What is the difference between a bully and someone who stands up for themselves?

[DaVinci]

First off I don't mean bully in a purely physical sense like the stereotypical schoolground variety, but more like a pattern of repeated behavior.

 

I find myself struggling with the idea that who I percieve is being a bully to me, and who I am defending myself against, probably feels exactly the same way about me. They feel like I am a bully and they are defending themselves. So who is right and who is wrong? Is there even a right and wrong?

 

So for example let's take person A and person B

 

A calls up B and asks for help building a shed. B agrees to come by on Saturday and help. A goes to the store and buys the material to construct the shed. Saturday rolls around and B is a no show. A calls B the next day and asks why they didn't show up and B says that they had something else important that was family related that they had to do that day. A tells B that they are mad at B for not showing up when they said they would. A feels like B is being disrespectful. B tells A that their family comes before A and is mad that A is mad at them. Both people feel like they are being disrespected. Both people feel like they are having to defend themselves from being disrespected. Is there any way of sorting this out? Are both people right? Both people wrong? One more right than the other?

[Stephen C]

This might be useful...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BksMmsrUXxk

[DaVinci]

This might be useful... 

 

Interesting video. He links to a lot of his other videos so I feel like I'm getting a small part of his overall picture. I also feel like, perhaps because I haven't seen all his videos, that some of his methods for diffusing a difference of opinion seem like they would not work. Like for example if someone broke their arm and I told them to seek medical attention I'm not sure that their reassurance that God was going to fix it would make my concern go away. I'm not sure being told let's agree to disagree would make me stop telling them to go the hospital. That is part of my problem with "power struggles" as he calls them. When rational people suddenly act irrational I get concerned.

[Wuzzums]

In the example you gave, I think that B is in the wrong because he is responsible for the choice he made (which is to help A out). There are several ways the situation can be diffused as you probably already realized (B would call A and explain he can't come, or A will see why B had his hands tied and won't get upset, etc).

 

But the more I think about it, the more I can find examples of this in reality of people willingly taking responsibility then acting as if others are are trying to take advantage of them.

[DaVinci]

In the example you gave, I think that B is in the wrong because he is responsible for the choice he made (which is to help A out). There are several ways the situation can be diffused as you probably already realized (B would call A and explain he can't come, or A will see why B had his hands tied and won't get upset, etc).

 

But the more I think about it, the more I can find examples of this in reality of people willingly taking responsibility then acting as if others are are trying to take advantage of them.

 

Can you explain what you mean by that?

[Marcus Clarke]

First off I don't mean bully in a purely physical sense like the stereotypical schoolground variety, but more like a pattern of repeated behavior.

 

I find myself struggling with the idea that who I percieve is being a bully to me, and who I am defending myself against, probably feels exactly the same way about me. They feel like I am a bully and they are defending themselves. So who is right and who is wrong? Is there even a right and wrong?

 

So for example let's take person A and person B

 

A calls up B and asks for help building a shed. B agrees to come by on Saturday and help. A goes to the store and buys the material to construct the shed. Saturday rolls around and B is a no show. A calls B the next day and asks why they didn't show up and B says that they had something else important that was family related that they had to do that day. A tells B that they are mad at B for not showing up when they said they would. A feels like B is being disrespectful. B tells A that their family comes before A and is mad that A is mad at them. Both people feel like they are being disrespected. Both people feel like they are having to defend themselves from being disrespected. Is there any way of sorting this out? Are both people right? Both people wrong? One more right than the other?

 

Does person A not trust person B?  If B says that they had an event happen that was more important that building a shed, then does A believe this statement, or not?  If A does not believe this statement, then why did A expect B to come by on Saturday?  If A and B are friends, why is respect the goal, and not trust?  Why would A and B try to defend themselves against each other if they are friends?

 

Interesting video. He links to a lot of his other videos so I feel like I'm getting a small part of his overall picture. I also feel like, perhaps because I haven't seen all his videos, that some of his methods for diffusing a difference of opinion seem like they would not work. Like for example if someone broke their arm and I told them to seek medical attention I'm not sure that their reassurance that God was going to fix it would make my concern go away. I'm not sure being told let's agree to disagree would make me stop telling them to go the hospital. That is part of my problem with "power struggles" as he calls them. When rational people suddenly act irrational I get concerned.

