←back to thread

175 points PaulHoule | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.422s | source
Show context
dijit ◴[] No.42159330[source]
I always found it really frustrating that a "zero tolerance" policy to bullying seemed to disproportionately affect people who eventually fight back.

I would guess it's a combination of "nobody sees the first hit" (since your attention is elsewhere, of course) and that bullies get quite good at testing boundaries and thus know how to avoid detection.

But, really, it's truly frustrating that as I child I was bullied relentlessly, and when I finally took my parents advice and stood my ground, I was expelled from school (due to zero tolerance). Those bullies continued to torment some other kids, of course.

This is far from an uncommon situation, over the years I've heard many more scenarios like this.

replies(19): >>42159377 #>>42159404 #>>42159417 #>>42159513 #>>42159744 #>>42159758 #>>42159765 #>>42159841 #>>42159927 #>>42159986 #>>42159997 #>>42160211 #>>42160264 #>>42161468 #>>42161637 #>>42161709 #>>42161804 #>>42162427 #>>42162701 #
1. martin-t ◴[] No.42159997[source]
> "nobody sees the first hit"

This perpetuates the myth that "real" bullying is physical and that psychological abuse is not bullying. Most of the bullying i've seen was psychological and partially material (usually taking things from the target or damaging them).

The only instances where i've seen physical bullying were in low grades where the children had not yet developed the mental capacity for creative verbal abuse or in higher grades where bullying was left unchecked for so long that the aggressors felt confident they could get away with it.

replies(1): >>42161969 #
2. sriram_malhar ◴[] No.42161969[source]
I have a feeling that OP didn't mean a physical hit. 'First provocation' is more like it.