On the question of bullying -

So I see a lot of people talking about bullying, and the almost unilateral consensus is that it's "bad".

The way I see it, there are several types. I think we've all dealt with the insecure dickbag, probably in primary school or whatever, who wasn't very bright and coped with it by picking on people, and by people I mean anyone and everyone until someone got fed up and kicked his shit in. Yeah, that guy is an asshole, and I'm not defending him.

But there's another type of bullying. This kind usually happens in groups. The "victim" is usually socially deviant, and deals with it in one of two ways.

1. They sperg out and ends up like the people on the Lolcow boards

2. They buck the fuck up. They consider their life choices and actions. They think about what led them to be ostracized. And maybe, just maybe...they change for the better.

I'm gonna preface this by saying I am of the belief that the group is more important the the individual, because it can exist without the individual but the individual cannot exist without the group. People are kind of like cells in the organism of society. Genetics has shown us that throughout natural history that the genes of "desirable" traits get passed on in society, and "undesirable" ones eventually die off. On an individual level, if all other error correction during cell replication fails, that cell is destroyed by the immune system, unable to continue to pass on its code.

We are more than the sum of our genetics though. We have genes that dictate much about us, but what about memes? Not fucking image macros mind you; I'm talking about sociological genes. Maybe the practice of "outcasting" is the mechanism by which society ensures the accurate and beneficial propagation of its "memetic code". It doesn't simply end the propagation of the behavior in the individual, it has the additional benefit of setting standards by which others should behave to avoid being ostracized. Could this type of "bullying" and "outcasting" be a sociological immune system?

If so, should it really be discouraged the way it is?

I would also add that imho this site isn't making fun of people. It's making fun of behaviors. And in that vein, I think that in the event a potential Lolcow selects the above option number two, we need to respect that and welcome that. I think ridiculing someone at that point is just being the dickbag I talked about, which is a choice that can be made of course with the understanding that you yourself are now being socially deviant, and should expect to be treated accordingly.

If anyone has thoughts on this I'd like to hear them. Also, if anyone with some sociological or philosophical authority (because I have neither) has postulated this before and you have read about it I'd appreciate a link to a scholarly source that either backs up or refutes it.
 
when rights of a group is more important than those of one individual, you got socialism. Fuck that shit.

People can and will survive as individuals or in a company of non-assholes. Some things like weird ass fetishes or love for anime pillows should be kept in private life, not flaunted as a fucking banner for other pervs to rally around. I really don't care who or what you fuck in the privacy of your home.
 

Slappy McGherkin

Bartender? Make that a double.
True & Honest Fan
You seem confused. There's a huge difference between actual "bullying" (gimme your lunch money or I'm gonna beat you up) and making a total assclown out of yourself and having people laugh at and ridicule you, whether a single entity or a groupthink.

At some point, it's devolved into "words hurt" and everyone feels they have the right NOT to be offended by anything, otherwise you're just a big, mean ol' bully.

The simple answer is: Grow a fucking set and get over it, princess. Life will occasionally kick you in the balls because of your own stupidity. Try not to double-down on the stupid.
 
What are your views on human-canine relations?


I think that is very sugar coated terminology. Are you talking about people who fuck dogs? Actually, I don't think that people DO fuck dogs. I think people rape dogs, and that rape is one of the most depraved things you can do to a human. Is it psychologically damaging to the dog? I don't know, I don't have knowledge on the subject to make a claim one way or the other.
I think its psychologically damaging to the human though; sexual gratification and intimacy is a reward for social success. People who are doing this are taking a bit of a shortcut, and I think they are doing themselves a social disservice. Truth be told, I don't think there is a whole lot of data on the psychological effects of bestiality other than maybe the Kinsey reports. I haven't done my research on this issue to really elaborate on it beyond conjecture and pontification.

I like this example though because it demonstrates that the genetic system is different from the memetic one. From a genetic standpoint, someone who rapes dogs is a self solving issue. They are probably fucking less humans (if at all), and therefore are less likely to breed.