 

I do not see how a reassurance that God was going to "fix" the arm would make any non-theist's concerns go away.  The "agree to disagree" is one of the series of recommendations that he had in the video.  It was not necessarily the solution for every "power struggle".  I am not certain that rational people just "suddenly" start to act irrational.  Your example shows an irrational person who continues to act irrational in thinking about how to fix their arm.

 

 

 

First off I don't mean bully in a purely physical sense like the stereotypical schoolground variety, but more like a pattern of repeated behavior.

 

I find myself struggling with the idea that who I percieve is being a bully to me, and who I am defending myself against, probably feels exactly the same way about me. They feel like I am a bully and they are defending themselves. So who is right and who is wrong? Is there even a right and wrong?

 

 

Do people tell you that you are a bully, or is that something that you describe yourself as?  Your statement makes me think that for you, either you think they are the bully, or they think you are the bully.  Why is the bully a constant?

[DaVinci]

Does person A not trust person B?  If B says that they had an event happen that was more important that building a shed, then does A believe this statement, or not?  If A does not believe this statement, then why did A expect B to come by on Saturday?  If A and B are friends, why is respect the goal, and not trust?  Why would A and B try to defend themselves against each other if they are friends?

 

 

I do not see how a reassurance that God was going to "fix" the arm would make any non-theist's concerns go away.  The "agree to disagree" is one of the series of recommendations that he had in the video.  It was not necessarily the solution for every "power struggle".  I am not certain that rational people just "suddenly" start to act irrational.  Your example shows an irrational person who continues to act irrational in thinking about how to fix their arm.

 

 

 

 

 

Do people tell you that you are a bully, or is that something that you describe yourself as?  Your statement makes me think that for you, either you think they are the bully, or they think you are the bully.  Why is the bully a constant?

 

The A/B example above is not exactly something that has happened to me but very similar situations like that have happened that I was involved in, and I have also watched similar situations unfold between two or more people where I was not directly involved in the events, but did witness them. So I have seen a pattern like the A/B one above occur multiple times where people on both sides are convinced that they are being mistreated, or disrespected.

 

To answer your questions about A/B, which I would base on similar situations, I would say that yes, A trusts that B will come over, and yes, A believes that B had something important come up, but B not showing up, and not calling to say where he was, and A having to be the one to call the next day and find out where B was indicates that B might lack respect for A. As for the last question I would say A and B are trying to defend themselves to each other because both A and B are raising an issue of concern with the other that each other takes offense to because it seems like the concern being raised is unfounded. In this case B does not like that A is mad, and A does not like that there was no attempt at communication.

 

I would not describe myself as a bully. I was mercilessly bullied as a kid and so I've always tried to have a sense of compassion and understanding when it comes to other people because I don't want to do to anyone what was done to me. But sometimes when I defend myself from those who I feel are trying to take advantage of me I often times am monolithic in my response to them in an effort to counter them being monolithic to me. Because that is what a bully is right? Someone who does not negotiate but tells you what is going to happen, or what should happen and that you have no say so becasue they say so, and to get away from someone who does not wish to negotiate you might have to also be someone who does not negotiate. But this monolithic response can come across as being mean to someone who is convinced that they are right. So I sometimes wonder if responding the way I do, or the way I have seen others respond to similar situations is them being a bully who is just trying to get their way to the detrement of everyone else, or if they are just being harsh in an effort to defend themselves. It seems like the issue has a lot of gray areas.

[Slavik]

The A/B example above is not exactly something that has happened to me but very similar situations like that have happened that I was involved in, and I have also watched similar situations unfold between two or more people where I was not directly involved in the events, but did witness them. So I have seen a pattern like the A/B one above occur multiple times where people on both sides are convinced that they are being mistreated, or disrespected.

