

  • Suki||

    We had that in the good old days of the Senate.

  • ||

    yea, but just leave your cane at home...

  • Joe M||

    Then we should also distinguish between social responses, like campaigns to portray bullying as uncool, and government responses, which often lead to overbroad, zero tolerance type stuff.

    Yeah. The concern is that before you know it, there's going to be some federal anti-bullying legislation with a name like "Billy's Law" or something, that makes it a felony to give someone a dirty look within 1000 yards of a school.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...that makes it a felony to give someone a dirty look within 1000 yards of a school.

    Threat of prosecution. That's how you effectively bully.

  • MNG||

    And we should oppose that, everyone should. In fact, Volokh has a post today about such a law CT is passing.

    But we should support interventions combating physical aggression, whether by kids or adults. Of course we don't treat a kid aggressor like an adult one, we have never done that as a norm when a kid commits what would be a crime in the adult world. But to exempt kids from assault and vandalism prohibitions is nuts.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I don't think anyone is suggesting there be no consequence to violence. Assault is already a crime. The awareness campaigns are a good try but ultimately, I suspect, about as effectual as attempts to paint smoking as uncool.

    The best attack would be for parents to instill in their kids some character and teach them how to deal with others, but parents generally don't do that.

  • I, Kahn O'Clast||

    I fear that what has changed is that back when I was a kid a bully actually caught or reasonably charged with enacting violence would have been beaten -- either by the Principal or his father. Now that is off the table ....

  • Neu Mejican||

    when I was a kid a bully actually caught or reasonably charged with enacting violence would have been beaten -- either by the Principal or his father. Now that is off the table ....

    Most of the research on this shows that you have the order wrong. The kid gets beaten by father or whatever, THEN he goes out a bullies. And when he grows up he does the same to his kid...and round and round.

  • ||

    I'm not that old, but it has been several decades since I was a kid in school. Through elementary and junior high, we were horrible to each other: boys generally with overt aggression, and girls with ostracism and rumor-spreading. As an adult I've often marveled at the capacity and unthinking appetite children seem to have for cruelty, and I mean just otherwise normal children.

    Kids have more tools today with which to torment each other, though. That probably makes being mean that much easier.

    As adults, I think the better among us have learned to give not a shit about what people think of us, and to shrug off the boorish and uncivilized as not worth our time. Bullying still does occur between adults, though its workings may be less overtly physical and more abstract.

  • ||

    My father told me to stand up for myself if I were threatened with violence, and I did- more than a few times- but although I was left alone more after each time I stood up for myself (and the harassment stopped completely in high school, where I somehow morphed into one of the popular kids), I remember feeling dissatisfied with the process.

    I was one of the lucky ones. I wasn't born with a physical defect, or a speech impediment, or a learning disability, or anything else that was easy to latch onto and ridicule. I was just smart, quiet, and bookish. The kids with any of the aforementioned conditions got it the worst, and likely they got it for years. I don't think it's the kind of thing that just beating the shit our of your tormentors will solve. It might help. I don't know.

  • ||

    All of the stern lectures, assemblies, and punishments for bullying never seemed to help. It seemed that kids just grow out of it, or they don't. The ones that don't turn into asshole adults who are hated by their peers and loathed by their families.

    If I am sure about anything, it is that we probably can't change human nature enough to have children who don't abuse each other. The best we can probably do intervene in cases of physical aggression and psychological abuse.

  • ||

    I was one of the lucky ones. I wasn't born with a physical defect, or a speech impediment, or a learning disability, or anything else that was easy to latch onto and ridicule.

    Ok.

    I was just smart, quiet, and bookish.

    Wait, what? That was enough of a latch for the morons in my school. But yeah, you just keep reading, problem solved.

  • ||

    I don't think it's the kind of thing that just beating the shit our of your tormentors will solve.


    Beating the shit out of their tormenters might get them left alone, but that is about it. It would be unlikely to make them popular.

  • MNG||

    "boys generally with overt aggression, and girls with ostracism and rumor-spreading"

    See, here's where I think that distinction I talked about should come in. Government should intervene in cases of overt physical aggression. We shouldn't repeal assault laws for kids*. And social pressure, like public awareness campaigns and celebrity pub service campaigns should be used to combat the non-physical stuff.

    *I don't think we should make the mistake of overharsh or broad governmental responses.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    But the government shouldn't intervene every time two kids get into a fight. Schools and parents should but not the police.

  • ||

    Then again, there's always the black raincoat, Glock and pipebomb approach.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    They were not bullying victims. They were bullies themselves. The entire narrative of them being victims turned out to be wrong. They were violent sociopaths who wanted to be domestic terrorists. That case had as much to do with school bullying as the OKC bombing did.

  • ||

    This is very true. The notion that the only bullies are swarthy, asshole jocks and pretty, popular girls is largely painting with a broad brush and in itself a cruel stereotype.

    I seem to remember in my grammar school days that any clique had some sort of pint-sized potentate forcing his or her will others, and they weren't always the so-called "popular kids." Even the "nerd" tables had alpha "nerds."

  • MNG||

    Well, Mary, why should the government not intervene when a kid beat another but should intervene when an adult beats another? Does the non-agression principle not apply to kids or something?

  • Charlotte Corday||

    So you really think the solution to this is to arrest every 8 year old who punches another kid on the play ground?

    Good luck with that. And further, you are just as likely to get the victim than the real bully. As I said above, bullying takes a lot of different forms. What happens when a kid who has been mercilessly taunted finally has a enough and slugs his tormentor?

    Under your system, the kid will get arrested, thrown into juvenile jail and have a criminal record for his trouble. That doesn't sound like a very good solution to me.

  • MNG||

    "So you really think the solution to this is to arrest every 8 year old who punches another kid on the play ground?"

    Where did I say that Mary?

  • MNG||

    In fact, here is exactly what I said on that subject:

    @ 9:08
    I don't think we should make the mistake of overharsh or broad governmental responses

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    When have you seen a governmental response that wasn't over-broad or over-harsh?

  • Charlotte Corday||

    We shouldn't repeal assault laws for kids*.

    Punching someone else is an assault. Not arresting the 9 year old who punches another kid on the play ground is effectively repealing assault laws for kids. If an adult went to the mall and punched another adult, he would be arrested wouldn't he?

    If you are going to make arguments MNG, please try to understand the ones you are making and be consistent. Goal post moving and back tracking are frowned upon.

  • MNG||

    No, we deal with kids differently than we do adults, even when they do things that would be crimes in the adult world. That doesn't mean though that we allow the kid to do the crime because it "builds character" or some such nonsense.

    Government intervention could mean the school suspending the kid or calling his parents. My point is: why would ew excuse children from our prohibitions on assault and vandalism Mary?

  • Charlotte Corday||

    No, we deal with kids differently than we do adults, even when they do things that would be crimes in the adult world.

