The calling out happened when Ewe posted this in response to Vixi’s words.
Quote me saying this
Oh you can’t because it’s a strawman
By calling them a bully? They did bully Rabies, they admitted harassing, threatening, and intimidating him - all things which are included in the UK government’s definition of bullying - and then they apologised for this. What’s your issue here? That she’s not a bully because she didn’t do it, that she did do it but she’s not a bully, that she did do it and she is a bully but that’s pretty based, that she did do it, she is a bully, but I shouldn’t call her a bully because that’s a personal attack, even though by her own admission she is?
I mean I’d believe her apology and consider both her forgiven and her deeds forgotten if it weren’t for the fact that in the same post she made the apology she said I had “sinister intentions” in asking her to apologise for something she definitely did. I don’t see what’s sinister in asking her to apologise to someone she’s wronged - and indeed, in this thread, we have Vixi claiming (paradoxically) that her apology was given off her own freewill but also “maliciously” compelled. Until such a time as she can decide which it was, it’s not an apology, and if she hasn’t apologised or made amends, there’s no forgiveness. If you’re not actually sorry for bullying someone, in what way are you not still a bully?
Projection, strawman, etc
Coerced by what? What threat was held over them? What penalty? I said shamed, and I said by themselves. Go ahead. Prove coercion.
No it’s not that at all, it’s just you posted a series of desperately-reaching strawman arguments while shadowboxing with a figment of your own imagination
You keep having to put your words in my mouth to try manufacture wrong-doing because I’ve not actually said or even expressed the meanings you’re attributing to me
I think what’s actually happening here is that a couple of hours ago I called YOU out for taking no moral stand against bullying on the forums and ever since then you’ve been feverishly combing my posts in the hopes of discovering some grain of hypocrisy you could use to exonerate yourself - except that’s not how it works anyway and actually maybe just have a moral stance against bullying?
Instead of actually taking a moral stand against bullying all you’ve done is debate semantics by disputing the definition of bullying and try to spin the bullying behaviour of various posters in a dozen different ways so you don’t have to acknowledge any wrong-doing on their part and thus take action
How hard is it to say “bullying is wrong and it should be stopped”
not hard at all I just did it
I was happy to let lie at “agree to disagree” but since the argument did not in fact end there why don’t you just post your own definition of bullying so there can be no more confusion? What does it include?
So far we’ve established that it doesn’t include persistently insulting, demeaning, mocking, belittling, or verbally abusive behaviour since, after all, that’s not bullying, that’s just being a bit “rude” - pretty convenient - so what is bullying to you? At what point is bullying happening? When five or six people gang up on somebody, insult their intelligence, their character, their abilities, this is - according to you - not bullying, so what is?
I mean the most telling thing for me is this -
Here’s some handy summaries of bullying for you:
… it’s usually defined as behaviour that is:
- repeated
- intended to hurt someone either physically or emotionally
- often aimed at certain groups, for example because of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation
It takes many forms and can include:
- physical assault
- teasing
- making threats
- name calling
- cyberbullying - bullying via mobile phone or online (for example email, social networks and instant messenger)
Your school should have its own policy to stop bullying.
Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) of an imbalance of physical or social power. This imbalance distinguishes bullying from conflict
Hmmm, imbalance of social power? Sort of like five or six people belonging to a community ganging up on somebody else, then? No, not sort of like, exactly like.
I was challenging harassment, the posters you’re defending were attacking Rabies’ stupidity. One of those is a crime, the other’s just a person’s quality. So YOU’RE saying it’s okay to viciously attack someone for being less intelligent?
I already know the response - it’ll definitely include the phrase “100%” - and since ninety percent of your last post was you talking to yourself anyway, I’m bowing out. If you want to spend the rest of the thread chopping up my posts and putting words into my mouth so you can find a way to justify bullying, be my guest. On your conscience be it.