 

To answer your questions about A/B, which I would base on similar situations, I would say that yes, A trusts that B will come over, and yes, A believes that B had something important come up, but B not showing up, and not calling to say where he was, and A having to be the one to call the next day and find out where B was indicates that B might lack respect for A. As for the last question I would say A and B are trying to defend themselves to each other because both A and B are raising an issue of concern with the other that each other takes offense to because it seems like the concern being raised is unfounded. In this case B does not like that A is mad, and A does not like that there was no attempt at communication.

 

I would not describe myself as a bully. I was mercilessly bullied as a kid and so I've always tried to have a sense of compassion and understanding when it comes to other people because I don't want to do to anyone what was done to me. But sometimes when I defend myself from those who I feel are trying to take advantage of me I often times am monolithic in my response to them in an effort to counter them being monolithic to me. Because that is what a bully is right? Someone who does not negotiate but tells you what is going to happen, or what should happen and that you have no say so becasue they say so, and to get away from someone who does not wish to negotiate you might have to also be someone who does not negotiate. But this monolithic response can come across as being mean to someone who is convinced that they are right. So I sometimes wonder if responding the way I do, or the way I have seen others respond to similar situations is them being a bully who is just trying to get their way to the detrement of everyone else, or if they are just being harsh in an effort to defend themselves. It seems like the issue has a lot of gray areas.

Have you tried entereing "negotiating mode" ?  If you enter into that mode (taht is if the argument hasnt gotten out of hand yet), then try staying in the mode for as long as you can, if they respond by calming down and start talking to you with negotitaions in return, then you will know that the person you are talking to isnt a bully.  A negotiation mode is aknowledgment of other peoples feelings and frustrations.  See if that helps

[DaVinci]

Have you tried entereing "negotiating mode" ?  If you enter into that mode (taht is if the argument hasnt gotten out of hand yet), then try staying in the mode for as long as you can, if they respond by calming down and start talking to you with negotitaions in return, then you will know that the person you are talking to isnt a bully.  A negotiation mode is aknowledgment of other peoples feelings and frustrations.  See if that helps

I actually have tried negotiating with people when these types of situations arise and what I find is that they essentially don't want to negotiate. I can propose a dozen ways of everyone getting treated fairly but they just don't want to hear it. I can suggest that we do things a little differently and I am met with accusations of being an unrelenting a-hole.

[PatrickC]

A bully makes claims aginst another, based upon their unexplored feelings... A person who stands up for themselves, is merely making a claim based on the emprical evidence around them.

[Freedomain]

What is the difference between assault and self defense?

[Wuzzums]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

I can give examples from my own experience.

- guy starts a conversation with me, doesn't like where the conversation is heading and then he starts accusing me of wasting his time with stupid conversations

- exam session, we choose a date for the exam, the teacher proposes another date saying something like "I can't do your date because I have a life too, you know", this goes the other way around too

- friend takes his phone with him, his girlfriend keeps calling, he keeps complaining that the girlfriend keeps calling but he doesn't answer, nor does he text, nor does he shut the phone off

- or an instance I've seen in many versions, when someone complains that they aren't taken in account by another and when they are, they go on the attack with phrases like "stay out of my affairs" and such

 

Rule of thumb is, once you enter an agreement you're responsible for it.

[Marcus Clarke]

I would not describe myself as a bully. I was mercilessly bullied as a kid and so I've always tried to have a sense of compassion and understanding when it comes to other people because I don't want to do to anyone what was done to me. But sometimes when I defend myself from those who I feel are trying to take advantage of me I often times am monolithic in my response to them in an effort to counter them being monolithic to me. Because that is what a bully is right? Someone who does not negotiate but tells you what is going to happen, or what should happen and that you have no say so becasue they say so, and to get away from someone who does not wish to negotiate you might have to also be someone who does not negotiate. But this monolithic response can come across as being mean to someone who is convinced that they are right. So I sometimes wonder if responding the way I do, or the way I have seen others respond to similar situations is them being a bully who is just trying to get their way to the detrement of everyone else, or if they are just being harsh in an effort to defend themselves. It seems like the issue has a lot of gray areas.

