Bullying and debates

[Joesox]

Blueface wrote this to me on another thread (forumosa.com/3/viewtopic.php?t=1 … &start=255)

[quote=“blueface666”]
No doubt school recess was hell for you…the big boys would pull down your pants and all the girls would laugh.[/quote]Although I wasn’t quite sure what to make of this I wanted to take it is an opportunity to briefly describe my experience of school bullying and a couple of other experiences which have shaped my opinions.

Like a lot of children I was bullied at school. I remember once being hung by my tie until my face went purple (so I am told). No big deal. Then, as now, I had a hot temper and would occasionally be stung into action. I remember one guy was winding me up with encouragement from others. I got mad and cracked him one on the jaw. He didn’t bother me again. Later, I found out that he had some problems at home.

These things go in cycles; the bullies become the bullied. One Monday morning a load of guys were laughing at that guy. It turned out that they’d all been to a party where they drank a lot. That guy had got so drunk that he decided to get his todger out and practise self-satisfaction right in the middle of the dance floor. He was shunned for the rest of the year. Kids are cruel.

A particularly good teacher was my English teacher. I fear that he may have died by now; he was past retiring age then and he smoked like a chimney. He showed me how to put together a coherent argument. He taught me that in academic writing, it didn’t matter what you wrote as long as it was internally coherent. Unfortunately, he carried this attitude through to real life. We were talking once about something far too deep and he looked at me and said; ‘You know, it’s all just a game’. I felt that that was a tragedy. Soft sod that I am, I think I cried myself to sleep once over that.

In another example that praise and criticism go in cycles, when we got to the 6th form (I think that’s the same as Senior High), one or two of my former tormentors began to hold the erroneous belief that I was in some way ‘cool’ because I wasn’t too bothered what other people thought, dressed a bit differently (embarrassing regalia of teenage years- burn those cowboy boots!) and liked The Doors.

The sixth form was my introduction to the world of formal debating. At first it seemed quite interesting - a chance to talk about the things you really thought and felt. I rapidly became disillusioned when it turned out that the main point was winning the debate and that it didn’t really matter whether you believed the words that were coming out of your mouth or not; indeed sometimes people deliberately adopted objectionable or unreasonable opinions in order to ‘practise their debating skills’ or maybe just to wind people up. I think the ideal might have floated around at that point that when one became good at debating, one could use one’s skills as a power for good in society. Unfortunately, it was the habit of bending the facts and changing one’s opinion to suit one’s argument that really stuck, and good seemed to go out the window.

[mod_lang]

Life is more like highschool than college. College is an unreal world where your academic success is judged primarily upon your merits and ability to do the work. Once you step outside, you discover that in real life your ability and hard work are only a fraction of the story. Real life is a popularity contest where those with the best connections win. It doesn’t matter whether you’re more competent than the other guy, what matters is which one of you has the more useful set of friends. The Chinese call it guanxi; Americans call it the good old boy network. Good looks and a charming social personality are the standard by which most other people judge you in the real world - it isn’t fair if you’re not attractive and don’t dress sharp (gotta look the part, image is everything) and are socially awkward, but them’s the breaks. You’re a “geek”. You weren’t born with the genetic advantages of good breeding, family connections, and looks that the successful people generally have. Shy people don’t make it; aggressive type-As do. A fast tongue and flattery will get you places quiet competence never will. “Life isn’t fair and deal with it,” some like to smugly pontificate.

[Tigerman]

joesax,

I’m not at all certain what the point of your ramble was… but I do have a few comments, nonetheless:

[quote=“joesax”]Blueface wrote this to me on another thread …

[quote=“blueface666”]
No doubt school recess was hell for you…the big boys would pull down your pants and all the girls would laugh.[/quote][/quote]

Yes, he did write that to you. But only in response to your question directed at Fred Smith inquiring whether or not people frequently regard him as a “patronizing shit”.

@joesax

Although I wasn’t quite sure what to make of this…

I think its obvious. Rather than address the substance of Fred Smith’s posts, you decided to comment on him personally. Blueface simply repaid the favor. What’s so difficult about this?

@joesax

A particularly good teacher was my English teacher … He showed me how to put together a coherent argument. He taught me that in academic writing, it didn’t matter what you wrote as long as it was internally coherent. … We were talking once about something far too deep and he looked at me and said; ‘You know, it’s all just a game’. I felt that that was a tragedy. Soft sod that I am, I think I cried myself to sleep once over that.

Do you believe him?

@joesax

The sixth form was my introduction to the world of formal debating. At first it seemed quite interesting - a chance to talk about the things you really thought and felt. I rapidly became disillusioned when it turned out that the main point was winning the debate and that it didn’t really matter whether you believed the words that were coming out of your mouth or not

Of course, in dabate as a competition, that is the goal. You’re not implying now that when people debate important matters outside of the “debate club” that they don’t believe what they are arguing, are you? Or do you only believe that of the people who hold opinions different from your own?