    "So you really think the solution to this is to arrest every 8 year old who punches another kid on the play ground?"

    Where did I say that Mary?

    Pick a side MNG. Any side will do.

  • MNG||

    Do you not realize you undermined whatever point you were making?

  • MNG||

    Because those two quotes are consistent: saying that we deal with kids differently than we do adults, even when they committ adult crimes, is evidence that I don't think we should arrest every 8 year old assaulter.

    Now take your meds Mary. Obama will cover the cost.

  • ||

    No, we deal with kids differently than we do adults, even when they do things that would be crimes in the adult world.

    Also true. Can an adult legally have sexual relation with a minor? No, that's statuatory rape.

    Can two children over the age of sixteen and under eighteen have sexual relations? Laws say yes and would also be congruent with laws in the adult sphere, generally speaking.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Of course we do. And MNG is right when he is on that side.

  • ?||

    Are you the new John, Charlotte? Not that you have the same argumentative style (you're way better than the late "John") but because you're wasting your time arguing with "MNG."

  • ||

    Charlotte certainly spells better than John ever did. I guess John was too much of skin flint to invest in a browser with a spell checker, as I toss my own grammatically challenged stones more often than I would like. :-)

  • MNG||

    And Charlotte doesn't curse Obama every three seconds, so there's that.

    If John is charlotte then John is way more deranged than I would have guessed. What kind of grown man enters a chatboard community for years under a handle, then decides to secretly change his handle to a woman and coyly post around trying to get people to guess his "secret?" That kind of person should really try to get friends and hobbies and such.

  • the bilover||

    Meet me at the mall. We'll test your theory. Bring your lunch money, too.

  • ?||

    Why do you keep calling him/her "Mary"?
    It makes you look stupid.

  • MNG||

    Nice, Mary, but too soon.

  • ?||

    LOL

  • ?||

    Anyway, it was "Mary" who broke John's brain.

    Let's focus, people.

  • ||

    And social pressure, like public awareness campaigns and celebrity pub service campaigns should be used to combat the non-physical stuff.

    I have no problem with this, MNG. Take Lady GaGa, for example. She is advocating for social tolerance to lessen the mental cruelty that pediatric germbags are prone to inflict, and I certainly have no qualms with private citizens organizing such campaigns. It's when intrusive, social engineering "thought crime" laws are enacted, specifically "TEH HATE SPEECH" type legislation creeps in is when my dander is raised.

  • ||

    (cont)

    The notion that the reason for bullying is more important, whether manifested physically or mentally, than the actual act of bullying itself is ultimately counter-productive. Indeed, one could easily argue such laws empower a small, disproportionately extra-legally protected group to enact even worse retribution under the guise of "fairness". Essentially state sanctioned revenge.

  • MNG||

    "The notion that the reason for bullying is more important, whether manifested physically or mentally, than the actual act of bullying itself is ultimately counter-productive."

    +1

    The distinction should not be "what was the motivation" but should be "what did the bully do?" If the bully assaulted a kid or vandalized their property, they should be treated as someone who, well, assaulted or vandalized someone. I'm not saying try them in adult court or something, when a kid committs what would be a crime in the adult world we rightly treat the kid differently, but we still rightly can treat it as a criminal or wrong act. We shouldn't say "well, the victims was a kid, so no biggee."

  • Charlotte Corday||

    And if the bully does none of that and makes another kid's life miserable and that kid finally stands up for himself, you would get the police involved and throw the victim in jail?

  • MNG||

    If a grown man verbally teases another and the victim of the teasing assaults the grown man, would you have the police arrest the assaulter?

  • Charlotte Corday||

    We shouldn't repeal assault laws for kids*.

    If a grown man verbally teases another and the victim of the teasing assaults the grown man, would you have the police arrest the assaulter?

    MNG|3.31.12 @ 9:31AM|#

    "So you really think the solution to this is to arrest every 8 year old who punches another kid on the play ground?"

    Where did I say that Mary?

    MNG two comenters in one thread. You making no sense.

  • MNG||

    Well, you seemed to miss this:

    "I'm not saying try them in adult court or something, when a kid committs what would be a crime in the adult world we rightly treat the kid differently, but we still rightly can treat it as a criminal or wrong act. We shouldn't say "well, the victims was a kid, so no biggee.""

    But this is a second reason why I'm sure you're rather/Mary/WI. You just desperately need to keep the conversation going, a classic mark of them, so you ignore what you want and move around picking up different things to keep it going.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    No one says we shouldn't stop it when kids get into fights. But the discipline should generally be left to the parents and schools, not the police.

    So, if you don't want to police involved, just what do you want that is different than what it has always been?

  • ||

    If its to the point that these little shitbags take it? No I wouldn't say he should be arrested. Fined maybe, but the jackass that didn't stop running his dock sucker should have realized there could be consequences to his actions.

    (I've never been bullied like that so I don't know what my personal response would be. I'd like to think I'd just ignore the fucker and not attack him over words, NAP and all that, but who really knows until they are in that position.)

  • ||

    you would get the police involved and throw the victim in jail?

    Depends on the case, as no two cases are exactly alike. Cookie cutter justice, like cookie cutter medicine, is also fraught with moral hazards.

  • MNG||

    Yes, like I said waaaaay upthread:

    "@ 9:08
    I don't think we should make the mistake of overharsh or broad governmental responses"

    See the difference between an actual commenter like Groovus, who sees that, and Mary Corday, who just wants to keep trolling because Saturdays is meds optional day.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    You painted yourself into a corner MNG. In the end, you have to admit that these things should be left to the schools and parents, which is what everyone was saying to begin with.

  • MNG||

    "Government should intervene in cases of overt physical aggression."

    That's what I said about this from the beginning. And schools are government, no?

    So you've ignored this question throughout: why should assault and vandalism against children be ignored, but assault and vanadalism against adults should be addressed by the government?

  • MNG||

    "In the end, you have to admit that these things should be left to the schools and parents, which is what everyone was saying to begin with."

    No, what they were saying, and what I was specifically responding to, were all the statements such as "bullying builds character" and "its wrong to overprotect our kids from this stuff" and "Well, its a part of life so there you go."

    We're not wrong to protect our kids from assaults and vandalism, we shouldn't ignore it as a "part of life" for kids anymore than we do when the victim is an adult, and we don't allow such behavior with adults as the victims because it "builds character."

    Of course I said nothing about arresting every physical aggressor, I even explicitly said that would be the wrong approach. But your consistent conflation of the two, maybe you are John going off your rocker posting as a woman or whatever...

  • Charlotte Corday||

    And you were responding to the voices in your head apparently. No one says schools should just let kids beat each other up. Saying that bullying builds character is not the same as saying it should be tolerated.

    You really haven't made much of a point here, other than schools should intervene when kids are beating each other. Well yeah, no kidding.

  • MNG||

    When you say "we shouldn't overprotect and insulate our kids, it's bad for them" and "bullying builds character" you are most certainly suggesting we should not take steps to combat it.