 

Your defensive actions are not an offensive actions.  Defense is not offense.  If no one is on offense, there is no need for defense.  The offense might be tricking you into believing that you are also on offense so that you will self-attack and defeat yourself, and therefore the true offense wins while the true defense loses.

 

Would you mind giving a real-life referense with conversation examples where the other person is "monolithic to you" and you are "monolithic in your response".  Specifically, I am curious as to what dialogue is considered "monolithic".

[DaVinci]

Your defensive actions are not an offensive actions.  Defense is not offense.  If no one is on offense, there is no need for defense.  The offense might be tricking you into believing that you are also on offense so that you will self-attack and defeat yourself, and therefore the true offense wins while the true defense loses.

 

Would you mind giving a real-life referense with conversation examples where the other person is "monolithic to you" and you are "monolithic in your response".  Specifically, I am curious as to what dialogue is considered "monolithic".

 

Sure: I'll try and give you an example of a conversation I've been witness to before that should illustrate what I'm talking about:

 

Man A: So did you remember to bring the script for the movie we are making.

Man B: Oh, sorry I forgot.

Man A: What do you mean you forgot?

Man B: Sorry I just got distracted when I was leaving the house

Man A: Well, you knew we were meeting tonight right?

Man B: Yeah, I just had to put my kid to bed before I came over. It just slipped my mind

Man A: I mean you know we are trying to be serious here right?

Man B: Yeah, I just... y'know I had to take care of my kid

Man A: Cause you know we are making a movie right?

etc etc.

 

So then later

Man A: Can you bellieve he didn't bring his script?

Me: He said he forgot it.

Man A: Yeah, but we are trying to be serious.

Me: Sometimes people forget stuff.

Man A: I spend a lot of time trying to make this thing work

Me: Okay, meaning what?

Man A: Meaning he should put in the same effort as me.

Me: Yeah, I get that, but do you want to get mad about it or do you want to be productive?

Man A: What?

Me: You could have asked him where his script was and when he said he forgot it just remind him to bring it and hand him an extra copy.

Man A: (laughs)

Me: What?

Man A: Nothing.

Me:You don't agree?

Man A: He should just put in as much work as me. I work hard, he should too.

Me: What if he does not want to contribute that much?

Man A: Then he is free to leave.

Me:So just because he doesn't want to contribute the same percentage as you he should leave? That's not cool.

etc etc

 

Basically this conversation, or this type of conversation (which I won't bore you with anymore) ends up devolving into Man A screaming about how he is right and Man A is unwilling to compromise because he feels like he is in charge, and that he is right. The conversation ends up with lots of NO! I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT! type responses coming from Man A which are what I see as "monolithic" these uncompromising, no room for negotiation, get out of my house type responses which have to be countered with "You're being an unreasonable douche" type of monolithic responses from me.

[Marcus Clarke]

Basically this conversation, or this type of conversation (which I won't bore you with anymore) ends up devolving into Man A screaming about how he is right and Man A is unwilling to compromise because he feels like he is in charge, and that he is right. The conversation ends up with lots of NO! I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT! type responses coming from Man A which are what I see as "monolithic" these uncompromising, no room for negotiation, get out of my house type responses which have to be countered with "You're being an unreasonable douche" type of monolithic responses from me.

 

 

If someone is irrationally screaming at you, then they being abusive/bullying.  In my opinion, I do not think that you should ever respond with words like "douche" or other adjectives that are used to invite other people to attack you harder.  I would recommend saying that a specific statement or set of words is not reasonable because of whatever your reasoned opinions are.

 

Honestly, I still do not understand how one goes from the "etc etc" to him screaming at you.