The memetic issue is not regulated quite as automatically. If your asking whether or not I think people who rape dogs should be made fun of, I think they should. It may or may not be detrimental to society, and if it is I don't know to what degree that would be. It's certainly not a benefit nor socially healthy in practice. Anecdotally from a less intellectual, more gut instinct standpoint, I think its fucking weird.
 
I would also add that imho this site isn't making fun of people. It's making fun of behaviors. And in that vein, I think that in the event a potential Lolcow selects the above option number two, we need to respect that and welcome that. I think ridiculing someone at that point is just being the dickbag I talked about, which is a choice that can be made of course with the understanding that you yourself are now being socially deviant, and should expect to be treated accordingly.
Ohhhh yeah I can see why you made this thread. Where does it hurt?

Anyone who even made an account on this site is a social deviant, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
 
when rights of a group is more important than those of one individual, you got socialism. Fuck that shit.

People can and will survive as individuals or in a company of non-assholes. Some things like weird ass fetishes or love for anime pillows should be kept in private life, not flaunted as a fucking banner for other pervs to rally around. I really don't care who or what you fuck in the privacy of your home.

I'm not talking about your individual rights, I'm talking in the bigger sense. The survival of the species and of society. If you died tomorrow, most of humanity wouldn't blink and eye. If everyone died but you, you probably wouldn't survive long, and after you died it would be the end of humanity.
 

Slappy McGherkin

Bartender? Make that a double.
True & Honest Fan
The memetic issue is not regulated quite as automatically. If your asking whether or not I think people who rape dogs should be made fun of, I think they should. It may or may not be detrimental to society, and if it is I don't know to what degree that would be. It's certainly not a benefit nor socially healthy in practice. Anecdotally from a less intellectual, more gut instinct standpoint, I think its fucking weird.

Too philosophical for me.

Have you ever seen a Donkey Show in Mexico?

Guess what? The donkey likes it.

Donkey-bar.jpg
 
Ohhhh yeah I can see why you made this thread. Where does it hurt?

Anyone who even made an account on this site is a social deviant, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

I haven't really been bullied all that much, ever, tbh. There are definitely things about me that would be worth making fun of though for sure. I tend not to boast about them publicly or demand people accept them. Maybe that how I have avoided trouble.

I made that statement because within the theoretical social construct I was talking about, it made sense. But I find the second statement you made interesting. There are some very rational, beneficial views floating around that are minority views and I'm not really sure how I would explain that. Is the system not working any longer? Are we biased because the nature of our perspective only allows us to see insignificant amounts of progress in this system due to our lifespans as individuals? Is there some other explanation?

I tend to think its the perspective flaw, and the only way to accurately gauge this is in retrospect so its not easy to see how it may play into current events. There are really only two outcomes:

1) Society collapses, and while there is a reason for it happening no one will be around to study it

2) Society endures, and there is a reason for it. In this case, historians will look back and understand how we survived this weird time. Will our ideas of what is "normal" be drastically altered in a short period of time? Or will society find some other way to weed out deviants other than "lack of acceptance". Your guess is as good as mine.

I think it would take a lot to cause number one, so I look forward to learning the answer.
 
Too philosophical for me.

Have you ever seen a Donkey Show in Mexico?

Guess what? The donkey likes it.

Donkey-bar.jpg

By a strange coincidence I am headed to Mexico in the Cabo San Lucas area on a family reunion getaway trip in two days. Thank you for the travel advisory, but I think we'll probably stick to fishing. I was not aware this was a thing though. The legality of it, if applicable, makes me wonder about how this came to be accepted in Mexican society.
 

Mewtwo_Rain

Drown in the cesspool of darkness
I'm going to have to disagree with the assertion that the individual can't exist without the group. Lone wolfs exist within society for that very reason. Just an example when I was in high school, people attempted to bully me and it just didn't work and instead of devolving into a shit fest of bully-mongering, people jumped on board a "respect" train since I'm not a big social groupie kind of person, by the end of high school, we had a two way street on a mutual understanding on boundaries and "respect."

