Today on the train I saw some bullies. Kids wouldn't let the quieter kid sit with them.
What I could see immediately in their eyes is the knowledge that they can just do that. There are no repercussions. There is nothing anybody can do. This works. The bully just lashing out because of his own issues is a myth. This is just how humans work and certain societies are able to mitigate the blow.
There is a social hierarchy, we reward those who enforce it and we respect those who create it - which is good (agency), even if they behave like assholes - which is bad.
I don't know where I'm going with this, but there are people who take what isn't theirs. Even just in the physical realm policing doesn't seem to work that well. There are just societies with more trust and thus less thievery.
> What I could see immediately in their eyes is the knowledge that they can just do that. There are no repercussions. There is nothing anybody can do. This works. The bully just lashing out because of his own issues is a myth.
These two things are not mutually exclusive though. If you want to take your frustrations out on somebody else, you do it on people you can take them out on, not people you can’t.
And yeah, most of those little shits have issues. Just because someone is an asshole doesn’t mean they don’t have anxieties and insecurities that motivate their behavior.
I think that age was horrible, when you had no power to choose your own tribe of people. You got grouped together with people you didn't choose yourself, and what's worse, those people were kids who sometimes has no empathy whatsoever.
It really was the worst time in my life personally and I often felt like I just wanted to end my life.
Luckily I came through, and life as an adult is a lot easier. We still get grouped together with strangers at work, but there are unspoken rules how to behave as an adult that most adults actually follow. Also most adults have some degree of not wanting others to feel bad.
There are exceptions however. Some people are just mean.
Pretty similar youth for me. But one question I ask is whether my adulthood is easier because of the pain I experienced as a youth. Whether I can handle harder emotional situations now as a result. Not a reason to allow bullying, just that I feel fortunate to have been able to learn a lot of tough lessons as a child instead of as an adult.
I think what I mean is not even taking out frustrations. This behavior doesn't need an a priori frustration. That is the big issue.
I'm able to forgive a frustration. You cut me off, you have a bad day/parent in hospital - I'm able to live with that. That is in stoicism, radical acceptance etc. You do it just because - it's a different animal. "Just because" meaning, you take the power.
I'm finding it hard to discuss social hierarchies. They clearly exist. I suspect they have a much greater influence on many things, depression for example (seems to me like a "self own", making oneself lower in the hierarchy, maybe as a survival strategy, but coming with unintended consequences).
There is a strong argument that cooperative populations are more effective/efficient than non-cooperative.
Structures and processes that place a high value on all people and their many quirks instead of conformity to an arbitrary leader are likely to do better in most situations than ones that don’t.
Not sure that history would prove that out. Highly structured, militaristic colonial powers (Inca and Aztec, Mandarin Chinese, Vedic Indian, Persian, Egyptian, Roman, Western European) all had pretty good runs. Have there been societies that "place a high value on all people and their many quirks instead of conformity to an arbitrary leader" who have been dominant for spans of centuries? I can't think of any.
Being at the top of the social hierarchy in a cooperative environment is not necessarily valuable, probably not even pleasurable, at all. Because true cooperation can either exist without a top, when the experience is mostly p2p, or with a benevolent top painstakingly at the service of the entire community.
So if your commentary meant valuable as in dedicated to the point that the individuals at the top become shit sponges for everyone else and do die as saints or martyrs, then yes, it is very valuable.
That being said, it depends on where you put value in life.
Valuable how? I realize that altruism is an unpopular concept, but it exists nature and works quite well when civilization is placed under the greatest survival pressures.
Selfishness is a luxury humans indulge in because those pressures are quite weak in modern days.
Here's the question though, is it natural to abuse might? Yes, bullies might fear no consequences, but why do they even care about the existence of the other kids? What makes bullying pleasurable to them and preferable to staring out the window and watching the world go by
There is a power structure, and there are social hierarchies that ally themselves with the power structure. These social hierachies vary in formality and even in practical knowledge. Some are nothing but fads, quackery, and supersition.
And within these social hierarchies, there are people who seek rank and the preservation of the behaviours that make their badges of prestige important.
