←back to thread

175 points PaulHoule | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.232s | 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. 77pt77 ◴[] No.42161709[source]
> I would guess it's a combination of "nobody sees the first hit"

This is an excuse. Not a reason.

Based only on people's status and the way they look, certain affordances are made.

The bullies are effectively permitted to bully.

The bullied prevented from fighting back.

The zero tolerance is the excuse (not reason) used to implement that.

This is trivially tested by reversing the roles.

If the bullied becomes the bully, the punishment is not reversed.