@joesax

I think the ideal might have floated around at that point that when one became good at debating, one could use one’s skills as a power for good in society. Unfortunately, it was the habit of bending the facts and changing one’s opinion to suit one’s argument that really stuck, and good seemed to go out the window.

Is that you’re interpretation of debate? If yes, you shouldn’t project it onto other people.

[fred_smith]

Joesax:

What the hell is with all this passive aggressive whining. You jumped on me fair enough. Someone jumped on you because you opened that door and now this whining about when I was in the sixth grade? Who the hell cares. We were talking about another issue and how all of this is relevant is beyond my understanding. Maybe I’m saying this because I have not had my coffee yet but jeez…

[Tigerman]

@joesax

Like a lot of children I was bullied at school. I remember once being hung by my tie until my face went purple (so I am told). No big deal. Then, as now, I had a hot temper and would occasionally be stung into action. I remember one guy was winding me up with encouragement from others. I got mad and cracked him one on the jaw. He didn’t bother me again. Later, I found out that he had some problems at home.

@Jiving joesax

Likes some lot o’ chilluns I wuz bullied at school. I rememba’ once bein’ hung by mah tie until mah face went purple (down low, so’s I be told). No big-ass deal. Den, as now, I had some hot tempa’ an’ would occasional-like be stung into acshun. No diggety. I rememba’ one guy wuz windin’ me down wit’ encouragement from otha’s. I gots mad an’ cracked him one on da jaw. He didn’t botha’ me no mo’. Lata’, I found out dat he had some kinda’ bugs-up-da-ass at crib

[Joesox]

[quote=“fred smith”]Joesax:

What the hell is with all this passive aggressive whining. You jumped on me fair enough. Someone jumped on you because you opened that door and now this whining about when I was in the sixth grade? Who the hell cares. We were talking about another issue and how all of this is relevant is beyond my understanding. Maybe I’m saying this because I have not had my coffee yet but jeez… [/quote]
I don’t know what the sixth grade is. Like I wrote, the sixth form (equivalent to Senior High in the States) was quite different from previous experiences. And those experiences happened to a load of kids. And I thought Blueface’s ‘bullying’ post to me was odd but thought at least I would use it to point out the cyclical nature of popularity, and the fickleness of opinions. And does mentioning one incident then saying ‘no big deal’ consitute whining?

The relevance
a) to Germany is nil, which is why this is a separate thread
b) to Blueface’s post is as described above
c) to debating is as described in the original post. Perhaps I should just add that I saw striking similarities between those schoolboy debates and the ones here.

[Joesox]

@tigerman

I think its obvious. Rather than address the substance of Fred Smith’s posts, you decided to comment on him personally. Blueface simply repaid the favor. What’s so difficult about this?

It just seemed a rather odd and unimaginative way of insulting somebody.

@tigerman

[quote=“joesax”]A particularly good teacher was my English teacher … He showed me how to put together a coherent argument. He taught me that in academic writing, it didn’t matter what you wrote as long as it was internally coherent. … We were talking once about something far too deep and he looked at me and said; ‘You know, it’s all just a game’. I felt that that was a tragedy. Soft sod that I am, I think I cried myself to sleep once over that.

Do you believe him?[/quote]
That you can even ask this shows that you either have not tried to understand any of my posts on this and other forums, or that you are, as I pointed out to you, so differently-minded that you are incapable of understanding where I’m coming from. (Not that, as I pointed out in another thread, I consider myself ‘special’; I’m ordinary but I’m just going on what I’ve seen so far of your misapprehensions of what I’ve written).

I’m not engaging in any verbal trickery here; what I say is what I mean. I felt that it was a tragedy that he regarded the whole of life as a game. Of course, various aspects of life can seem like one, but to hold such a nihilistic view overall is very sad.

@tigerman

[quote=“joesax”]The sixth form was my introduction to the world of formal debating. At first it seemed quite interesting - a chance to talk about the things you really thought and felt. I rapidly became disillusioned when it turned out that the main point was winning the debate and that it didn’t really matter whether you believed the words that were coming out of your mouth or not

Of course, in dabate as a competition, that is the goal. You’re not implying now that when people debate important matters outside of the “debate club” that they don’t believe what they are arguing, are you? Or do you only believe that of the people who hold opinions different from your own?
[/quote]
I’m not ‘implying’ anything. What I say is what I mean. People start off with all sorts of good intentions and opinions, but once locked into the adverserial framework have a tendency to lose intellectual integrity. Of course they believe their opinions; they are the justification for their argument!

