It was my first day of kindergarten and as I walked in the front gate, I discovered something about myself I never knew. I am colored - and it is a bad thing. I also heard a word that I had never heard before as well, it started with N. I was four years of age and up until that point, I had apparently been around a very different kind of community, one that was of many colors, but one that didn't give a crap about it. From that point on and for the next decade or so, my new community, the general public, was not quite as cosmopolitan in their thinking.
It is funny that past the age of 13 or 14, I didn't experience that kind of running commentary on how I looked, even though I went to high school with some of the same people that were in that kindergarten playground. People generally grow up and start to understand the world through experience, rather than the opinions of their parents - not all, but most.
When I came to Finland, the social commentary picked up again for the first few years, but it was more laughable than anything else. It is hilarious when adults are trying to abuse you, but don't have the skill to outperform the words of children. If you hear something often enough, it disempowers the meaning and the intention - it becomes meaningless. Well, unless I would have identified with and defined myself by it. Not worth my time and effort - I was far too busy "stealing" Finnish women.
While as a young kid this was all kind of confronting and very difficult at times, as I grew, it all lost its power with me, desensitized me and as a result, had very little affect on me other than the social consequence of spending more time alone or with a very small circle of very good friends - One or two at primary school. This was a great time to do some observing of those in my peer group - though they wouldn't have considered me one of their peers at the time.
It is probably at that first walk through the gate at the kindergarten when I began observing people more closely, paying attention to not only what they say and do in the group, but also watching what they do when they think no one is paying attention. Happy people with sadness in their eyes, self-confident people watching others with jealousy, bullies who after the anger subsides, have a look of remorse.
It is interesting to see how people act and if they are acting with the intention to inflict what they think will cause pain on another and don't feel remorse of some kind, what does that mean? Sadistic, psychopathic? Anger triggered in the moment might cause a "temporary insanity" reaction - but looking to cause pain with premeditation is an altogether different scenario, a different personality.
Of course, acting with the intention to cause pain might not actually cause pain to the intended target, as the target would have to actually feel it. While one act might give a probability model to say "this should hurt" - if the target is not within the model, it might not hurt at all and could even be empowering - Kind of like the difference in reaction to trash talk on the court, some will be thrown off their game, some will up their game - some will leave the game altogether.
Generally, bullying behavior takes the stance that there is going to be a standing down in the face of it, that the fear of pain will be enough that it will not be challenged. But, that generally depends on who is being bullied and in general, it will be a larger picking on a smaller - as the risk is lower. Bullies don't take the "pick on someone your own size" approach, because that defeats the purpose - there is too much uncertainty and they do not want to risk losing, as losing will lower the fear felt by others - the fear validates them.
I don't mind what most people consider bullies as in my experience, I am stronger for have experienced them, than if I had lived a life protected from their kind. Some people want to remove them from the environment as they don't see the positives, just the negatives - and everything has both sides of the coin. Sure, some people are going to be damaged by bullying, but pretending that there aren't assholes in the world by removing them from view, doesn't fix the problem - it just lowers the toolkit and resiliency when they are finally met.
And, if you hang around online, you are going to meet bullies - most of which might have been the ones bullied when they themselves were young, but were damaged, not empowered by it. The screen offers protection through anonymity and physical altercation, it gives distance and hurdles to real-world, face to face interaction. As the saying goes, no one knows you are a dog on the internet.
People can be who they want to be online and this is brilliant, as many people try to be their best and get access to audiences that they wouldn't have earlier, doing things they would never have had the opportunity to do. The flip side is that there are always emotionally broken people who will take the opportunity to try and be what they couldn't be otherwise, controlling. The internet doesn't bring out the worst in people, people bring out the worst in themselves, they leak, just like how people show their true-selves through their actions and expressions when they think no one is watching.
Some do it for the attention through drama, a desire for relevancy - some do it because they are reminded of what was done to them when they had no defense against it - some do it because they are bullies from birth and that is their M.O. - some do it because they just like seeing people feel pain, even if it is imagined.
This is the interesting thing I think with some bullies online, as they think that what they do actually holds negative weighting in the mind of their target, they walk away thinking "they won" even if the target is unaffected or empowered by it. The anonymity that the internet provides them, shelters them from the feedback of those they intend to harm also - kind of like a kid teasing a gorilla at the zoo - one that could rip their arms off other than the piece of reinforced glass separating them.
Bullies will always get support online as the design of the social spaces is created for polarity and drama. No matter what bullies do, there will be some sub-section that will always come to justify and validate their behavior - even if the majority are against it. Because sub-set support is often vocal, the bully can feel that what they are doing has the support of more than it does. While some have the sense that bullies will finally get what is coming to them, because of the ability to always find a new corner of support, but I don't think that is the case, especially online.
In many cases online, the bully will actually get more support for their behavior, as is the case with some of the politicians that are getting voted into positions of power. Many people actually like bullies that they can support without revealing themselves publicly, as then they can proxy the inflicting of pain on others - they like seeing the people they are jealous of get hurt - but they don't want to be the one directly doing the hurting.
Like it or not, we live in a world that is more intent on bringing people down, than lifting people up. We can see this in the desire from some to move wealth from the rich to the poor by force, rather than help the poor become rich through education and training and the understanding of the way economies work - and through doing so, change the economy. Online it isn't necessarily money that people want to tear away, it is attention and prestige, reputation and admiration - they want to hide their own inadequacies by bringing others down to their level. Some who feel they have climbed up high, will knock others down who attempt to follow - they want to broadcast they should be admired and "you could be like me" in one aspect, while simultaneously breaking the rungs of the ladder behind them.
I wonder what would happen to the bullies in different circumstances, were roles and rankings shifted. Does the big bully at school behave similarly when surrounded by giants? Does the financial bully challenge those who are far wealthier? Bullying definitely seems to be a "trickle down" economy.
But, size alone doesn't make a bully - contrary to popular belief. There are plenty of healthy people out there who do not carry the same personality traits and use their various size factors in a much more productive and generative way - it is very possible that when these generators were young, they were the targets of bullying themselves and rather than be damaged, they ere empowered by the experience and perhaps the course of their life was fundamentally shifted, for the better.
All experiences have the potential for growth or retraction and it is up to us to negotiate life for ourselves. There is the Golden Rule approach however, that says we should treat people the way we ourselves would like to be treated. When this is mentioned to bullies though, they generally say - "try it" as they feel themselves secure in their position and untouchable - it speaks of their insecurity, not their strength - confidence when they feel they already have the upper hand.
Put people in unfamiliar environments that no longer reward the skills or care for the possessions one holds, and I wonder what happens to the confidence. Will the rich survive the life of the poor, the strong the life of the weak? Perhaps most of us will never know any other life conditions than the ones they are accustomed to, but perhaps we will - perhaps there will be those among us who have succeeded often but end up failing big - those who have failed often and end up succeeding. It is hard to say - but at the end of the day, we all do what we do and must live with ourselves until our own death - who and how we affect the people in our world is our responsibility and our legacy. Some might see success as inflicting maximum damage on their world, others maximum growth.
Push down - or lift up.
The past is filled with lessons that should be carried with, the baggage of the past can stay where it is. Not many travel light these days - which makes moving a very slow and difficult process.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