 

However, I would like to point out that the second conversation you seem to serve Man A instead of having a more fruitful discussion because you are not addressing his to definition of the words in the discussion.  He says "Yeah, but we are trying to be serious.", and then you say "Sometimes people forget stuff.".  The word "serious" is defined as the objective of the event, and it is subjectively defined.  So, when you pass that up, he believes that you agree that the Man B is not "serious".  However, "Man B" is obviously serious with his kids if he tucks them into bed at night, and them comes over to work on the movie.  He says "I spend a lot of time trying to make this thing work", then you say "Okay, meaning what?".  If I heard that statement, then I would probably reaffirm that I agree that he does work hard to make this work.  Mirroring that opinion does not mean that other people are not working hard.  It is just recognizing his input into the project.  You said "meaning what" almost in a dismissive way.  Then you say "Yeah, I get that, but do you want to get mad about it or do you want to be productive?".  Notice that you are telling him that he is becoming "mad" without him telling you first.  I know that there is body language, tone, and what not.  However, that person may not actually be becoming mad in their mind.  So, to accuse someone of becoming "mad" might actually trigger them to become more so that way.  It may be better to allow them to express that feeling to you first, or pose it as a question.  That may be why he says "What?" right after that sentence.  I also just wanted to point out that earlier in the conversation you said "I get that" after he said "he should put in the same effort as me", but then near the end, you say "So just because he doesn't want to contribute the same percentage as you he should leave? That's not cool.", which contradicts your earlier statement.  I am only pointing this out so that it can be thought about.

 

I still feel like I am missing the point where it goes from a discussion to someone being a bully.  You say that the discussion devolves, but even at the point where the conversation was at in the end, the destination of the conversation was not necessarily to end with the use of power.  I am also curious as to why you define bullying as non-negotiation followed by the use of power.  It seems to me that bullying would only require the use of power (verbal or physical abuse) against you.  So, the non-negotiation is annoying, but not necessary for the bully.  I mean, he might let you pick your poison, right?

[DaVinci]

If someone is irrationally screaming at you, then they being abusive/bullying.  In my opinion, I do not think that you should ever respond with words like "douche" or other adjectives that are used to invite other people to attack you harder.  I would recommend saying that a specific statement or set of words is not reasonable because of whatever your reasoned opinions are.

 

Honestly, I still do not understand how one goes from the "etc etc" to him screaming at you.

 

However, I would like to point out that the second conversation you seem to serve Man A instead of having a more fruitful discussion because you are not addressing his to definition of the words in the discussion.  He says "Yeah, but we are trying to be serious.", and then you say "Sometimes people forget stuff.".  The word "serious" is defined as the objective of the event, and it is subjectively defined.  So, when you pass that up, he believes that you agree that the Man B is not "serious".  However, "Man B" is obviously serious with his kids if he tucks them into bed at night, and them comes over to work on the movie.  He says "I spend a lot of time trying to make this thing work", then you say "Okay, meaning what?".  If I heard that statement, then I would probably reaffirm that I agree that he does work hard to make this work.  Mirroring that opinion does not mean that other people are not working hard.  It is just recognizing his input into the project.  You said "meaning what" almost in a dismissive way.  Then you say "Yeah, I get that, but do you want to get mad about it or do you want to be productive?".  Notice that you are telling him that he is becoming "mad" without him telling you first.  I know that there is body language, tone, and what not.  However, that person may not actually be becoming mad in their mind.  So, to accuse someone of becoming "mad" might actually trigger them to become more so that way.  It may be better to allow them to express that feeling to you first, or pose it as a question.  That may be why he says "What?" right after that sentence.  I also just wanted to point out that earlier in the conversation you said "I get that" after he said "he should put in the same effort as me", but then near the end, you say "So just because he doesn't want to contribute the same percentage as you he should leave? That's not cool.", which contradicts your earlier statement.  I am only pointing this out so that it can be thought about.

 

I still feel like I am missing the point where it goes from a discussion to someone being a bully.  You say that the discussion devolves, but even at the point where the conversation was at in the end, the destination of the conversation was not necessarily to end with the use of power.  I am also curious as to why you define bullying as non-negotiation followed by the use of power.  It seems to me that bullying would only require the use of power (verbal or physical abuse) against you.  So, the non-negotiation is annoying, but not necessary for the bully.  I mean, he might let you pick your poison, right?

 

If someone is irrationally screaming at you, then they being abusive/bullying.  In my opinion, I do not think that you should ever respond with words like "douche" or other adjectives that are used to invite other people to attack you harder.  I would recommend saying that a specific statement or set of words is not reasonable because of whatever your reasoned opinions are.