@tigerman

[quote=“joesax”]I think the ideal might have floated around at that point that when one became good at debating, one could use one’s skills as a power for good in society. Unfortunately, it was the habit of bending the facts and changing one’s opinion to suit one’s argument that really stuck, and good seemed to go out the window.

Is that you’re interpretation of debate? If yes, you shouldn’t project it onto other people.[/quote]
Like I said, there can be good debates, (and better discussions). It’s just that there are pitfalls in the system. You, for one, have remained rather clearer of them than have others, which is to be admired.

[Joesox]

@tigerman

Lata’, I found out dat he had some kinda’ bugs-up-da-ass at crib

I quite like the new Joesax. He certainly comes up with some vivid imagery.

[imyourbiggestfan]

[quote=“joe sax”] [Don

[Cold_Front]

Hahaha! For some people, there’s nothing worse than using their own words and letting them stand without comment.

[Joesox]

I’m quite disappointed by that attempted character assassination. Bring on Gerbil!

(By the way, if you were trying to say something about perceived inconsistency, I suggest that you go back and read the context of those statements rather than scanning for bits you could use in a post. As Gerbil proved so much more eloquently, you can pick out bits from any poster, even the most rational, and make them seem like raving gibberish.)

[fred_smith]

I swear Joesax must be a troll. There is no way that this can be a serious discussion. It is such a caricature of the liberal, leftwing, touchy feely, psychobabble, neoMarxist that if I did not know better I would credit blueface with pulling a fast one on us.

Signing off on this debate
freddy

[Joesox]

[quote=“fred smith”]I swear Joesax must be a troll. There is no way that this can be a serious discussion. It is such a caricature of the liberal, leftwing, touchy feely, psychobabble, neoMarxist that if I did not know better I would credit blueface with pulling a fast one on us.

Signing off on this debate
freddy[/quote]

I’m not any kind of a Marxist, let alone a neo-one. I can’t tempt you with ‘discussion’ of my slightly more conservative viewpoints, as mentioned in the other thread?

Trip-trap, trip-trap, over the bridge…

[Tigerman]

joesax,

You seem like a real nice guy, and I say that with complete sincerity.

However, the reason, I think, that some of us are giving you flak now is that your criticisms seem completely nonsensical and inappropriate to us.

You entered into a discussion in which Party A (Mesheel) was making unsupportable statements which Party B (the facsists group) was calling on her to defend.

Party A has made personal attacks part of her debate style. So did Party B. So what? No, its not pretty when ad hominem attacks replace rational substantiated attacks against arguments, but its really no big deal, and it isn’t nearly as one-sided as I think you make it out to be.

I’d love to discuss this matter with Mesheel… but she doesn’t want to reply to our questions.

If you want to give debate pointers, you should be advising Mesheel that debate is not made impossible by personal attack, but rather is made impossible when one party refuses to rebut or otherwise reply to the opposing person’s statements/questions.

[Cold_Front]

I completely agree with Tigerman’s points.

[Joesox]

[quote=“tigerman”]joesax,

You seem like a real nice guy, and I say that with complete sincerity.[/quote]I have always thought the same about you.

[quote=“tigerman”]You entered into a discussion in which Party A (Mesheel) was making unsupportable statements which Party B (the facsists group) was calling on her to defend.[/quote]I take this opportunity to reiterate what others have said; that ‘fascist’ is a misleading label applied by left-leaners to anything right of their position. When Alien talked about the ‘four pillars of fascism’, sure, I had a chortle, but I did feel it was imprecise language.

[quote=“tigerman”]Party A has made personal attacks part of her debate style. So did Party B. So what? No, its not pretty when ad hominem attacks replace rational substantiated attacks against arguments, but its really no big deal, and it isn’t nearly as one-sided as I think you make it out to be.[/quote]And party C (me) jumped in and did the same. You are quite right. When looking back through that thread I concentrated on the posts of said pillars and looked over some return fire coming from party A.

[quote=“tigerman”]I’d love to discuss this matter with Mesheel… but she doesn’t want to reply to our questions.

If you want to give debate pointers, you should be advising Mesheel that debate is not made impossible by personal attack, but rather is made impossible when one party refuses to rebut or otherwise reply to the opposing person’s statements/questions.[/quote]What I would do in Mesheel’s shoes is to attempt to answer your questions civilly and sincerely and then, if still in irreconcilable disagreement or if it seemed others were not really listening, I would bow out with dignity. I can’t speak for Mesheel, though and it seems she has indicated that she does not want to continue in that debate.

I stand by my statements regarding my concerns about adversarial debating and attachment to political groups or parties. It is hard to retain integrity in that environment. I’ve made my point, though and unless anyone wants to discuss it further with me I shall let it lie.