  • MNG||

    Quotes from this thread:

    The tendency toward removing children from unpleasant experiences, leading to unprepared adults, is frightening.

    When I was a child I both took beatings and inflicted them. And as an adult I can do both without flinching. It's one of the things that's made me a success out in the real world. Kids today are all a bunch of pussies who need to get over it.

    These quotes certainly suggest that we need not combat bullying, as it actually has great effects.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    No. It is suggesting that we shouldn't overreact.

  • MNG||

    Saying something has great effects is suggesting we shouldn't overreact to it?

    I would think things that have great effects shouldn't be reacted against at all.

    But maybe that's me.

    Now, whether this is John or rather or whoever, you obviously have some pretty sad derangments that compel you to simply argue for the sake of it, because here we are ending where I began an hour ago: that government, in the form of school or police, depending on the situation and eschewing overbroad and harsh responses, certainly can and should intervene to combat physical bullying while leaving non-physical bullying to non-coercive social pressure. I'm not going to feed that trolling, unlike you I guess, I have better things to do than play such silly games.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    So you have moved the goal posts so much that you are left with admitting you never had a point and wasted everyone's time.

    But we are the silly ones. Got it.

  • Tango||

    wasted everyone's time

    It takes two to me.

  • MNG||

    Of course, because that's the kind of false equivalence that rules around here. Going from Mr. Nice Guy to MNG is the same as changing your handle totally and denying you were a former poster.

    in response to people who were dismissing bullying as "character building" or "just a part of life" I said we should distinguish between physical attacks on kids and name calling, and the government should intervene in the former. I then said, several times, that the government response should not be overbroad or harsh. But this charlotte character goes on this 45 minute riff about "you want all kids that punch each other arrested?" I tried to point out I explicitly said different, but you know, the fact that I said that from the beginning and it didn't stop them from doing that should have been enough to clue me in not to bother...

  • Mary Stack||

    Lighten up Francis. I am the crazy angry one on here.

  • ||

    I then said, several times, that the government response should not be overbroad or harsh.

    True, but what is making your argument of the circular variety is the vague terms "overbroad" and "harsh". These need to be clearly defined. As does the level of intervention government should employ, though it's true you did not specify arrest.

    THAT, being government intervention, is what needs to be defined concretely.

  • MNG||

    Vague doesn't mean circular, it means vague. If you want me to be more specific, ask, I'd be happy to say what I think is over harsh and broad. But assuming I meant "arrest every 8 year old" when I explicitly say "don't react overbroadly or harshly" is perverse.

  • ||

    If you want me to be more specific, ask, I'd be happy to say what I think is over harsh and broad.

    Then codify and define the terms.

  • MNG||

    Now, wait, this is interesting. Is the same guy who said this in the thread:

    "Depends on the case, as no two cases are exactly alike. Cookie cutter justice, like cookie cutter medicine, is also fraught with moral hazards."

    Now asking me to "define concretely" how the government should respond?

    See, this is what makes me think you're just more interested in attacking someone from a different "tribe" than discussing this.

  • MNG||

    If you want to know more about what I mean about how the government should not be overbroad and over harsh, by the first I mean avoid "zero tolerance" policies and by the second I mean something like we should deal with most cases with things like informing parents and school punishments for the ones that happen on school, and with informal police responses for the ones that don't, for the more egregious cases (where someone is realy hurt or repeat cases) we should respond with harsher law enforcement sanctions like actual arrest and charging (as a juvenile).

  • MNG||

    One last thing, also by the first I mean punishing behavior like "Calling names" or making faces or some such nonsense.

  • Mary Stack||

    Now asking me to "define concretely" how the government should respond?

    Well, yeah fuckwit, you asked him to

    If you want me to be more specific, ask, I'd be happy to say what I think is over harsh and broad.

    MNG = troll

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Right.

    But there is a difference, as you allude to, between laws against assault and laws against bullying. If there is an assault, we already have enough laws to deal with that; it needn't be rolled up in some anti-bullying campaign where teachers and administrators can turn even the most mundane behavior in to bullying.

  • MNG||

    And that's why I said we should support government intervention against physical aggressors and social pressure against non-physical aggressors, @ 9:08

  • ||

    The ones that don't turn into asshole adults who are hated by their peers and loathed by their families.

    Or cops, I meant to say.

    Government should intervene in cases of overt physical aggression.

    I'm inclined to agree with you, MNG, but I think government intervention (at least law enforcement involvement, prosecution, counseling, punishment, etc.) should only be for egregious or repeated episodes of assault between children.

    In cases where the parents are deadbeats and refuse to get involved, there may not be an alternative, though.

  • ||

    If a ten-year-old boy beats the snot out of another ten-year-old boy, I'm just less willing to subject him to the law. Maybe if he does it more than once. A sixteen-year-old beating the crap out of another sixteen-year-old is different; they're still kids, but they are old enough to know better.

    Also, I worry about absolutes. I'm not saying you said or advocate for this, but say little Johnny is 11 and has been harassed and bullied for years. One day he snaps and beats the crap out of his tormentor. Do we really want to treat him as a thug? From our point of view, his ends don't justify his means, but he is still a boy. Even a juvenile conviction of assault can have long-term consequences for a person.

  • ||

    Unrelated to my previous post: I was thinking about all the rules against physical contact between students many schools now enforce, like the ones who don't permit hugging or rough-and-tumble play. Kids, boys especially, have a lot of energy, and I think that if we don't give them appropriate outlets for it, it will simply channel itself, possibly destructively, into fistfights and psychological aggression.

  • MNG||

    I think most juvenile crimes should be dealt with informally. But as they are crimes they should still be dealt with. To the extent that this is what "anti-bullying" campaigns are pushing for then I say "bully for them." To the extent that they want to lock up every kid that hugs another kid or calls them names then yes, that's what we should oppose. That's the only distinction I was trying to make in my initial post.

  • ||

    "According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between 1995 and 2009, the percentage of students who reported "being afraid of attack or harm at school" declined to 4% from 12%."

    I hope that this is right, but I am cynical enough to wonder if what has declined is the number of students stupid enough to think that telling school authorities anything is a good idea. I always wonder this when I read about data based on talking to schoolkids. The teens I talk to from time to time view teachers and admin as The Enemy, and could be depended on to lie about just about anything they were asked about.

  • the bilover||

    All that statistic means is that students are woefully unaware of the danger the faculty poses to them.

  • ||

    "The teens I talk to from time to time view teachers and admin as The Enemy, and could be depended on to lie about just about anything they were asked about."
    -------------------

    Oh my God do you mean I've been practicing butt chugging all this time for nothing?!?!

