Posted on 03/24/2013 11:01:32 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
Admittedly, digital media amplifies some of their mistakes and pours salt into wounds, but the behavior and reactions aren't new. What's new is our reaction to childhood aggression -- and our increasing impatience with children and readiness to label them when they make certain mistakes or experience pain.
What caused this shift? In a word, Columbine, but not for the reasons many believe.
Dave Cullen, in his book "Columbine," wrote that after the 1999 Colorado school massacre, the media crafted the explanation that shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had been bullied. They apparently hadn't been, but the nation -- fearing a repeat of the tragedy -- adopted a zero-tolerance attitude toward many normal, albeit painful, aspects of childhood behavior and development, and defined them as bullying.
As a result, behaviors such as social exclusion, persistent unfriendliness and a nasty remark on Facebook have become intolerable acts that cause grave victimization.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
This bullying hysteria is their latest thing to keep all those helicopter Mom’s scared shiteless.
Remember when it was all the day care people? After the scare, that turned out to be nothing like all the scream was about.
This must be some type of phy-ops.
Yes, there is real bullying, but it certainly ain’t little girls snubbing one another.
The way we quite successfully dealt with real bullies was to stand up to them or stand up to them for a friend, bullies are not interested in a fight.
This bullying hysteria is their latest thing to keep all those helicopter Mom’s scared shiteless.
Remember when it was all the day care people? After the scare, that turned out to be nothing like all the scream was about.
This must be some type of phy-ops.
Yes, there is real bullying, but it certainly ain’t little girls snubbing one another.
The way we quite successfully dealt with real bullies was to stand up to them or stand up to them for a friend, bullies are not interested in a fight.
It depends. It’s one thing if your entire class isn’t talking to you because of rumors or something. Literally two people doing it, no way.
And like I said in previous posts, maybe I’m more antisocial than most. In high school, I had 4-5 really good friends and the rest of them could go take a flying leap. I’d rather have a few really good friends than 200 acquaintances, I’ve never been the type that needs to run in a herd.
Some kids get ignored because they care more about “expressing their individualism” by having facial piercings , green hair and wearing trench coats all the time.
Can’t really blame people who don’t want to sit with them.
Defining Torture Down (Every policy the left dislikes becomes a crime against humanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000434/posts
Elaborate the details of such circumstances? Seems to me that pops might have taught you how to fight back when cornered, not bust your butt and leave you to figure out what to do. One is example and encouragement, the other is coercion.
And of course the point of the BULLY is to coerce... doesn’t seem very good example of the father to punish someone who gets hurt in a fight, even if they fought as they ought to. As if suffering in the fight wasn’t enough. That is the kind of smash mouth spirit I speak of. Jesus said take a sword, Jesus did not say I will punish you if you have to use it but get hurt anyhow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.