 

Honestly, I still do not understand how one goes from the "etc etc" to him screaming at you.

 

However, I would like to point out that the second conversation you seem to serve Man A instead of having a more fruitful discussion because you are not addressing his to definition of the words in the discussion.  He says "Yeah, but we are trying to be serious.", and then you say "Sometimes people forget stuff.".  The word "serious" is defined as the objective of the event, and it is subjectively defined.  So, when you pass that up, he believes that you agree that the Man B is not "serious".  However, "Man B" is obviously serious with his kids if he tucks them into bed at night, and them comes over to work on the movie.  He says "I spend a lot of time trying to make this thing work", then you say "Okay, meaning what?".  If I heard that statement, then I would probably reaffirm that I agree that he does work hard to make this work.  Mirroring that opinion does not mean that other people are not working hard.  It is just recognizing his input into the project.  You said "meaning what" almost in a dismissive way.  Then you say "Yeah, I get that, but do you want to get mad about it or do you want to be productive?".  Notice that you are telling him that he is becoming "mad" without him telling you first.  I know that there is body language, tone, and what not.  However, that person may not actually be becoming mad in their mind.  So, to accuse someone of becoming "mad" might actually trigger them to become more so that way.  It may be better to allow them to express that feeling to you first, or pose it as a question.  That may be why he says "What?" right after that sentence.  I also just wanted to point out that earlier in the conversation you said "I get that" after he said "he should put in the same effort as me", but then near the end, you say "So just because he doesn't want to contribute the same percentage as you he should leave? That's not cool.", which contradicts your earlier statement.  I am only pointing this out so that it can be thought about.

 

I still feel like I am missing the point where it goes from a discussion to someone being a bully.  You say that the discussion devolves, but even at the point where the conversation was at in the end, the destination of the conversation was not necessarily to end with the use of power.  I am also curious as to why you define bullying as non-negotiation followed by the use of power.  It seems to me that bullying would only require the use of power (verbal or physical abuse) against you.  So, the non-negotiation is annoying, but not necessary for the bully.  I mean, he might let you pick your poison, right?

 

This conversation was a while ago so I can't say that everything I typed was verbatim what was said, and yes, it excludes body language and other things I can't provide here that would give more context. So most of your points were adressed in the more drawn out conversation we had.

 

Also, in terms of me saying that Man A is mad, you say I should let him express that first, but he has expressed it by bringing up the subject with me to vent about how it makes him mad. So I am not triggering anything he has not already triggered himself. That is why I ask him if he would rather be mad or be productive, and that being mad is not solving anything or furthering the process.

 

It goes from a discussion to bullying when I propose a compromise like "Tell him you want him to remember his script, and then give him a spare one to keep productivity flowing" that way he is expressing his feeling of frustration that scripts were forgotten, but he is also fostering an environment where people feel like more than just a tool having orders barked at them and the group can continue to work without a five minute halt to listen to someone being berated. This potential compromise is then met with "No, I'm still going to do what I did before." Then if I continue to try to show from experience how that type of behavior is not conducive to a creative environment I get completely shut down with the same type of responses "No, I'm not going to do that." Only louder and much more agressive.

 

I mean, I'm not sure I can explain it better than this. This one conversation is also not an isolated incident. It is more like one stitch in a pattern that would provide much more context.

[Marcus Clarke]

It goes from a discussion to bullying when I propose a compromise like "Tell him you want him to remember his script, and then give him a spare one to keep productivity flowing" that way he is expressing his feeling of frustration that scripts were forgotten, but he is also fostering an environment where people feel like more than just a tool having orders barked at them and the group can continue to work without a five minute halt to listen to someone being berated. This potential compromise is then met with "No, I'm still going to do what I did before." Then if I continue to try to show from experience how that type of behavior is not conducive to a creative environment I get completely shut down with the same type of responses "No, I'm not going to do that." Only louder and much more agressive.

 

I mean, I'm not sure I can explain it better than this. This one conversation is also not an isolated incident. It is more like one stitch in a pattern that would provide much more context.