  • JLM||

    Several years ago a friend of mine with 2 boys in high school told me they had a buddy that seemed ripe for getting his ass kicked regularly - he was kind of an awkward/alternative kid that was a bit effeminate. He asked them if this kid had a tough time at school and they said that nobody bothered him. His (and my) reaction was "wow, kids aren't like they used to be". Obviously one story doesn't mean much and maybe it's just that kids fuck with each other about different things than they did years ago, but I still found it interesting.

  • ||

    When I was in high school (6000 years ago, it seems), I remember marveling that nobody really seemed to get picked on regularly. There was the usual adolescent bullshit, but it was more isolated; there didn't seem to be any regular, easy targets. Maybe its because everybody feels like an asshole in high school.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    I found bullying to be a grade school and junior high thing. By high school everyone had kind of found their own group and it stops. In a large high school, it is pretty easy to find a social group no matter how much of an outsider you are.

  • Anyway||

    Speaking of ignorance, here's a great dissenting opinion of the "Earth hour" nonsense.

    http://www.buyerbehaviour.org/.....-hour.html

  • Joe M||

    Dude, that is awesome. I'm sharing it.

  • Anyway||

    Not that the professor did not bully Gaia.

  • db||

    Can someone please enlighten me on the term "helicopter parent?" Not being one yet myself, I am pretty much ignorant of a lot of these terms, which didn't exist back when I was actually a kid.

  • Milquetoast Dave||

    A helicopter is known for hovering over a target. Apply that to a parent constantly hovering over her child and you get a helicopter parent.

  • db||

    I guess the next step is "drone parenting?"

  • ||

    "drone parenting?"

    That is both brilliant and frightening at the same time.

    Clearly, we need nanny droids at this point. It's the rational free market solution. The only flaw is: Who programs the droid?

  • db||

    Nah, just hire low-wage Indian droid drivers. No real AI needed.

  • ||

    Dot or feather Indian?

  • ||

    Dot or feather Indian?

    Randomly selected for each child on a daily basis.

  • ||

    aren't those the parents that beat up the other parents at little league games?

  • db||

  • ||

    So, to sum up the commentariat, it's okay to single out people who don't conform to everyone else for violence and other forms of low-level terrorism. Gotcha.

  • db||

    ????

  • ^ The Real Sick One Here||

  • The Commentariot ||

    The truth always hurts. Would you like us to post your name and address again?

  • ^||

    The truth always hurts

    Evidently.

    You don't know my real name and address, but if you'd like to out Mary Stack again, go ahead. You're impotent to harm me.

  • ^||

    ...

    [must be looking up the address]

  • ^||

    Ooooh, now I get it! All the clues are there!

    "The Commentariat" is...

    [drum roll, please]

    John!!

    Hahahahahahahaha!

  • The commontariot||

    Oh Mary, if only just had one enemy like John. But sadly for you, everyone hates you. So it is not this John person you speak of.

  • ||

    I missed that meme. Who's Mary Stack?

  • ^||

    Everyone "we" hate.

  • ||

    Tony was obviously punked and bullied most of his life, claims it's what made him gay. Let's hear from an expert.

  • Hugo Longbone||

    Nothing makes me want to suck another man's cock like a good round of degrading conduct by my peers. ::rolls eyes::

  • ||

    Go fuck yourself Mary Stack...
    You are mentally ill moron...
    You are a worthless piece of garbage...
    You are a paranoid nut...

    This is like the worst support group ever.

  • The Commentariot ||

    Sometimes the bullied stand up to the bully. And the bully never likes it. Tries moar harder Mary, you crazy worthless bitch.

  • ||

    you crazy worthless bitch

    Urge to kill rising? You are hilarious. More!

  • ||

    But, when gov education champions are bad mouthing the home schoolers, it seems the big plus of the large government-run education warehouses is the "socialization" training the urchins receive. Now it appears that part of that socialization is making kids kill themselves.
    -- Totally Unforeseen --

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Some kids are not cut out for public school. Maybe they are really smart. Or maybe they are a little bit different. Every school in this country has kids who just don't cut it socially and are outcasts, especially in the lower grades. A lot of those kids would be much happier and better off being schooled a home.

  • ||

    So, punish the victim? Rather than, right off the bat, teach respecting another's person, property and privacy we should promote a level of collective mores and standards and punish the "malcontents".

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Of course we should. But that is never going to be 100% effective. And parents should have a right to act in the best interest of their children rather than believing in public school unicorns.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Some kids are not cut out for public school is not fit for teaching children.

    fify

    Public schools are nothing but factories which aim to produce captive little statists where obeying authority is the only thing they aim to teach.

  • ||

    Public schools are nothing but factories which aim to produce captive little statists where obeying authority is the only thing they aim to teach.

    Factories generally produce something of intrinsic value. I think "warehouse" is more accurate.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Prisons

  • ||

    Are you familiar with John Taylor Gatto's work?

  • ||

    Yeah, but I never read his essay "Against Schools." I'll Nook it today.

  • VG Zaystev||

    Factories generally produce something of intrinsic value.

    In a market system, they produce something of value to their customers.

    In a state system, the produce something of value to the mandarins and bureaucrats that run the system.

    Statist schools produce easily led drones that are highly valued by politicians, bureaucrats and mandarins.

  • np||

    I think there are multiple parts of the issue. First, we try to treat teens as "kids" who are in fact not children anymore once they hit puberty. All the human laws in the world are going to change natural laws. You don't build your immune system by keeping yourself in a safe, sterile environment.

    Second, initially it was not recognizing bullies. Probably the best example were the jocks who were the so-called "victims" in Columbine.

    Third, it's the entire system of the school and parents, stemming from the first point, of not teaching or even allowing them stand up for themselves. Just like an earthquake that builds up pressure but never has a chance to release it in small doses, until it just explodes (shooting or suicide), the new system is the same. Some tit-for-tat (also very libertarian IMO) is the proper solution that probably won't get any consideration in this environment

  • ||

    I think there are multiple parts of the issue. First, we try to treat teens as "kids" who are in fact not children anymore once they hit puberty.

    In terms of development physically, I would agree with that. Mentally, and the capacity to see past one's nose...

    A good number of adults never emerge from adolescence and reach this point mentally or emotionally. But then, it depends on which school of psychology one tends to embrace, such as the Self-Actualization and Human Potential movements.

  • ||

    What about the relationship between an individual's self actualization and public sector employment?

    IMO, there is.

  • ||

    What about the relationship between an individual's self actualization and public sector employment?

    What about it? And what is peculiar about public sector employment in particular WRT self-actualization?

    Are you suggesting treating pubescents as full-fledged adults would increase or decrease pub sec employment rolls?

  • "Mary"||

    Anyway, my "bullying" broke John's brain, and that's a fact. So "bullying" (even the allegedly harmless variety found in chat rooms, e.g., trolling) has consequences.

    Kids, the next time you think about "bullying" someone in a chat room, think of John. For God's sake, think of John.

  • Mary Stack||

    Thinks gnomes live in her toilet.

  • "Mary"||

    ^ Case in point.