The real truth unlike DNA bullying is done for any reason that can be perceived. Do the right thing? People will attempt to bully you for whatever reason (jealousy, disagreements, etc.) Do the wrong thing or stupid thing people will bully you. Generally if you capitulate to what detractors want then they not only succeeded in their bullying, but showed they have dominance and control over the person they are attempting (and in this case succeeding) to bully. Often times weak willed people capitulate when if they stand their ground it generally resolves in their favor but most people are too egotistically scared what the collective will think which creates a vicious circle and purity spirals.

In regards to whether bullying should be shunned as it is, it's a more complex answer honestly. By basis it'd be based on context, but I think bullying in certain regards can make people mentally and socially stronger. Though there's a fine line between small bullying which can lead to better self-awareness and forcing some people to become stronger and trying to break someone with bullying or push them to an extreme.

And lastly in regards to the "Victim" archetype. The only "victims" I can't stomach are the professional victims who are basically and generally what I term "Cry bullies." Irresponsible prats most often who get themselves in a sticky situation and then want others to bail them out that they rubbed the wrong way. Those kind of people I have no sympathy for.
 
So I see a lot of people talking about bullying, and the almost unilateral consensus is that it's "bad".

The way I see it, there are several types. I think we've all dealt with the insecure dickbag, probably in primary school or whatever, who wasn't very bright and coped with it by picking on people, and by people I mean anyone and everyone until someone got fed up and kicked his shit in. Yeah, that guy is an asshole, and I'm not defending him.

But there's another type of bullying. This kind usually happens in groups. The "victim" is usually socially deviant, and deals with it in one of two ways.

1. They sperg out and ends up like the people on the Lolcow boards

2. They buck the fuck up. They consider their life choices and actions. They think about what led them to be ostracized. And maybe, just maybe...they change for the better.

I'm gonna preface this by saying I am of the belief that the group is more important the the individual, because it can exist without the individual but the individual cannot exist without the group. People are kind of like cells in the organism of society. Genetics has shown us that throughout natural history that the genes of "desirable" traits get passed on in society, and "undesirable" ones eventually die off. On an individual level, if all other error correction during cell replication fails, that cell is destroyed by the immune system, unable to continue to pass on its code.

We are more than the sum of our genetics though. We have genes that dictate much about us, but what about memes? Not fucking image macros mind you; I'm talking about sociological genes. Maybe the practice of "outcasting" is the mechanism by which society ensures the accurate and beneficial propagation of its "memetic code". It doesn't simply end the propagation of the behavior in the individual, it has the additional benefit of setting standards by which others should behave to avoid being ostracized. Could this type of "bullying" and "outcasting" be a sociological immune system?

If so, should it really be discouraged the way it is?

I would also add that imho this site isn't making fun of people. It's making fun of behaviors. And in that vein, I think that in the event a potential Lolcow selects the above option number two, we need to respect that and welcome that. I think ridiculing someone at that point is just being the dickbag I talked about, which is a choice that can be made of course with the understanding that you yourself are now being socially deviant, and should expect to be treated accordingly.

If anyone has thoughts on this I'd like to hear them. Also, if anyone with some sociological or philosophical authority (because I have neither) has postulated this before and you have read about it I'd appreciate a link to a scholarly source that either backs up or refutes it.
Given the current 'memetic code' , which is nothing even vaguely related to genetics, but rather a factor of hive mind being dictated by the mentally ill and the exceptionals which advocate for normalizing mental illness as a cure, doesn't seem that 'humanity' is "progressing." The current "memetic" / aka zeitgeist is one in which 'society' is to "blame."
 
I'm not talking about your individual rights, I'm talking in the bigger sense. The survival of the species and of society. If you died tomorrow, most of humanity wouldn't blink and eye. If everyone died but you, you probably wouldn't survive long, and after you died it would be the end of humanity.

there are many examples of mostly religious dudes who go into seclusion and live kick ass lives. It's not really normal, but single people could survive on their own, even procreate once in a while.

As far as humanity, on the total scale of time, few million years is just a grain of sand, they are not surviving that much longer on grand scheme of things.