 

If this guy is just beyond reason for you and the group, why did you/do you stay around him?  Is there money involved, or is it a voluntary project?  Is there any want to get a group discussion without him to potentially remove him from the project?  There is a certain point where if you try to be kind to people, and they simple continue to be mean or possibly want to be tyrannical in this case, that you just ostracise them (preferably with anyone who agrees with your reasoning for the ostracism).  Back to the original topic, I do not see how you can be a bully by defending yourself against a bully.  However, you still give them false justification by using swear words, and even giving them false justification is a sour thing.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

A bully makes claims aginst another, based upon their unexplored feelings... A person who stands up for themselves, is merely making a claim based on the emprical evidence around them.

 

 

Does that mean a person who is making a claim based on ALL evidences cannot be someone who stands up for themselves?

[DaVinci]

If this guy is just beyond reason for you and the group, why did you/do you stay around him?  Is there money involved, or is it a voluntary project?  Is there any want to get a group discussion without him to potentially remove him from the project?  There is a certain point where if you try to be kind to people, and they simple continue to be mean or possibly want to be tyrannical in this case, that you just ostracise them (preferably with anyone who agrees with your reasoning for the ostracism).  Back to the original topic, I do not see how you can be a bully by defending yourself against a bully.  However, you still give them false justification by using swear words, and even giving them false justification is a sour thing.

In reagrds to this situation some people in the group did take off. They saw how he was and the kind of environment he created and so they gave a clearly made up reason why they couldn't participate anymore as to avoid conflict and then they split. Of course after this he called the person who left a jerk, and made fun of him, and talked about how he does not understand why people can't just help others out.

 

I've had this thought before too. It's the same idea presented in my original post. Why do people say they are going to help only to bail on the project with little to no warning? When I see situations like this one above where someone is clearly being beligerent and it makes people take off, I have to wonder if people have ever percieved me in the same light even when I might have thought I was just stanidng up for myself.

[Marcus Clarke]

I've had this thought before too. It's the same idea presented in my original post. Why do people say they are going to help only to bail on the project with little to no warning? When I see situations like this one above where someone is clearly being beligerent and it makes people take off, I have to wonder if people have ever percieved me in the same light even when I might have thought I was just stanidng up for myself.

 

Is there a particular instance where you think that this may have happened?  In your history with your parents, did they ever make you feel like you were in a position where you were standing up for yourself, but they told you or made you feel like you were being a bully?

[DaVinci]

Is there a particular instance where you think that this may have happened?  In your history with your parents, did they ever make you feel like you were in a position where you were standing up for yourself, but they told you or made you feel like you were being a bully?

 

There are several instances. I'm not sure I can do them justice by typing them out due to how much backstory and context one instance would require, but the short answer is yes. I would say my parents and my brother, and some of my friends have all made me question whether me standing up for myself against them is me being a bully. I say this because of the reaction I get from them in regards to me defending myself, and it being a similar reaction to how I know I have reacted to actual bullies in the past.

[Marcus Clarke]

There are several instances. I'm not sure I can do them justice by typing them out due to how much backstory and context one instance would require, but the short answer is yes. I would say my parents and my brother, and some of my friends have all made me question whether me standing up for myself against them is me being a bully. I say this because of the reaction I get from them in regards to me defending myself, and it being a similar reaction to how I know I have reacted to actual bullies in the past.

 

I think that you should ask yourself if you are speaking the truth.  If you have reviewed the facts in your mind, and find that they are true, then you are probably speaking truth.  When people speak truth to abusers who continue to try to hide or falsify the truth, then the abuser may try to make emotional arguments against you.  There is a possibility that they know that you are afraid of being a bully, and then use that knowledge along with false statements to trick you into thinking that you are a bully, and then they disable your ability continue to conversation.

 

I do also want to remind you that empathy is one of the most important traits to work on as you think about these things.  Try to really understand the other person's perspective, even if that person is someone that is trying to claim that you are bullying them.  Never call them a name, never say a "bad word" (sorry for the subjective nature of the phrase) against the person, and never stray away from the argument (it can be a very emotional experience).  The purpose of speaking truth is not to cause pain, but to identify the damage caused by lies and to try to prevent future damage from happening.