  • Mary Stack||

    Thinks someone named John cut her phone lines.

  • "Mary"||

    Anyway, toodles, tards! I actually have a life!

  • Mary Stack||

    I have to meet with my social worker and pick up my welfare check today.

  • db||

    All this crazy shit with posters' identities brings up several possibilities.

    Of course the most fun answer is there's a seriously deranged person with MPD who doesn't even recognize his/her posting under many handles here.

  • Mary Stack||

    No. I am just really angry and have a severe case of bi polar disorder and a very low IQ.

  • Mary Stack||

    And I'm not John. I'm not!

    [runs away sobbing]

  • Mary Stack||

    Is in love with some person named John on the internet. She just wants his attention.

  • Um||

    Mary broke John's braaaaaaaaain!
    Mary broke John's braaaaaaaaain!
    Nya, nya, nya-nyaaaaaa, nya!

  • Mary Stack||

    Swears she has a life and places to go. But only has the voices in her head.

  • John||

    Thinks he's fooling us!

  • Mary Stack||

    Sometimes thinks "what if there are others who torture me?"

  • Mary Stack||

    Swears she has a life. But she doesn't.

  • John||

    God, I'm sick.

  • Mary Stack||

    Just knows John is behind every corner.

  • Fluffy||

    I want to respond to one of Charlotte's questions to MNG:

    While I would not arrest an 8 year old who punched another 8 year old, I think certainly by age 12 we should be talking about arrest.

    Should we be sending these 12 year old kids to juvie? No. But that's a sentencing question, not an arrest question.

    12 year old kids who are the aggressor in violent acts should be arrested. I have no problem with that.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    The devil is in the details. Certainly at some point it becomes assault. Probably not at 8 but certainly at 14 or some age before.

    The problem with treating it all as a crime is two fold. First, a lot of it is mutual combat and not a crime, so it is hard to figure out who did what. And two, sometimes it is the victim who punches. If a kid has been tortured for months or years and finally punches his tormentor in the mouth, I don't think he should be arrested for that.

    Lastly, you ignore how evil the juvenile justice system is. Once a kid gets in the system, he has a devil of a time getting out. That system is totally broke and unjust. And sending a kid who got into an ordinary junior high fight into it is frankly sadistic.

  • Fluffy||

    The broken juvenile justice system is a different issue.

    The bottom line is that the 12 year old who is GETTING punched is a citizen, too. And they're entitled to have police protection just like everybody else.

    I imagine part of the issue here may be that victims choose not to treat assaults as crimes. If a 12 year old calls the police in their town Monday afternoon and says, "I was assaulted at my school; here's the name of the person who did it; here are the names of witnesses," can the police say, "Meh, call your principal"? If so, why?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So what you're saying is that you want virtually every young adolescent to have dealings with the police by age 12 or so.

    Everyone I knew got in a fight in late elementary/middle school at some point. Not a single one of them deserved police attention.

    The goal is always LESS contact with the thugs of the state, not MORE.

  • Fluffy||

    The mutual combat issue is an evidentiary issue. If someone jumps me in a bar and I fight back, there's a process the police and legal system can go through to find out what happened.

    And two, sometimes it is the victim who punches. If a kid has been tortured for months or years and finally punches his tormentor in the mouth, I don't think he should be arrested for that.

    Depends on what you mean by "tortured". Right now the line between verbal harassment and threats in the schools is blurry, precisely because we don't treat assaults as crimes. This allows bully kids to relentlessly tease and harass other kids, because of the implicit threat that if the other kid says anything back, then there will just be a fight, which the smaller kid will lose. That goes away if we use the police power to absolutely guarantee physical security.

  • np||

    Let's look at it from an ethical, first principles point of view, especially if we're going to treat them like adults (which I agree).

    If there is complete consent for mutal combat, then there is no problem. e.g. two brothers fighting

    But if not, let's say you shoved me down. I smack you back. debit = credit. Done.

    You shove me down. I do nothing. Principal gets called, he smacks you. Done.

    Now if I smack you back. AND kick you in the nuts, I would deserve a kick in the nuts as well, OR whatever shall be agreed on as equivalent. Maybe buying you lunch for a week, or whatever we should settle on. Treat young adults as young adults with personal responsible for acts to others (NOT to and with the state).

    You see? The whole point of dealing with crime should not be legal punishment, but restitution.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Are you suggesting we bring back wergild?

    Because that would be awesome.

  • db||

    I imagine that back in the 1800s a 12-year-old might have been subject to arrest for such things if they did enough harm. Back then 12-14 year olds could do things legally impossible for today's youth. We're in a society that still treats 19-year-olds as children, FFS.

  • ||

    We're in a society that still treats 19-year-olds as children, FFS.

    Try age 26 with that ObamneyCare insurance mandate. The verbiage specifically says "Children...up until the age of 26."

    Sometimes I wonder if increased lifespans are increasing the length of adolescence.

  • db||

    Well, technically I am still the child of my parents, even though I am in my 30s. It depends on the use of the word "child." I was referring in particular to public health types including 18+-year-olds in data sets for health and crime statistics.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Sometimes I wonder if increased lifespans are increasing the length of adolescence.

    Well, that jives with the overall pattern in the animal kingdom.

  • db||

    That's my thought as well. If not biologically, at least societally.

  • HeroicMulatto||

  • db||

    Perhaps I should read more, but was Lewis speaking as having been a student or a teacher? To which "social struggle" was he referring? Knowing what I know about Lewis from his works, I would imagine he would view pederasty as a strong negative, as would most sane folks. His speaking of it as a counterbalance to a "social struggle" seems to indicate he approved of this "struggle," whatever it was. Any other reading available on Lewis's meaning here?

  • MNG||

    Ditto, I recall Lewis talking about the buggery at the schools to, but I remember him talking about it as one of the horros to be faced there. But it's been a while since I read that.

    I seem to remember a similar complaint about the schools by Kipling...

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Lewis was speaking as a student. Basically he was saying the only time there was a break to the cut-throat competitiveness of the school was when the students were screwing each other.

    If I remember correctly, this experience led Lewis to support the Progressive Education movement, aka Deweyism, as he felt too much time studying the Classics led to children acting like Socrates and Plato at a symposium.

  • db||

    That makes it more clear, thank you. For what reason would parents subject their sons to such conditions? Certainly they knew of the abuse that occurred; or was it a recent development (I doubt it) during Lewis's time as a student?

  • ||

    We're in a society that still treats 19-year-olds as children, FFS.

    Considering some of the 25-year-olds I've met, I think you're right. I'm talking about people in their mid-20s who spend daddy's money, have daddy help with the bills, live in an apartment that daddy chose and pays for, and report to daddy about what's going on in their lives. It's not the kids these days that are infantile, it's the goddam adults.

  • MNG||

    Calling the cops in a juvie matter does not, and should not, mean arrest in most of those matters. I realize there is an increasing push against this, but there was a time when the cops and juvie courts dealt with most juvie matters in an informal way.