Repressing people into a bunch of worker bees doesn't bide well. Humans live in smaller troops, clans. Living well in larger groups is far more challenging. So the perfect medium are smaller groups, smaller countries.
 
Given the current 'memetic code' , which is nothing even vaguely related to genetics, but rather a factor of hive mind being dictated by the mentally ill and the exceptionals which advocate for normalizing mental illness as a cure, doesn't seem that 'humanity' is "progressing." The current "memetic" / aka zeitgeist is one in which 'society' is to "blame."
I think the acceptance of mental illness as an intrinsic personality perk is just as detrimental as the stigma it endured from previous generations. Mentally ill people should be encouraged to seek treatment for their illness, not discriminated against or judged on that basis alone, and certainly not "enabled" by treating their behavior as normal.
 
Also, it's completely normal for primates to challenge one another to ascertain social status. Watch Discovery. Monkeys and apes do it all the time. Those on the lower level mate less if ever, they also get bullied or dicked with all the time. Those on the higher level mate more but have to fight harder and usually don't last.
 
there are many examples of mostly religious dudes who go into seclusion and live kick ass lives. It's not really normal, but single people could survive on their own, even procreate once in a while.

As far as humanity, on the total scale of time, few million years is just a grain of sand, they are not surviving that much longer on grand scheme of things.

Repressing people into a bunch of worker bees doesn't bide well. Humans live in smaller troops, clans. Living well in larger groups is far more challenging. So the perfect medium are smaller groups, smaller countries.
Eh I think you are giving this far more political context than was intended. Individuality is important to the individual on a psychological level, and thus, bleeds over on the sociological level for sure. People with no sense of individuality are not happy, and don't function as efficiently. I think the "worker bee" scenario is a bit hyperbolic though. So you have to look at the individual, and you have to look at society, and you have to look at the individual as pertains to their role in society. I think we are both focusing on different parts of the same picture.
 

crocodilian

K. K. K.an't Edit Posts
True & Honest Fan
I'm not talking about your individual rights, I'm talking in the bigger sense. The survival of the species and of society. If you died tomorrow, most of humanity wouldn't blink and eye. If everyone died but you, you probably wouldn't survive long, and after you died it would be the end of humanity.

Plenty of people survive alone innawoods. The kryptonite to this lifestyle is getting a serious illness (since most animals won't actively hunt humans) but that's due to either ignorance, genetics or old age. Two of those can't be prevented. They also generally happen long after the question of "can you survive by yourself?" has been answered.

More to the thread's point: bullying was authority before law. If you did something weird, annoying or otherwise off-putting, your peers let you know. Humans are social animals but, sometimes, one of those bullied autists carries on regardless. Then he invents the wheel or the fursuit. For this simple reason, bullying is just as valid as ignoring bullying if you think you're truly onto something.

Also, this site totally makes fun of people.
 

KeyserBroze

Sleep is for people who run out of Cocaine
I think we've all dealt with the insecure dickbag, probably in primary school or whatever, who wasn't very bright and coped with it by picking on people, and by people I mean anyone and everyone
You mean the alpha male in the group? I'm sorry to be the one to reveal this to you but most of the world is run by 'not very smart' people if you fancy working in any medium-large scale enterprise at any point in the future better learn to work with them. Pack mentality still applies many aspects of our lifes we dont think about; Politics, Marketing, Social Media and bullying.

They sperg out and ends up like the people on the Lolcow boards
If a little bullying gets someone on the Lolcow boards then they are on the board in all timelines
 
Last edited:
Also, it's completely normal for primates to challenge one another to ascertain social status. Watch Discovery. Monkeys and apes do it all the time. Those on the lower level mate less if ever, they also get bullied or dicked with all the time. Those on the higher level mate more but have to fight harder and usually don't last.

So this is an interesting point, and again we have to look at it on all three levels. Bullying is absolutely detrimental on an individual basis if the individual isn't able to adapt, but could be beneficial if they are. It could go either way. On a sociological level and the level of the functionality of the individual in society....I think its absolutely beneficial in many cases.
 
Top