Is Bullying Social Darwinism where the weak go to the wall ? - Discuss

bayern282

Two appalling cases in these links and naturally any right thinking person sympathises with the victims and their families.

It begs the questions though, are some people born to be victims ? and can this type of thing really be eradicated as they're inherent in human nature.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/phoebes-last-text-it-would-be-easier-if-they-handed-me-a-noose-2638097.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/our-beautiful-son-broken-by-school-bullying-2638042.html

ScumLord

Bullying is a natural thing for any animal to do. I'm not surprised it happens, young people don't have all the social niceties learned off yet, it takes time. Schools seem to make less of an effort these days to teach children how to interact with each other.

I was lucky enough in that bullying wasn't a huge issue in any school I went to. The teachers where the biggest bullies which probably gave the children a common enemy to unite against.

AhSureTisGrand

"Weak" is a relative term and there will always be some weaker than others in society

Pauleta

Interesting theory (hopefully it doesnt get taken up the wrong way)

Apart from Spousal abuse, bullying is usually committed in groups to a lesser number of people. Its would be more like a pride of Lions. The Lion is the king of the animal kingdom because they are in prides. If they were solitary animals they wouldnt be remotely as succesful at what they try to achieve. I think bullying is a survival in numbers thing and the more numbers and more ferocious they are the higher they reach in the food chain.

cml387

We had a guru brought in to work to give us all a pep talk some time ago.
He said that people who are bullied allow themselves to be bullied.
Needless to say he got a lot of debate going about that,but ....

pragmatic1

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

"Weak" is a relative term and there will always be some weaker than others in society

True. The town hardman might be a bitch in prison. Its all relative.

Knasher

I consider bullies to be weak and cowardly individuals who are scared of being victimised and so pick on others to try and divert attention from themselves. As such I wouldn't consider it Darwinism when such individuals prosper.

Spunge

Knasher wrote: »

I consider bullies to be weak and cowardly individuals who are scared of being victimised and so pick on others to try and divert attention from themselves. As such I wouldn't consider it Darwinism when such individuals prosper.

And the people being bullied are strong individuals who love being bullied ?

gargleblaster

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is. If so, then it is primitive behavior. As such, it deserves to be stamped out without hesitation, as the time when it might have been useful is long gone.

cml387

Knasher wrote: »

I consider bullies to be weak and cowardly individuals who are scared of being victimised and so pick on others to try and divert attention from themselves. As such I wouldn't consider it Darwinism when such individuals prosper.

But in our capaitalist system,bullies seem often to prosper.
Bill Gates,Michael O'Leary....

pragmatic1

cml387 wrote: »

But in our capaitalist system,bullies seem often to prosper.
Bill Gates,Michael O'Leary....

I strongly doubt Bill Gates was a bully in school though. Wonder were hs bully is now.

TaraFoxglove

The bullies in my school were also spectacularly dumb for the most part - Darwinism my hoop.

cml387

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I strongly doubt Bill Gates was a bully in school though. Wonder were hs bully is now.

Ah,but bullying is not confined to school.

Knasher

Spunge wrote: »

And the people being bullied are strong individuals who love being bullied ?

No, the people step in against the bullies and do their best to stop it are the strong ones.

But there is no way that I would consider a group of people who victimise somebody else in any way strong. Invariably they hide behind their social standing and goad their group into victimising others in order to make them look strong. Which, to me at least, seems pretty pathetic.

MungBean

bayern282 wrote: »

Two appalling cases in these links and naturally any right thinking person sympathises with the victims and their families.

It begs the questions though, are some people born to be victims ? and can this type of thing really be eradicated as they're inherent in human nature.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/phoebes-last-text-it-would-be-easier-if-they-handed-me-a-noose-2638097.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/our-beautiful-son-broken-by-school-bullying-2638042.html

It might be inherent in animal nature but its not any more in human nature. It can be avoided through education and awareness. Children can choose not do bully someone by becoming aware of how wrong it is and the effect it has on that person. Provided the parents have taught the child to respect other people.

CreepingDeath

In any social hierarchy in the animal kingdom, there's always jostling for status. In the school yard that may be physical.
In a company, it may be political.
In a female social group, it may be bitchy.
In a family group, it may be competitive.

Not much you can do about it, while we all have egos.

The only way to avoid bullying, crime, war, etc is to completely destroy / genetically engineer out the part of our brains that wants to better ourselves in relation to others. But that's the part that makes us confident, ambitious, striving for excellence etc. So we'd end up as mindless drones, like worker ants.

Paparazzo

OP, you can argue that the Holocaust was social darwinism.

Kevin Duffy

If this turned out to be the way we are going as a species, we're fúcked, 'cos we'd have lost Einstien, Newton and Darwin from the gene pool in favour of Tyson, Steven Seagal and Vin Deisel (ignoring the timeshift). That's not a world I want to live in!

Our brain is what has led to us being the dominant species, not our propensity for violence.

WindSock

Not all bullying victims are weak. Not all bullies are strong.