    Besides, we don't have to have the cops do something every time a 12 year old punches another. Schools can intervene too. A lot of what I've heard anti-bulliers advocate is that schools simply not turn a blind eye to physical violence done by bulliers. That sounds right to me.

  • Fluffy||

    "Let's let parents and teachers deal with high school kids' fights!"

    Um, no.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Do you really think it is a good idea to call the cops every time one 9th grader punches another?

  • ||

    High school kids are old enough to know better. They know fighting is serious shit. They know you don't put your hands on another person with intent to harm unless you are defending yourself.

    Elementary school, junior high kids- let's handle it without cops and lawyers. High school kids need to learn, and learn fast, about actions and consequences.

  • ||

    You just post to keep the conversation going, often totally ignoring what you even responded to.

    This, from Mister Throw The Stick, is precious.

  • Almanian||

    See you at the High School when we transfer busses. Behind the pool. 3:00. Be there.

    The Nanny State - Trying to Change Human Nature for Millenia. Nanny State, meet Sisyphus!
    You two have a lot to discuss.

  • ||

    Exactly. High school kids aren't stupid. They know what's gonna happen if they fight at school, so they'll do it somewhere where they think they won't get caught.

    I can remember two or three times where two guys arranged to fight after school, and did so, in front of a large and enthusiastic crowd.

  • Bob Arctor||

    Of course the most fun answer is there's a seriously deranged person with MPD who doesn't even recognize his/her posting under many handles here.

    That's just crazy.

  • sloopyinca||

    Good Morning from Vegas, everyone! Just stopping by to say hello and thanks to all of you on my wedding day. Without reason, and especially H&R, I never would have met the woman I'm about to marry in a little over 9 hours.
    You guys, most of you anyway, are a wonderful group of people. Your intellect, humor and love of liberty is an inspiration to me and gives me hope for the world my children (and other as-yet-unmade children) will inherit.

    But most importantly (today at least), I just want you to know you are the reason I met Banjos, the love of my life, and I will be eternally grateful for that.

    sloopy

  • MNG||

    I hope everything went great sloop, best to ya!

    Who ya got tonight? I picked Kentucky at the start, but I'll actually be rooting for the underdog tonight against them.

  • sloopyinca||

    If it's a close game, I'm taking Louisville over UK tonight, but only if Calipari feels the need to coach his team in the last five minutes. If he falls asleep on the bench, UK wins by 15.

    In the late game, which starts 10 minutes before the wedding (damn!), I'm going to have to go with my Buckeyes getting up early and winning by 10, unless Sully gets in foul trouble. If that happens, they still win by 10, but they go back and forth until he takes over in the last 5 minutes.
    So my picks are:
    Louisville 82
    UK 75

    tOSU 68
    Kansas 58

  • MNG||

    I take OSU over KU. How they going to stop them down low? Don't see it happening.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Congratulations.

  • Fluffy||

    Congratulations

  • ||

    Congratulations Sloopy and Banjos!

    Aren't you two glad it really started with a clusterfuck Occupy thread, lots of YooToob-ing, and a Captain America induced headache?

    Oh and sloop: make sure the music conservatory is built to spec.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And make sure there's no fucking Papa Roach in the collection. Banjos'll unjustly bust that shit out, and you don't want that to happen.

  • ||

    Mazel Tov

  • Chloe||

    Congratulations:)

  • db||

    Congratulations and best wishes, pending completion of your vows and legal registration with the State of your contract!

  • ||

    I don't know you, but congrats, sloopy. Marriage is a PITA, but it can totally be worth it, too.

  • The Bully||

     
    sloopyinca|3.31.12 @ 11:31AM
    "I just want you to know you are the reason I met Banjos, the love of my life"

    Five years later...

    sloopyinca|3.31.17 @ 11:32AM
    "The bitch is suing me for everything I've got!
    Fuck you, Hit & Run!"

  • Cytotoxic||

    Congratulations.

  • ||

    Congrats again sloop and banjos!

  • Gray Ghost||

    Congratulations!

  • Bee Tagger||

    Congratulations

  • ---||

    It's fascinating that the "mary stack/obviously john" posts come in bursts, then the MNG posts, then the "mary stack/obviously john", rinse repeat.

    It's clearly the same poster, and probably Charlotte too.

  • Fluffy||

    Charlotte may be Mary Stack, but I have no doubt that MNG and John are different people.

  • ||

    and MNG and John are married...

  • The Bully||

    ...to Banjoopy!
    It's all starting to make sense!

  • el commentariosa||

  • ||

    While I would not arrest an 8 year old who punched another 8 year old, I think certainly by age 12 we should be talking about arrest.

    Should we be sending these 12 year old kids to juvie? No. But that's a sentencing question, not an arrest question.

    Apparently, based on multiple comments on this topic from the past, the current policy is to refuse to distinguish between aggressor and victim, and to "arrest and punish" them equally.

    In the olden times, question number one when the teacher came to break up a scuffle was, "WHO STARTED IT?" Based upon the testimony offered by witnesses at the scene, if an aggressor could be readily identified, s/he alone was "arrested" and marched forthwith to the principal's office.

  • Civilis||

    That assumes that kids these days are honest, and that teachers can afford to spend the time to get to the bottom of the issue.

    Fundamentally, it's a tragedy of the commons issue. Kids see the system as arbitrary and capricious in its results, and the way to come out ahead is to learn to abuse the system. The more kids abuse the system, the harder it is to be fair and the more arbitrary and capricious the system becomes.

  • ||

    Boring troll is...

    still boring.

  • The first step to solving...||

    Your problem is admitting it.

    Well done, I'm sure admitting it was hard.

  • The Spoofer||

    "It's obvious pretty quick."

    I'd just like to point this out.

    When I spoof MNG, no matter how stupid the argument, no matter how moronic the line I take, no one has EVER questioned that it was you.

    Virtually every other poster has a style that others recognize, but all it takes to pass as MNG is to say the dumbest pseudo-socialist crap possible.

    Think about that.

  • Before I go...||

    1) you already HAVE conversed with it. LOL @ U.

    2) no, it doesn't, you read like you think, poorly "I tried to engage in discourse with you, MNG. On all three occassions you resorted to lying and trollish behavior"

    it's not that you don't converse, you've already proved that a lie, it's that you say shit like "And it wonders why people don't converse with it...", just like I said in the post you REPLIED to.

    Thanks for irrefutably proving my point, I win.

    I'll let you have the last word because your mental illness requires you do so.

  • who||

    cares?

  • Mary Stack||

    ^Hi MNG!

  • who||

    Nope.

  • Tim||

    Still caring I see.

  • Tim||

    Obviously you do or you wouldn't have taken the time to respond.

  • who||

    It did take me a long time to write that comment.

  • Tim||

    Doesn't take long to care.