These are the bullies, the fanatics, the assholes.
I've read that in some countries bullying and workplace harassment are considered group dynamics, rather than the product of individual bullies which makes sense to me.
It seems to fit your example and I think it provides some useful frames for thinking about this and how to improve things.
People are going to "probe" you with some more or less controversial claims or comments and see how you will behave. This is part of the culture and is honestly tiring.
I would not call it "bullying" yet, but it is still a violent way to probe someone's character.
In my experience with organisations, it is the people with the most agency (i.e. leaders and their cliques) who set the standard for those group dynamics.
If you get bullied by your boss, you can count on others joining in.
I'm afraid this discription rests primarily on your understanding of bullying, and what it means to have would not let.
It's clearly implied in my understanding that the cool kids pushed him over however, and that you expect they were to let the kid sit. The interpretation still depends on the environment, and the details, because it is a legitimate concern in principle, that one might not want to associate with another, and it's left open whether the kid really wanted to sit with them or accomodate them with preferable seating arrangements, or frankly would rather stand than associate with them. In small terms it may be actually quite fair if such distension is communicated quickly anyway--same way that you don't elaborate nearly enough to reach an agreement with your conclusion unless the agreement was established prior to the conclusion.
I remember this incident from my 8th grade, this one kid was held back a year, because he failed.
He was a typical bully - harassed the kids and teachers, constantly got into trouble.
I was a small, skinny kid, the class joker, academically good and in most ways happy go lucky.
So, we are giving our tests, and this guy would sit behind me, and would constantly bug me to show the answers. I think, I complied a few times.
But one day, I just had it, told him that I would not help.
He said, there would be consequences.
He caught up with me in the hallway after the test, starts pushing me, there are a bunch of kids.
I've always had anger issues, and when pushed too far, I just blow up.I don't remember what happened, but all I know is at some point I was grappling with him, and next his head went straight into the concrete wall.
He just collapsed in a heap.
I disagree on the usage of agency here and the entire post really. Being an introvert SWE (70% of HN?) a lot solo consultants would be placed between quiet asshole and nice, but not often extroverted. Are these people low in agency? Is the traditional "nerd" low on agency? hardly.
agency per the article: "self-protection, self-assertion, separation, and isolation"
It is what it is. To paraphrase George Carlin: in any store, we can choose between dozens of different flavors of the same food item, but for some reason, we cannot affect any meaningful change through any of the choices given to us.
> The things that matter in this country have been reduced in choice, there are two political parties, there are a handful insurance companies, there are six or seven information centers.. but if you want a bagel there are 23 flavors. Because you have the illusion of choice!
Separation and isolation not in the sense that you are alone in your apartment, but in the sense that your thoughts and decisions are yours and not linked to or overridden by someone else’s.
The software engineer is notoriously low on agency.
Indeed. Comedy is usually frowned upon in here, but this article posted is golden. We're all some type of asshole. Definitively a dark eye opener for me.
I originally wanted to respond to say fashioning explanations of offensive language is just tongue-n-cheek and near click bait at best, and confusing at worst.
But if you have to write about offensive language, while ignoring its ambiguity and offensiveness, and taking as given the term is a legitimate type, and therefore legitimate topic of discussion, then this article is not the worst.
I belive such language is best kept in comedy clubs. That said, having grown up around working class people, the word is unavoidable. And people say it with such conviction, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt at some point that they know an asshole when the see one and that the designation has some utility.
Personally, I think I'd like this better if the graphic was accompanied by a scorecard, then you could score your interactions on public forums in a game of Who is the Biggest A$$#0le?
Does anyone think assholes could be defined by using the "D-Factor"? (dark trait factor) .. and why not getting used to the idea, whenever your IQ is tested your D-factor gets tested as well.....
Absolutely. Put a narcissistic sadistic macchiavellist in charge of people, and he will find ways to turn them against each other for fun, while turning a profit for himself by making everyone believe they are not fit for their job and are only allowed to be there by his grace. Essentially, mental slavery.
Edit: What was the downvote for?