Kevin Duffy

Paparazzo wrote: »

OP, you can argue that the Holocaust was social darwinism.

You have the floor.

cml387

Paparazzo wrote: »

OP, you can argue that the Holocaust was social darwinism.

Nooooo! Godwinned.

But seriously,there are rulers and ruled.Those who are ruled maybe are happy enough to have a strong leader to protect them.
In organisations,bullies are giving a lead which often means success and share options all round to those who hang onto their coattails (and accept being bullied to an extent along the way).

pragmatic1

cml387 wrote: »

Ah,but bullying is not confined to school.

Thats true. However, if Bill Gates were to meet a thug in the street, whos going to be the weaker party. He might be a bully in the boardroom, but a victim in another setting.

Turtyturd

Paparazzo wrote: »

OP, you can argue that the Holocaust was social darwinism.

Have to prove it happened first. :pac:

cml387

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Thats true. However, if Bill Gates were to meet a thug in the street, whos going to be the weaker party. He might be a bully in the boardroom, but a victim in another setting.

Bullying does not imply violence.

Bucklesman

This is a sad and depressing thread.

ShooterSF

I don't understand what the hell is "social darwinism"? Do you mean bullying is a trait that makes you more successful in society and therefore the eh idea becomes popular and more people bully??

So confused

pragmatic1

cml387 wrote: »

Bullying does not imply violence.

I didnt say it did. I'm saying in that context he would be a victim. Social positions arent static, they change.

fontanalis

Then again Darwinism is a way of explaining how nature works, not necessarily how society should work.

cml387

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I didnt say it did. I'm saying in that context he would be a victim. Social positions arent static, they change.

If Bill Gates met a thug on the street he may very well be beaten up.
Bullying is a different thing,using your force of personality to have power over indiviuals using intimidation in whatever form will work.

Paparazzo

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

You have the floor.

Well, the Holocaust was the Nazis "bullying" the Jews on a massive scale. Godwin i know, but if you're talking about bullying causing people to lose their life for no good reason it's similar.

wild_cat

Any of the bullies I knew from secondary school are now living pretty crap lives.......

But they do have the whole pro creation thing down to an art. :rolleyes:

pragmatic1

cml387 wrote: »

If Bill Gates met a thug on the street he may very well be beaten up.
Bullying is a different thing,using your force of personality to have power over indiviuals using intimidation in whatever form will work.

No its exactly the same. In both situations there is an aggressor and a victim. One has power over the other.

Yahew

I think that Bill Gates is getting a hard time in the thread. There is no indication he is a bully, a successful manager doesn't have to be a bully. He can talk softly and carry a big stick ( i.e. he can fire you).

Steve Jobs seems more like the Bully.

I do think that victims should be taught to stand up for themselves - where possible. I dont think that meekness is a good trait.

ascanbe

cml387 wrote: »

But in our capaitalist system,bullies seem often to prosper.
Bill Gates,Michael O'Leary....

'System' is the operative word.
This system, whether one regards it as the correct system, is a social construct that has resulted from millennia of philosophy/social evolution and has a big say in who prospers; for instance, if it wasn't for the social stigma associated with violence and the concept of law and order there would be a significantly greater chance that someone physically superior would have long ago rendered the likes of Bill Gates and Michael O'Leary incapable of profiting from their wits and particular brand of bullying.
And systems within countries are nebulous things/due to possible significant change at any given moment, that have a big impact on who does and doesn't get the opportunity to prosper.
Similarly, the system a school adopts towards bullying will have a big say on whether a person will end up a victim of it or not.
So chance/timing/events also have a big say in who 'prospers'; both in school and life. Darwinism can't be used to explain everything.
This is obviously an endlessly complex subject, though; about as complex and probably unanswerable as 'what's it all about?'

Kevin Duffy

Yahew wrote: »

carry a big stick ( i.e. he can fire you).
.

Which would be an expression of the power on which bullying would depend.

gargleblaster

Domo230 wrote: »

Id argue that since most of our environmental challenges no longer come from predators but from dealing with each other that bullying would be a negative trait of evolution.

Bullying people gies you no reward and is seen by most women as a sign of your own weakness and insecurity. By bullying you are making yourself appear less attractive, providing yourself with at least one less person to be your ally (1 less resource) and are teaching yourself poor future social skills.

Think about it. The cool guy who has his life under control and is too busy enjoying female company is hardly going to give enough of a **** about you to bully you. He will be too busy living life.

Since bullying exists in humans, it must have some purpose with regards an evolutionary strategy but I cant image what. Showing your dominance towards other men is one thing but directing it to the weakest members makes little sense. If anything it should be the Alpha males they go for.

Couldn't it have been a tool used by Alpha males to achieve, and once achieved, assert and maintain dominance?

edit: Ok no, after reading your edit, it does seem to be the case that bullies pick on the weak, and not on those who might threaten their dominance, so nevermind.

cml387

Kevin Duffy got my point.
Bullying in our modern world takes many forms.Deprivation of our jobs would be one.Humiliation in front of our peers would be another.