    Still caring I see.

  • who||

  • Tim||

    Still caring enough to post links I don't care enough to click on, I see.

  • MNG, that's who||

    You really asked who cares and then posted a link that admitted you do.

    Jesus, MNG, you just owned yourself.

  •  ||

    John|3.26.12 @ 4:43PM
    It is just fun to know who you are. I may actually get a calling card, so you can't have my number on caller ID, and call you tonight. I think we all should.

  • who||

    I'm sorry you think I'm MNG. I just thought it was amusing mary commented at popehat once.

  • Tim||

    I think it is amusing that you care enough to post links and watch the thread after asking who cares.

  • who||

    Okay.

  • Mary Stack||

    ^ Still caring MNG.

  • ||

    Krugabe:

    Given the stakes, one might have expected all the court’s members to be very careful in speaking about both health care realities and legal precedents. In reality, however, the second day of hearings suggested that the justices most hostile to the law don’t understand, or choose not to understand, how insurance works. And the third day was, in a way, even worse, as antireform justices appeared to embrace any argument, no matter how flimsy, that they could use to kill reform.

    Let’s start with the already famous exchange in which Justice Antonin Scalia compared the purchase of health insurance to the purchase of broccoli, with the implication that if the government can compel you to do the former, it can also compel you to do the latter. That comparison horrified health care experts all across America because health insurance is nothing like broccoli.

  • ||

    Why? When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate — the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain. As a result, unregulated health insurance basically doesn’t work, and never has.

  • Fluffy||

    Fuck Krugabe is a moron.

    When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it.

    Yes, they do, if enough people make that choice.

    The rest of you refusing to buy 8 track tapes are making 8 track tapes unavailable to those who want them.

    But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate

    No, it's not. It's what happens when you legally prohibit insurance companies from refusing to do business with people who try to do this.

    the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain.

    Krugman doesn't care about the young and healthy people subjected to community rating - which makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those customers.

  • ||

    The ends always, always, always justify the means with statists.

  • ||

    I love how the left has completely forgotten Sotomayor's confirmation hearing before the Senate.

    That's where the damn broccoli reference comes from.

  • ||

    the justices most hostile to the law don’t understand, or choose not to understand, how insurance works.

    A dubious claim.

    What is not at all in doubt is Krugabe's complete inability to understand the concept of a Constitutionally limited government.

  • ||

    Anti-bullying legislation is total worthless crap.

    They have had anti-bullying legislation in Europe for a decade and it has been useless against Muslim gangs spread across Europe. It has been useless in preventing Muslims from terrorizing and killing Jews in countries like France.

    If anti-bullying laws are passed it will be another step down the road toward fascism in America. They laws will be used to protect PC groups and ignored when it comes to everyone else.

    There are way too many wusses in America today. America has become a country of wusses. SMH

  • shrike||

    Better war than Pact (with Nazis)

  • GILMORE||

    I think at some point someone needs to stand up for the bullies and demand some basic rights =

    - if your kid is a sissy, he will be wedgied

    - if you child cries before he's even been punched, a punching is demanded as justification

    - if your kid never shuts up, then a pile-on and grass-shoving in mouth is appropriate

    - if your kid is an overdressed dandy, then it should be expected to have food smeared on him at lunch

    A bully can't help it if he was born that way - people need to respect the fact that some are just different, and no amount of legislation can un-bully anything. It will just drive bullying into the closet, where they will fester for years with unfullfilled bullyness. Don't even get me started on what will happen to all the bully-needing kids! They'll become politicians, for god's sake! We must stop this trend before its too late!

  • GILMORE||

    *as an important addendum to ensure non-sexist bully-rights

    - if your bully victim is a girl, things are simpler = she is fat, ugly, and no one likes her anyway. This applies to all girls at all times, bully and non-bully alike.

  • GILMORE||

    *Further addenda =

    - any bully-related injury short of broken limbs or missing teeth falls under the "Walk it off, Junior"-rule, wherein the victim is most likely completely responsible for their own suffering, and better get over it and stop whining, or else they're just going to keep getting picked on for the rest of their lives, then go into politics.

  • ||

    or missing teeth

    "Any lost teeth shall be replaced from the bully's personal supply."

  • GILMORE||

    *Lastly, I will require the address of Reason.com's lawyer, to address the issue of my hand which was broken by the wanton depiction of Alex Libby's face on a computer screen. Websites need to be more responsible in their depiction of eminently punchable faces; a warning at the very least should be mandated.

  • db||

  • omnibot||

    TRY STREETVIEW

  • AB||

    Why don't we just get rid of all of the laws and just let people resolve matters on their own with guns.

  • ||

    Yeah, cause that's what libertarians are all about: Anarchy.

    Idiot.

  • Linus||

    that's what libertarians are all about: Anarchy

    Anarchy is defined, in part, as the absence of government, so yes, that's what (Hit & Run) libertarians are all about, Charlie Brown.

  • Sevo||

    "Anarchy is defined, in part, as the absence of government, so yes, that's what (Hit & Run) libertarians are all about, Charlie Brown."

    Lying so transparently doesn't help make your point.

  • Linus||

    Words having meanings, Sevo. Sorry.

    anarchy [an-er-kee] noun
    1. state of society without government or law.

    2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control

    3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

    4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

  • Linus||

    And since most (Hit & Run) libertarians attribute all the world's ills to government, and they pine for a utopian, government-free world (anarchy), my comment stands. And again, sorry for the inconvenient fact that words have meanings.

  • Sevo||

    Linus|3.31.12 @ 6:44PM|#
    "And since most (Hit & Run) libertarians attribute all the world's ills to government, and they pine for a utopian, government-free world (anarchy), my comment stands."

    Shorter Linus:
    'I lied, I stand by my lie, so there!'
    Good going Linus!
    Are you a Marxist? Or simply a random ignoramus?

  • Sevo||

    And to make it clear:

    Linus|3.31.12 @ 6:44PM|#
    ..."most (Hit & Run) libertarians [...] pine for a utopian, government-free world (anarchy)..."

    Yes, words do have meaning. You should learn to use the ones that represent reality, not your silly fantasies. And your lies.

  • ||

    Most of the worlds ills CAN be attributed to those in positions of power, just as its always been and always will be. This doesn't mean we "pine for a utopian, government-free world (anarchy)," Do we advocate for a smaller, constitutionally controlled federal goverment? Sure. But hell, a lot of us would be happy rolling the size and scope back to Clinton era levels.

    So no, you are wrong.

  • Bill Clinton||

    Miss me yet?

  • Clara Madison||

    One of the biggest bullies in this country is the current president, whose name I can't write without gagging.

    He is using transparent methods of "dividing and conquering" to secure his place in the White House.
    Instead of uniting this country, he is tearing it apart.

    His statement about the tragic death of Trayvon was one of the saddest examples of that.

