Bully calls news anchor fat, news anchor destroys him on live tv

[caseymoz]

70. Zimmerman is under indictment

I understand your point, but there's something wrong with how you've reasoned it when your example could also be my example. You might try to argue he wouldn't have been indicted if Trayvon Martin hadn't died, and that would be true. However, if the laws had been applied fairly to Zimmerman under those conditions, yes, he would have ended up indicted for assault. Just because something is a crime doesn't necessarily mean anybody gets charged for it, and that's the problem the Zimmerman case underlines.

I realize also, he hasn't been convicted yet, but indictment is what would normally happen at this phase in the judicial process. At least it's going to trial.

I've already said, if you read everything I wrote, that if it threatens your livelihood, if it's something that you can't leave, can't escape day-to-day without taking a hit to your income, it's then harassment which is bullying. If you're boss is harassing you, insulting you, and so on, it's bullying. We're in agreement here. So, no other discussion on it is necessary.

What you describe on DU, however, is not bullying. I'd call it aggravation, especially when people have an Ignore option. Why didn't these members just put them on Ignore? In my experience, that puts and end to the name-calling pretty thoroughly. You ought to suggest that. Plus, they could always drop a note to the administrators if they feel singled out. It might work. They just had a major banishment today. Under your definition, BTW, what EarlG did might be considered the supreme bully tactic, but not under my definition. I mean, isn't it the biggest bully maneuver to keep you out of the schoolyard completely?

I'm sorry, hard arguing, name-calling, baiting, belittling, etc. those are cyber-aggravations and trolling, not bullying. When there's document dropping; real world threats, veiled or otherwise; character defamation; hacking; identity theft; spoofing: those are bullying. What you describe going on here isn't.

If what you describe is bullying, free speech itself is a doomed concept. We might as well not even pretend we have it in any capacity.

For the people who left DU due cyber-aggravation, does it occur to you that maybe they did it because they decided-- as this kept happening-- maybe, this community wasn't a good match for their POV? That kind of decision isn't made from bullying.

Bullying isn't when you're merely irritated or fed up. Bullying is when you're terrified, too. I doubt any of the people left out of terror. Except, perhaps, for a few who were paranoid, and/or afraid of most things.

We're simply opposed to each other if your definition encompasses trolling or cyber-aggravations now that I've made the distinctions explicit.

PS: the standard I've given in no way implies that bullying is rare.