Bill gates I used as an example only because he would not be seen as a prototypical bully ,yet the way he treated Paul Allen would be construed as bullying.

mconigol

Well the weak are usually the ones who end up being successful & wealthy due to being bullied so no.

Logical Fallacy

cml387 wrote: »

But in our capaitalist system,bullies seem often to prosper.
Bill Gates,Michael O'Leary....

How is Gates a bully? Quite curious about that one.

mconigol

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

How is Gates a bully? Quite curious about that one.

He worked hard, developed a good business and then people got jealous. Thus he became a big bully. One that donates millions to charity...it's all part of his evil scheme.

cml387

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

How is Gates a bully? Quite curious about that one.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/18058/paul_allens_tell_all_book_paints_microsofts_gates_as_an_ogre_can_he_be_believed

madison2011

Bullies never operate in isolation. The motivation of the bully is clear (avarice, greed, gluttony, power - whatever) but what about the henchmen that surround him/her? It's apalling to watch the second tier behind the bully supporting and cajoling an idiot. They are the ones that need to be reeled in I think.

gargleblaster

mconigol wrote: »

He worked hard, developed a good business stole an OS, stole a few applications, got rich while putting several competitors out of business after putting out substandard versions of their software (their software was less compatible with his stolen OS, of course) and then people got jealous. Thus he became a big bully. One that donates millions to charity...it's all part of his evil scheme.

FYP

steddyeddy

Interesting thread. Well bullys definatly target the weak or anyone that sticks out. Anyone who sticks out by definition is weak in a group sense as they dont have the backing of a group. Wheter or not bullying is natural and has the same purpose in the animal kingdom is debatable many animals use threats and force to maintain a pecking order within a group but human bullying seems to be for pure spite and a desire to inflict suffering on a weaker member of the group. Bullying isnt the same as maintaining a pecking order I dont think. The other thing is a lot of people get stronger mentally or physically stronger (working out) after bulliyng but then some people are affected by it throughout their lives. Often the weak dont go to the wall most people I knew in school are now people to be pityed a lot had underlying depression and other problems so I dont think its strong versus weak.

"I consider bullies to be weak and cowardly individuals who are scared of being victimised and so pick on others to try and divert attention from themselves."


That is literally not true.. Most bullies I've ever seen are strong and popular but have a dickhead side to them.
The line above is just crap said by schools to try make bullies feel bad and the weak feel stronger.

And I'm someone who would have been on the bullied side.

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

That is literally not true..

No, that is exactly true. It's even encouraged behaviour in certain professions.

Lanaier

bayern282 wrote: »

It begs the questions though, are some people born to be victims ? and can this type of thing really be eradicated as they're inherent in human nature.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/phoebes-last-text-it-would-be-easier-if-they-handed-me-a-noose-2638097.html

Nope..that first girl Phoebe was very clearly singled out for being and outsider and the new girl. Nothing to do with weakness.

The fact of the matter is that all children are weak, bullies or not they all have their own developmental issues.
Part of growing up, and why they are protected.

cml387 wrote: »

But in our capaitalist system,bullies seem often to prosper.
Bill Gates,Michael O'Leary....

That has what to do with capitalism exactly?
You think there are no bullies in control in non-capitalist countries?

Azureus

Sometimes those who are bullied are weak, yes. Its why they are singled out.
But I dont think that makes the 'bullies' the strong one from a Darwinian viewpoint-I think bullies are generally equally as weak yet have just found a way to compensate for that weakness, by preying on somebody they know they can win against so to speak.

And then some people are just arrogant assholes who end up treating people like shiz because of their ego. Its never going to be cut and dried.

conorhal

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

If this turned out to be the way we are going as a species, we're fúcked, 'cos we'd have lost Einstien, Newton and Darwin from the gene pool in favour of Tyson, Steven Seagal and Vin Deisel (ignoring the timeshift). That's not a world I want to live in!

Our brain is what has led to us being the dominant species, not our propensity for violence.

Go tell the Romans, or any great empire... I'm afraid it's brains AND a propensity for violence FTW.
It's unpalatable, but there it is. No matter how effectively you socialize people those ape instincts are still there with their alpha and group hierarchy propensities and they work. Kids will bully, it’s human nature, I have to ask myself why it is that we are at out most innovative at, and directly after, times of war. Even out latest greatest invention the internet started as a military project to ensure that communication could be routed in the event of a nuclear strike knocking out a central communications hub.
We can tame the beast, but you still have to respect it’s nature, even a tame dog will bite if you ignore the basic rules that apply to it’s instincts.

Daegerty

Social darwinism is a load of horsesh1t

stovelid

Sometimes it's a cop-out (and debating society rhetoric) to simply stand behind the social or scientific origin of destructive human actions even when it's has some validity. As humans, we possess enough agency to criticize and attempt to prevent things like bullying - or any other action that is perceived to be wrong by societal consensus. You may as well say it's valid to kill and eat your neighbour's pet dog because you're hungry or beat the shit out of somebody in the competition to sleep with a woman.