If entering discussion, I would hope that my writing would be addressed in a reflective way and that irrelevant questions as to my motivation or meaningless stereotypes of my character could be left out of it. I wouldn’t stop discussion on account of the latter, but if absolutely no-one was responding to my posts in a constructive way I would be out of there.

I will try to avoid writing anything in anger. The last couple of days have shown me again that it doesn’t have good results.

On an optimistic note, from my personal point of view I am happy to see that most people here seem to have a genuine belief in life, try to follow some kind of moral framework and have concern for others. I don’t think there are any nihilists.

[Lord_Lucan]

I have a couple of friends who spent some time in the litigation department of a major City law firm in London. Even though they were all professional lawyers, and their clients professional bankers, and it was all someone else’s money, they said that despite all the years of legal training it was impossible not to get worked up and upset at the constant fighting. So they left litigation.

[MaPoSquid]

[quote=“tigerman”]joesax,

You seem like a real nice guy, and I say that with complete sincerity.

However, the reason, I think, that some of us are giving you flak now is that your criticisms seem completely nonsensical and inappropriate to us.

You entered into a discussion in which Party A (Mesheel) was making unsupportable statements which Party B (the facsists group) was calling on her to defend.

Party A has made personal attacks part of her debate style. So did Party B. So what? No, its not pretty when ad hominem attacks replace rational substantiated attacks against arguments, but its really no big deal, and it isn’t nearly as one-sided as I think you make it out to be.

I’d love to discuss this matter with Mesheel… but she doesn’t want to reply to our questions.

If you want to give debate pointers, you should be advising Mesheel that debate is not made impossible by personal attack, but rather is made impossible when one party refuses to rebut or otherwise reply to the opposing person’s statements/questions.[/quote]

[quote=“joesax”]If entering discussion, I would hope that my writing would be addressed in a reflective way and that irrelevant questions as to my motivation or meaningless stereotypes of my character could be left out of it. I wouldn’t stop discussion on account of the latter, but if absolutely no-one was responding to my posts in a constructive way I would be out of there.
[/quote]
Motivation is important. I just figured you were hoping to get laid – Mesheel did mention large breasts a few times, after all.

(What can I say, my (ex?)girlfriend has 34DD’s. )

[fred_smith]

Just a point of clarification Mapodofu:

You did jump on me quite hard for calling Arab women fat and suggesting they might be smelly. Are your comments with regard to Mesheel’s breasts above perhaps equally as unsuitable? I am not jumping on you but I would like to find a point of consistency here.

freddy

[Joesox]

@hexuan

I have a couple of friends who spent some time in the litigation department of a major City law firm in London. Even though they were all professional lawyers, and their clients professional bankers, and it was all someone else’s money, they said that despite all the years of legal training it was impossible not to get worked up and upset at the constant fighting. So they left litigation.

Interesting. I have one company law solicitor friend. She’s quite new to it but she seems quite tough, so hopefully she’ll be happy there for a while. I imagine that you have to treat it a bit like a game to stay uninvolved, but it seems from your friends’ experience that it can get to you all the same. Are they still in law? Are they happier now?

Another solicitor I know works in family law and she feels that most of the time she’s helping people, so she’s happy with her job. Another is a legal aid defence solicitor and is happy doing that.

An interesting experience I had was working for some time as an administrative officer in employment tribunals. These are one of the more ‘friendly’ forms of the adversarial legal system.

A case is brought by an ‘applicant’ (most commonly a current or former employee) against a ‘respondent’ (most commonly their current or former employer). Both parties have a choice of legal representatives, which I characterise as follows:

1 Self-representation; often this was enough if the case was simple. The tribunal themselves would ask questions to bring out the relevant legal points on which they based their decision.

2 Representation by a volunteer worker from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (a government-sponsored voluntary organsisation). Often this was excellent and the CAB worker had a good knowledge of the necessary law. Plus this sort of representation was free!

3 Representation by a solicitor; this was of similar quality to CAB representation but of course cost a lot of money.

4 If a large amount of money or a big organisation’s reputation was at stake, barristers (a kind of super lawyer) would become involved, acting on the instructions of a solicitor. In this kind of case, it was most likely that both sides would have a barrister. It was quite something to watch them in action- like a courtroom drama in the same room as you. They would bring out fine legal points, often based on case-law, to show the tribunal what they should consider. These, of all cases, were the ones farthest removed from the principles of ‘natural justice’, yet of course a developed, mature legal system needs this level of operation. I imagine that they regarded Industrial Tribunals as a little light relief from their regular work although of course they still did a completely professional and focussed job.

5 Representation by an officer of a Trade Union; this was often the worst, worse at times than self-representation. They seemed to show little interest in or knowledge of legal principles and instead relied on the use of rhetoric to attempt to achieve their result.