 

A true conversation will not end with people yelling at each other and calling each other names, even when they get hard to process and emotional.  If you never allow yourself the mirror the bait of escalation by the other party, then it is going to be that much harder for the other party to escalate it.  They want you "to start it" so they can be allowed "to finish it".

[DaVinci]

I think that you should ask yourself if you are speaking the truth.  If you have reviewed the facts in your mind, and find that they are true, then you are probably speaking truth.  When people speak truth to abusers who continue to try to hide or falsify the truth, then the abuser may try to make emotional arguments against you.  There is a possibility that they know that you are afraid of being a bully, and then use that knowledge along with false statements to trick you into thinking that you are a bully, and then they disable your ability continue to conversation.

 

I do also want to remind you that empathy is one of the most important traits to work on as you think about these things.  Try to really understand the other person's perspective, even if that person is someone that is trying to claim that you are bullying them.  Never call them a name, never say a "bad word" (sorry for the subjective nature of the phrase) against the person, and never stray away from the argument (it can be a very emotional experience).  The purpose of speaking truth is not to cause pain, but to identify the damage caused by lies and to try to prevent future damage from happening.

 

A true conversation will not end with people yelling at each other and calling each other names, even when they get hard to process and emotional.  If you never allow yourself the mirror the bait of escalation by the other party, then it is going to be that much harder for the other party to escalate it.  They want you "to start it" so they can be allowed "to finish it".

 

I am always trying to understand the other person's point of view, and more importantly to me how they arrived at that point. However, the problem I have is that my understanding of them as a human being, to them, is an understanding that they can treat me however they wish. Like, a professor used to tell me "silence is understanding". Meaning if he would explain how to work through a problem and no one said anything he assumed they understood. So, it's sort of like that with people in these types of situations. Their behavior being met by my silence is seen as an understanding that their behavior is okay when this is not the case. My understanding is thus being used against me. 

 

As for using bad words, I understand what you are saying, but I also think this plays into what I just said about understanding. I've found with these types of people if I "understand" them they continue to have the same opinion, and I continue to have to be on the defensive around them because my understanding has led them to believe they can treat others how they want. If on the other hand I flat out tell them that their opinion is BS, or that they are being an ass to me or someone else I notice they actually back down from their opinion if just by a little. I think certain people thrive on others being nice and understanding and so sometimes you just have to call someone out and maybe curse at them to get a point across.

[LanceD]

I really dislike the use of "disrespected" as a reason for anything. The word has no universal meaning and has absolutely no value when discussing moral principles. This allows the word to be used as an excuse for shitty people to behave badly and aggress upon those around them with a supposed justification.

 

The reality of the situation you proposed is really quite simple. A promise was made and broken. This is understandable due to emergency circumstances arising. However the wrong doing occurred when the person who made the commitment did not contact the other person to inform them they would not show. While this would have been understandable 150 years ago it's 2014 and communication is instant and can be done without effort.

 

All it would have taken was a simple text message sent to notify the other party you would not be there. The fact this was not done shows you do not value their time, which also means you do not value them. So what person A is calling disrespect is actually the realization that person B is selfish and cares little for their relationship. While what person B calls disrespect is simply them trying to defend their wrong doing and justify their continued denial of the truth.

[Marcus Clarke]

If on the other hand I flat out tell them that their opinion is BS, or that they are being an ass to me or someone else I notice they actually back down from their opinion if just by a little. I think certain people thrive on others being nice and understanding and so sometimes you just have to call someone out and maybe curse at them to get a point across.

 

 

Perhaps you are dealing with people where in their childhood, the way that their parents would "make them understand" things is to yell at them, curse at them, or called them terrible names in order to control what they were doing.  So, you are trying to reason with them, but since they were not reasoned with as a child and have not experienced an awakening from that abusive method, when you start talking to them like that, you are actually bringing them back into their childhood comfort zone.  This is not great or ideal, but it is good to know when you are trying to figure out how to understand what other people are experiencing.