what do you think is the best way to handle bullies?
Hard to say. There are so many different types of bully and so many types of victim, I’m pretty certain that no one specific approach method will work. For me, what worked was becoming a complete smartmouth and learning to be OK with getting my ass kicked for it. Once I got funny and confident and a little mean, they backed off. Mostly.
Here are some suggested parenting guidelines though:
Thou shalt not make it the child’s job to be bullied less.
Thou shalt not comfort the child and then fail to act on their complaint
Thou shalt not assume a simple answer can be found to fix the problem
Thou shalt not punish thy child for fighting back.
Teach thy child to fight dirty, but make them aware that fighting back does not always stop the harassment
Honor thy weird kid and teach them about social cues, even if only so they will understand that this is a bunch of monkey instinct shit and not a matter of personal worth or failure.
#no you don’t understand #she’s tsundere and he’s a nerd #they are so cute
Wait, I’m what? And he’s not a nerd, he’s a geek. Big difference.
Tsundere is a Japanese character development process that describes a person who is initially cold and even hostile towards another person before gradually showing his or her warm side over time. (wiki)
“When we took Shakespeare’s “Measure for Measure” into a maximum security woman’s prison on the West Side…there’s a scene there where a young woman is told by a very powerful official that “If you sleep with me, I will pardon your brother. And if you don’t sleep with me, I’ll execute him.” And he leaves the stage. And this character, Isabel, turned out to the audience and said: “To whom should I complain?” And a woman in the audience shouted: “The Police!” And then she looked right at that woman and said: “If I did relate this, who would believe me?” And the woman answered back, “No one, girl.” And it was astonishing because not only was it an amazing sense of connection between the audience and the actress, but you also realized that this was a kind of an historical lesson in theater reception. That’s what must have happened at The Globe. These soliloquies were not simply monologues that people spoke, they were call and response to the audience. And you realized that vibrancy, that that sense of connectedness is not only what makes theater great in prisons, it’s what makes theater great, period.”—Oskar Eustis on ArtBeat Nation (he told the same story on Charlie Rose)
“Older boys often asked me to teach them “some bad words in your language.” At first, I politely refused. My refusal merely increased their determination, so I solved the problem by teaching them phrases like ‘man kharam’, which means “I’m an idiot”. I told them that what I was teaching them was so nasty that they would have to promise never to repeat it to anyone. They would then spend all of recess running around yelling, “I’m an idiot! I’m an idiot!” I never told them the truth. I figured someday, somebody would.”—Firoozeh Dumas, Funny in Farsi: A Memoir of Growing Up Iranian in America (via mahakavi)
i legitimately do not understand how people can respond to "people i don't know act like i'm doing things wrong and it makes me anxious" with "good" and see that as a just response. i mean, i understand the rationalization that goes on, but it doesn't seem like something that is implementable in practice.
Some people are pretty well-off. Some people are pretty badly off. This is inequality, and that’s generally regarded as bad because we are egalitarians. So a lot of people want to fix the inequality. There’s two basic ways to fix the inequality (which can be combined):
Make the worse-off people better-off.
Make the better-off people worse-off.
People who are focused on the inequality might simply conclude that both of these are valid, and that since they lead towards more equality, both of them are good. But wait. What do I mean, “focused on the inequality”?
Another way of looking at things might be: Some people are pretty badly off. This is suffering, and should be regarded as bad because people have inherent value and we should try to achieve situations in which there is less suffering. Someone who’s focused on the suffering as the problem, rather than the inequality, will regard the first path as good, and the second as not-as-good, because the second is actually making things worse overall rather than better.
In general, nearly everything that stays focused on determining whether we should be jealous of other people, and doesn’t result in an immediate “no” answer, is going to produce toxic results.
The protagonists of post-Enlightenment relativism and perspectivism claim that if the Enlightenment conceptions of truth and rationality cannot be sustained, theirs is the only possible alternative.
Post-Enlightenment relativism and perspectivism are thus the negative counterpart of the Enlightenment, its inverted mirror-image. Where the Enlightenment invoked the arguments of Kant or Bentham, such post-Enlightenment theorists invoke Nietzsche’s attacks upon Kant and Bentham. It is therefore not surprising that what was invisible to the thinkers of the Enlightenment should be equally invisible to those post-modernist relativists and perspectivists who take themselves to be the enemies of the Enlightenment, while in fact being to a large and unacknowledged degree its heirs.
”—Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (via ayjay)
#as requested by specialhell #I have no regrets #and no apology to make for that last one #If you have more throw them in!! #dorothy l sayers #pacific rim #if you’re wondering about their piloting backstory I’d say peter was basically LETS GET IN THE GIANT ROBOT #but Harriet was all ‘um my last copilot bailed out on me mid drift and I had to run solo combat for 27 goddamn minutes and these scars ache when it rains #so I see your point but no thanks’ #but they keep having these conversations full of non sequiturs and finishing each other’s sentences anyway #and peter’s just like BUT MY DARLING WE ARE DRIFT COMPATIBLE LIKE THE KIND THAT CAN BE SEEN FROM SPACE #and Harriet’s like yep that’s the point - you’d have a ringside seat to my brain mess and vice versa #two sets of exposed nerves would just make a scary seasick drift and nope nope and nope #but we all know where this is going #if you guessed killing monsters and blasting Bach in the connpod you’d be right
Our lives are deeply connected—we are never uninvolved in the lives of others. What I have done and what I have not done both effect the lives of the whole world. A child dies on the other side of the world. I may have had no direct hand in the death, and yet I cannot excuse myself as if I have no share in what happens everywhere. The world is as we make it.
“High school, it seems, has changed. It has become competitive. Young men and women — 13 to 18 years old — must work more or less tirelessly to ensure their spot at a college deemed worthy to them and their families. So rather than living their adolescent lives — lives brimming with desires and vitality, with vim, vigor, and brewing lust — these kids are working at old age homes, cramming for tests, popping Adderall just to make the literal and proverbial grade. And for what? So they can go to a school that puts them in debt for the rest of their lives. School has become a great vehicle of capitalism: it quashes the revolution implicit in adolescence while simultaneously fomenting perpetual indebtedness.”—Daniel Coffeen (via crocettis)
“The fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the body and blood of Christ. There is no sentence of Holy Scripture which saith that we cannot by this sacrament be made partakers of his body and blood except they be first contained in the sacrament, or the sacrament converted into them. “This is my body,” and “this is my blood,” being words of promise, sith we all agree that by the sacrament Christ doth really and truly in us perform his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions whether by consubstantiation, or else by transubstantiation the sacrament itself be first possessed with Christ, or no? A thing which no way can either further or hinder us howsoever it stand, because our participation of Christ in this sacrament dependeth on the co-operation of his omnipotent power which maketh it his body and blood to us, whether with change or without alteration of the element such as they imagine we need not greatly to care nor inquire.”—Richard Hooker on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, from his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (Book V.67.6)
I was re-reading TLG the other day when I came across the part where Artemis finds out that Mulch is planning on stealing his paintings. And what I found hilarious is that all he complains about is the damp. It’s like he’s annoyed but can’t actually justify being annoyed without being hypocritical and it just tickles me that the moment he finds something he can take the high road with he’s determined to take that high road and complain about it.