    Obama is the biggest supporter of "class warfare," "race warfare," "war on women," and all of the other "wars" he has put in motion to distract and divide this country.

    If anyone is a bully, Obama is the biggest one.

  • John, aka Patient #4||

    What's his address and phone number?
    I am so going to out him.

  • John, aka Patient #4||

    Mr. President, it is just fun to know who you are. I may actually get a calling card, so you can't have my number on caller ID, and call you tonight. I think we all should.

  • John, aka Patient #4||

    Footsteps!
    Gotta go!

  • Hugo Longbone||

    I was heavily teased for a period of my youth and depite it all, it never made me hate myself. No, it just made me bitter and violent to the bastards that messed with me. Now, I have been driven to self hatred by falling behind on bills, not keeping up with deadlines, taking on way too much student debt. My financial difficulties have driven me a lot closer to suicide/ violent rampage than anything a bunch of snot nosed little turds did in grade/high school.

  • ||

    When I first came to this country, a downright diverse (Latinos and blacks can be bullies too, gasp) bunch of school kids teased me about eating dogs. "Did you eat the dog's balls too" "Did it taste like chicken" "Does your mom also eat dogs" got some laughs. They would also say some obscene phrases in Korean and double check with me if they said it right.

    But I got the last laugh. I wrote a journal entry wondering why some kids bullied me. The next day ESL teacher lined up the entire class outside the door and lectured the kids who made fun of me. They all came up to me and apologized to my face.

    See? You don't need no stinking government. You just have to be creative on how you tell on the bullies. I mean, journal entries are a window to my soul. No one cares about filed complaints.

  • opportunist||

    No one cares about filed flied lice complaints.

    I keed! I keed!

  • Sevo||

    Plick!
    I keed! I keed!

  • opportunist||

    Hey, are you trying to be hurtful?

  • The Derider||

    Umm... unless you went to a private school, that teacher was the government dude.

  • ||

    By "government" I meant more of their process. I thought we understood each other here enough to omit "big" in front of "government" from time to time.

  • ||

    Anyone remember:

    Pssst! Hammerman's After You!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....jqXu1AqMro

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjIhtuRJ4Dg

    An After School Special that taught kids the only way to beat a bully was to stand up to him. It worked for me.

    Kid's today are being turned into pussies.

  • ||

    *Kids

  • ||

    "Kids might be fatter than they used to be, but by most standards they are safer and better-behaved than they were when I was growing up in the 1970s and '80s."

    Utterly false, Mr. Gillespie. Anyone who has been to a restaurant where kids were present knows this is not true.

    When I was a kid, interrupting a grown-up conversation was cause for punishment. Today, it is indulged, and the "parents" fret about why it keeps happening.

    There were no news stories of people getting shot in high school when I attended (80's). And only a rare occurrence of a knife wound.

    Today it's commonplace. And a teacher won't break up a fight for fear of getting sued.

    Bad (no spanking but constant attention) parenting and a lack of consequences for misbehaving kids (and criminals) have caused the increase in frequency & severity of bullying.

    Bad research, Mr. Gillespie, and a flawed analysis.

  • ||

    Nick, as far as the numbers not adding up, I don't think the methodology exists to accurately assess the problem. It's similar to gang activity. A fight might be reported but not the fact the participants were rival gang members. I think the same happens with bullying - the data is simply not captured. So who knows? But I would imagine that social media has greatly impacted the level of torture that can be inflicted.

  • Ross Ellis||

    As the leading national anti-bullying organization in the U.S, it’s hard to agree with the NCES’findings.

    We get over 100 emails a week from victims and approx 200 calls a week from distraught parents. Since June, our Help Line has helped over 1600 kids and saved 49 lives.

    We speak at schools where many report being bullied. Friday, I witnessed bullying outside of a H.S. The victim denied being bullied. Not all kids report it. Alex Libby in the movie BULLY didn't tell anyone.

    If only 28% of students reported being bullied, why are so many reaching out to us for help? With all due respect to the NCES, I sadly can’t agree with them.

    While we don't want to cause panic, bullying is a growing problem. I look forward to the day that I can report that bullying is no longer an epidemic.

    Ross Ellis
    Founder and Chief Executive Officer
    STOMP Out Bullying
    www.stompoutbullying.org

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    You haven't provided any evidence that the NCES findings are wrong. Care to provide some?

  • Ross Ellis||

    I... I just know it!

  • Alice Bowie||

    Ross Ellis,

    Your cause is noble, and I would love to see us stomp out bullying.

    However as you can see, our society is changing into something more where people are suppose to take personal responsibility. That is, if a kid is called is bullied, it's none of our business and we should just let the matter resolve by itself and have no laws and hold no teachers, bystanders, parents, institutions responsible for racism, sexism, sexual harassment, bullying, etc.

    And, on top of that, popular opinion among libertarians and conservatives is that everyone has the right to defend themselves and they should all be armed, have the right to Stand your ground, and be immune from prosecution and arrest when one needs to shoot and kill other people.

    So good luck on your cause.

  • hk||

    What a hysterical person you are.

    Yes people are going to say rough stuff to you, I don't give a shit if you are sensitive about it. Thought crime is scary and I have the right to think whatever the fuck I want to think about you.

    Lastly hate crimes are racist and illogical. It implies that certain people are more acceptable to bother.

    And fuck you for the "stand your ground" cheapshot. Manslaughter is never ok and shut the fuck up about the Zimmerman case. We don't condone what he did, nor does it seem to qualify as a stand your ground case.

    And you can't read minds either, genius. Liberals are the bigoted ones.

  • hk||

    *whatever the fuck I want about you.

    :)

  • ||

    The problem a lot of people have isn't with bullying, its that it's being used as a cloak for thought crime legislation that is eerily like the "hate crime" nonsense that assumes to know what people are thinking.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Tyler,

    Your concerns are noble, and I would love to see us stop prosecuting thought crimes.

    However, as you can see, I'm a liberal and therefore I know exactly what you dirty libertarians and conservatives are thinking. Since I disagree with you, it is impossible for me not to want to prosecute you for thinking those cruel, cruel thoughts.

    It's the liberal way, after all.

  • mammoth2||

    we should not bully people!

  • mammoth2||

    yes, good plan

  • Dan||

    This article is 100% right on. The current overreaction to bullying in schools is the exact same thing that happened with school shootings.

    Just like with school shootings which likewise the data shows have been on a steady decline, they create this false narrative that it's an out of control problem.

    Bullying is a problem that should be dealt with, but it isn't something that just sprouted up or has suddenly and exponentially gotten worse. The only thing that's changed is that reports of these incidents now make national headlines. Nobody really used to care about bullying because it was just written off as kids being kids and part of growing up. The reason they're so focused on bullying now is because they now realize that it's the primary reason most of the school shootings happen.

  • emily12||

    New Era Hats
    "it is released by http://www.hatbrandshop.com/ 2012.06.015"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement