NationStates Jolt Archive

So do I, and I'm a teacher. Unfortunately, the world is not always fair and just, and I don't think kids should be made to pay that price--a price it seems most adults on here aren't willing to pay themselves.

Meh, I was bullied in school, so I do have an idea of what they are going through... From about 4th grade until 10th grade I got beaten-up almost daily, and yes I did on occaission skip school to avoid it.
That is what I'm basing my opinion of "gay-friendly" schools not being necessary on. The problem I see with not having these schools is that the tools that are in place to prevent (cut down on) these incidents are obviously not working like they should.

I've been bullied in school before, both physical violence, teasing, etc. I can think of about one occasion where fighting back proved the best course of action. On another, I fought back, and ended up on the floor being kicked. That didn't succeed so well.

On the other hand, there was a later incident with the same guy, where I just shrugged off a punch to the back of the head, and walked away. He never bothered me again.

And yes, the school did respond where it was needed. But I never had it particularly bad. I always had friends. I never suffered a fairly orchestrated campaign of harassment, or was bullied particularly viciously. Things were generally tolerable, but occasionally painful.

Even then, there were still times where I rather feared going to school that day, or skipped off sick to get away from someone for a little. And had I faced the sort of harassment I possibly would have if I had been openly gay, I sure as heck would have appreciated not having to skulk in fear, or stand up, but to go to a school where that wasn't an issue.

For everyone who says we should just send the bullies somewhere else:

I don't know where you went to high school, but the homophobes made up about 80% of the population. Reporting homophobia to school officials got you a response like "Well, if gays hadn't made the wrong choice, they wouldn't be bullied, now would they?" If you fired all the school officials who said things like that, there wouldn't be a single person left running the high school I went to, or the high school my brother went to, or the high school my best friend went to. (That sentence does refer to 3 different high schools.) If you kicked out all the bullies, those high schools would be down to about 20% of their original population.

That's the state of affairs where a gay-friendly high school becomes a good idea. When almost all school administrators, and almost all students, refuse to be accepting of gays, the gay students need somewhere to go where they won't be harassed every single day, or where at least the people running the school will respond appropriately to homophobia. Fixing the other schools will take a long time, and there's no reason to tell gay students to just wait for things to get better when they might be waiting longer than they'll be in high school.

Great post, and fantastic nation name.

I find it interesting that people seem to miss the uniqueness sexuality and gender issues have. It has similarities to race, but it's not the same. For, with race, you can see quite obviously whether an individual is black or white. Racial discrimination is therefore easier to prevent, and any violence between groups can be classified as race related.

However, with sexuality and gender you introduce a new complexity; the fact that, in most cases, sexuality isn't visual. And many students picked on for being "faggots" may not actually be homosexuals. It's a phenomenon in high school culture: the invention of the "fag" identity, a fluid classification that can be applied to anyone. But for actual homosexual students, the discrimination that may be only a joke for their peers cuts far deeper, and cannot be so easily brushed off.

A alternative school for those individuals whose health, well being, and education are at risk is a perfectly reasonable solution. And, although this may not solve the overarching flaws and biases in society, it certainly seems more proactive than allowing violence to continue simply because it "exposes" straight students to some fictional "visual gay culture."

Also, I find fault in the assumption that the gay rights movement is progressing forward every day. We saw on election day that the gay rights movement is really the only movement NOT moving forward; far less forward progress than abortion rights, assisted suicide rights, and even marijuana users' rights. Media exposure does not necessarily reflect cultural progress.

Disingenuous equivocation. Prejudice against transgendered people.

First off, it's not 'disingeneous equivocation'...that is what the word means. You can't assign your own meanings to words however you like. Secondly, 'prejudice against' does not equal 'phobia of' which, at the risk of repeating myself means 'an irrational fear of_____' I'm prejudiced against people that wear plastic flip-flops and chicks that don't shave their legs, but it does not follow, given that prejudice, that I have an irrational fear of same.

The lesson that sometimes it's alright to seek refuge when you are being harassed does not amount to appeasement or cowardice.

That's not the lesson you're imparting though. What you're teaching them is that the proper way to deal with confrontation is to avoid it and/or run away from your problems, which will only cause them larger problems when they become adults and have actual responsibilities that can't be avoided by running off to a hidey hole.

You would have us believe that protecting people from particular exceptional problems suffered disproportionately by members of their group amounts to making them "soft."

You're right, I would have you believe it, because it's the truth. Fighting other people's battles for them makes them weak and dependent. It's much like how you appreciate something that you work and sacrifice for more than you do something that is just handed to you with no effort on your part.

No one should be harassed and abused. Oh, for a world where everything that should happen does happen. Well, until we find that magical fairy-land, we're stuck with this world, where people do get harrassed and abused, and if you want to 'do something', teach them to stand up for themselves, instead of hiding.

So the solution is, what? Cameras and full-time watchers of those cameras? That's going to be very costly.

Actually, I think cameras covering every inch of the school is a good idea. Sound is also important. Modern techniques of sound analysis work well if you have several microphones monitoring the same room.

That doesn't imply "full time watchers." It's a matter of having good evidence when a complaint is made -- then you go watch the video and analyze the sound.

(Toilets, the obvious exception, can be monitored by having individual cubicles opening from a surveilled area. Expensive, yes. Not prohibitively so.)

It'll end up seeming compulsory because down the line gay students will feel the need to attend this school because that's where the gays go and are happy! It does nothing to help the societal problems.

Sure we'll keep em separated, and the gay movement will stay right where it is because bigots will stay bigots since they aren't being reprimanded for their actions, nor being taught that gays are the same as themselves because of the fact the gays won't be in the same school after being chased out by violence. Thus letting the bigots win.

Once again, you're ignoring the fact that the Harvey Milk school has been run for the past 20 years and has 100 students.

Are you ACTUALLY going to say that the city of NY, which serves more than a million students, has ONLY 100 gay students? And that they ALL go to Harvey Milk?

Once again, you're ignoring the fact that the Harvey Milk school has been run for the past 20 years and has 100 students.

Are you ACTUALLY going to say that the city of NY, which serves more than a million students, has ONLY 100 gay students? And that they ALL go to Harvey Milk?

Sure, why not?
Other than it not being true...
;)

First off, it's not 'disingeneous equivocation'...that is what the word means. You can't assign your own meanings to words however you like. Secondly, 'prejudice against' does not equal 'phobia of' which, at the risk of repeating myself means 'an irrational fear of_____' I'm prejudiced against people that wear plastic flip-flops and chicks that don't shave their legs, but it does not follow, given that prejudice, that I have an irrational fear of same.

<snippety snip>

You are wrong about the meaning of the word, as can be rather clearly shown by any dictionary, such as this example (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia). You see, words in English can have a meaning distinct from what looking strictly at their roots would imply, in this case, meaning 'prejudice (fear or dislike of) homosexuals', not just 'irrational fear of things that are the same'.

Homophobic violence is thus exactly the correct term, and refers to violence motivated by prejudice against homosexuals. Your point fails.

It's not a matter of "feels discriminated against," it's a matter of extensive objective evidence of harassment and abuse.

The debate has moved on since then, to the very worthwhile examination of the nature of bullying itself.

Making my point even stronger. Removing the current targets of bullying will do nothing to stop those bullies targetting someone else. It's just like telling women not to go out at night dressed attractively -- yes that will protect them individually, but no it won't stop a rapist raping someone else.

I turn your own argument on you. Are you going to wait for evidence that bullying still occurs in a school before doing something to actively stop the bullying? Or don't you care about victims unless they are GLBT?

What you're teaching them is that the proper way to deal with confrontation is to avoid it and/or run away from your problems

Who said anything about "the" proper way?

A proper way, sometimes, yes--when it means that you have safety an security from people who are trying to harm you. So what?

Fighting other people's battles for them makes them weak and dependent.

It is no individual's "battle" to defend himself or herself against harassment and abuse. He or she is not responsible for it. It's our job as individuals to not engage in it, and our job as a society not to tolerate it.

There are some things that people are rightfully required to work for. But other things they are entitled to without effort--and being free of harassment and bullying is one of them.

Well, until we find that magical fairy-land, we're stuck with this world, where people do get harrassed and abused

...and where creating a "safe" high school for them has every likelihood of improving the situation.

Alright Katganistan, since I have the attitude of a bully, I'm going to ask you this question.

How many times have you seen acts of violence/harassment towards a gay student?

And for everyone else:

How many victims do you think there are of these acts of violence and assault in high schools? Do you think it outnumbers the blacks back during the civil rights era?

If you want equal rights in your society, why would you turn away and hide from said society? If you don't mingle in the society and DO become accepted by people, you can't suddenly expect to be treated as such after withdrawing from it. (I'm talking about in the longer run) You can't tell me that if gay friendly schools become more prolific, and there are more gay kids going to them and separating themselves from other kids, it would deepen the gap between the two. I strongly believe the reason I'm so against racism today is because I've grown up with different races (and sexualities) in school, and from a young age. Now if we went into high school and these kids I've grown up with suddenly move to another school because of that, for whatever reason, that sends the message that their sexuality is wrong, and they DO need to be separated from the rest of us. You're going to tell me that that's the right thing to do? Whether you like it or not, the main reason that there is less racism today is because of the fact that there are different minorities in schools, and they are accepted because of the fact that they're there and children realize that even though your skin is brown, you're the same as me.

The entire reason I brought up this thread is because I don't understand why this specific group of minorities should have to worry about going to a separate school in this day and age when homosexuality and same sex marriage is becoming more and more accepted every day. It goes against everything the people at the head of their movement have fought for; equal rights. Having "gay friendly" and "safe" schools does not help the child, or straight children, in believing that they're equal. You can't tell me that a gay child doesn't feel awkward about having to go to a separate school, even if it is to escape violence. Why should they? Why should they have to seek out another school? What's the matter with homeschooling if they do want to withdraw from society?

And I do not appreciate being called a bully or an indifferent apathetic sheep. IF I was so fucking apathetic, I wouldn't be posting this thread.
I want equal rights in society. I don't think a twelve year old needs to bear the brunt of assholes harassing them and beating them. Are you actually saying there are no assaults against homosexuals in this country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

Heinlinites also said "pain is weakness leaving the body" is not a silly cliche. Sorry, it is.


Pronunciation:
\ˈsi-lē\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
sil·li·er; sil·li·est
Etymology:
Middle English sely, silly happy, innocent, pitiable, feeble, from Old English sǣlig, from sǣl happiness; akin to Old High German sālig happy
Date:
14th century

1archaic : helpless , weak2 a: rustic , plain bobsolete : lowly in station : humble3 a: weak in intellect : foolish b: exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment <a very silly mistake> c: trifling , frivolous4: being stunned or dazed <scared silly> <knocked me silly>


cliche
One entry found.


Main Entry:
cli·ché Listen to the pronunciation of cliché
Variant(s):
also cli·che Listen to the pronunciation of cliche \klē-ˈshā, ˈklē-ˌ, kli-ˈ\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, literally, printer's stereotype, from past participle of clicher to stereotype, of imitative origin
Date:
1892

1: a trite phrase or expression ; also : the idea expressed by it2: a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation3: something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace
— cliché adjective


Explain how it is not a trite phrase, overly familiar or commonplace, or a hackneyed theme when it's been said every ten minutes in movies and tv.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pain+is+weakness+leaving+the+body

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pain+is+weakness+leaving+the+body&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=pain+is+

Now since these are students, and not Marines, and have not signed up to be abused, I think we owe them a little more than sneering that they should suck it up.

Removing the current targets of bullying will do nothing to stop those bullies targetting someone else.

You pretend that the choice of targets has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the victims, but that's clearly not true: the fact that LGBT students are disproportionately targeted indicates that it's not just abstract "bullying" that's responsible, but also social homophobia.

Give LGBT students other options, and you reduce the harm caused by that factor.

Are you going to wait for evidence that bullying still occurs in a school before doing something to actively stop the bullying?

No, I'm going to try to actively stop bullying, period.

Will I wait for actual evidence to actually create a new school for a particular group of victims? Yes. Is that a bad thing?

So you see high school education in a segregated environment as provision of a right to education into adulthood?

After which, they are are competent to defend their own rights, as adults, not to be intimidated or discriminated against for their sexuality.

Does the same principle apply to ALL students? Should any student who feels discriminated against by their school have the option of choosing some other school?
They can and do. So that's why I don't see why being allowed to transfer to Harvey Milk is a big deal.

So do I, and I'm a teacher. Unfortunately, the world is not always fair and just, and I don't think kids should be made to pay that price--a price it seems most adults on here aren't willing to pay themselves.
^ ^
This.

Explain how it is not a trite phrase, overly familiar or commonplace, or a hackneyed theme when it's been said every ten minutes in movies and tv.

The frequency of repetition of a philosophical statement or the media from which that repetition comes has nothing to do with the validity of said statement. How times have I had to hear 'Change you can believe in!' from how many TV and radio stations, and apparently that's the Four Gospels all rolled in one sound-bite.

Also, from your own source: "When a problem in life is emotionally painful you are emotionally scarred. But if you learn from it, the emotional scars will scab over and you will be a strong, more experienced and mature person because of it. When this occurs, as long as your emotional pain does not destroy you, it will eventually make you strong if you allow it to." What could be more germane to the topic at hand? If you wish to complain that a complex sentiment has been broken down into an easily remembered and motivational sentence, that is, of course, your prerogative. It does not make the sentiment any less true.

I think we owe them a little more than sneering that they should suck it up.

I agree. We owe it to them to teach them to defend themselves, and not to depend on 'somebody else' to fight their battles for them. As for 'sucking it up' I think that needs to be done by a great many people on a great many levels across the board.

You see, words in English can have a meaning distinct from what looking strictly at their roots would imply, in this case, meaning 'prejudice (fear or dislike of) homosexuals', not just 'irrational fear of things that are the same'.

Where your(we'll be charitable and call it a)'point' fails is in confusing and conflating, as so many people do these days, 'fear' and 'prejudice'. Nowhere in the definition of ''prejudice' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice) do we find 'fear.' Hostility, yes. Suspicion, yes. But not 'fear.' (The definition of which can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear) As I pointed out, being prejudiced against something does not automatically presuppose the concomitant existence of 'fear.' Also, as a tangential but related note, 'fear of' and 'dislike of' are not the same either. I may 'dislike' creamed spinach, but I do not 'fear' it.

As a grown up non-teacher, I did read the word as "passing one's exams."

Anyone who ever sat an exam knows that meaning of the word.

Now, it's fine that you used "passing" in some other sense. But it's not fine that you defend that meaning as the most obvious one.

I had never until this day heard "passing" used in the sense "passing as straight."

Tell me, do you use some euphemism when you inform a student that they have "not failed" an exam?
Despite your not having heard the term "passing" in that way, it has been used that way for quite some time.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Passing+for+white&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=passing+for+normal&aq=4&oq=passing+for

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=passing+for+black&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=passing+for+straight&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

lol :D
american high schools already have shootings, vandalism, etc

the only difference here is that the cause would be based on sexuality rather than race
Columbine was about race? Really?

I thought it was about bullying, actually....

Don't confine the LBGT community to a separate shcool, but the bigots. And I know just the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz) to put it...

Yeah that will go along way to solving the problem :rolleyes:

Excuse me, I have done so repeatedly. The adults in the school system need to do their jobs and keep the violence and harassment down and the violent bigots are the ones who need to be sent to special schools.
When you've taught in a school that has 4,000 students in it, let me know about how easy it is to spot it and eliminate it.

Columbine was about race? Really?

I thought it was about bullying, actually....

And even after that and numerous other school shootings Bullying has not been seriously addressed as a school problem.

They'll probably need a gay shooter to wipe out an entire public school before people actually take this issue as a serious problem.

Then again, they'll likely use that as an excuse to label all homosexuals as unstable.

They'll probably need a gay shooter to wipe out an entire public school before people actually take this issue as a serious problem.
A straight student who was taunted as "queer" by the Bible Club demonstrated his manhood by gunning them all down, in Paducah, Kentucky. That was some years back.

Bullies choose their victims based on perceptions of weakness. It's the same thing as walking down a city street at night-if you walk like you're afraid, the criminals will prey on you. If you look like you might NOT be afraid, that you MIGHT hurt them...they generally don't.

Going to the teacher does nothing. GOing to the Principal does nothing, and going to the Cops does nothing-the Bullies will wait until the Teacher, Principal, cops, or parents aren't looking.

On the other hand, if the Bully tries it and gets hurt, he'll back off-he fears his prey, and will leave them alone, he will also be more reluctant to prey on someone else. OTOH, you go to the "authority figure" and guess what? now he's got an extra reason to give you extra attention. Bullies and their victims know this, and bullies exploit it.
Right, because bullies don't run in packs, and they don't use weapons. They fight fair and they don't feel the need to get even with people who humiliate them.

When you've taught in a school that has 4,000 students in it, let me know about how easy it is to spot it and eliminate it.

I hope that doesn't mean the administrators give up?

Actually, I think cameras covering every inch of the school is a good idea. Sound is also important. Modern techniques of sound analysis work well if you have several microphones monitoring the same room.

That doesn't imply "full time watchers." It's a matter of having good evidence when a complaint is made -- then you go watch the video and analyze the sound.

(Toilets, the obvious exception, can be monitored by having individual cubicles opening from a surveilled area. Expensive, yes. Not prohibitively so.)
Big Brother is Watching You.

You guys talking about High School Musical Three?

I hope that doesn't mean the administrators give up?
No of course not. But Redwulf is making it sound like no one cares and no one is doing anything to stop it when they see it or its reported.

There is a huge difference between a school that has five hundred kids, and a school where there are four thousand. A more understandable analogy: which is easier to supervise: two five year olds, or twenty?

The frequency of repetition of a philosophical statement or the media from which that repetition comes has nothing to do with the validity of said statement. How times have I had to hear 'Change you can believe in!' from how many TV and radio stations, and apparently that's the Four Gospels all rolled in one sound-bite.

Also, from your own source: "When a problem in life is emotionally painful you are emotionally scarred. But if you learn from it, the emotional scars will scab over and you will be a strong, more experienced and mature person because of it. When this occurs, as long as your emotional pain does not destroy you, it will eventually make you strong if you allow it to." What could be more germane to the topic at hand? If you wish to complain that a complex sentiment has been broken down into an easily remembered and motivational sentence, that is, of course, your prerogative. It does not make the sentiment any less true.



I agree. We owe it to them to teach them to defend themselves, and not to depend on 'somebody else' to fight their battles for them. As for 'sucking it up' I think that needs to be done by a great many people on a great many levels across the board.If you want to live your life as per a commercial, that's your prerogative. Kids who do not choose to grunt "oo-rah" and choose a school based on their preference of safety, just as people choose a career, what neighborhood to live in, and where to go on vacation, do not need to be made to feel inferior or suffer assault simply because others choose to be violent or think they should just 'deal with it'.

When one does not like his job, he changes it. Is that running away from their problems?

When one's car proves more trouble than it's worth, one replaces it. Is that running away from their problems?

When one's employees prove incompetent and they don't improve despite warnings and more training, one fires them. Is that running away from a problem?

When you've taught in a school that has 4,000 students in it, let me know about how easy it is to spot it and eliminate it.

And how easy it is to get the bullies out of there. I've got bullies in kindergarten hitting and harassing children, and all I can do is send them to the office every time they hurt someone... then wait 15 minutes for them to show up again, "reformed" for about an hour, until they hurt someone else.

You guys talking about High School Musical Three?
Why don't you read the thread. Take your time. We'll wait for you.

You pretend that the choice of targets has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the victims, but that's clearly not true: the fact that LGBT students are disproportionately targeted indicates that it's not just abstract "bullying" that's responsible, but also social homophobia.

Well, you've studied homophobia far more than I have. Is it really a cause of violence in itself, or a convenient pretext for violence?

I suspect the latter -- that a convenient target for exclusion is what a bully needs, and if put in some environment where there are no targets which can be identified by their sexuality, they would manifest racial exclusion, or exclusion based on socio-economic status, or some other criterion to define themselves as legitimate by persecuting some minority.

Racism, sexism, homophobia -- they all have the same root cause. Cutting off the heads of a hydra is what we're doing.

But as I say, you have studied homophobia far more than I have. I'm prepared to be persuaded that it's a cause of violence and exclusion, not a pretext for it.


Give LGBT students other options, and you reduce the harm caused by that factor.

Can you explain "that factor"? Is there some special quality of sexuality which gives energy to abusive and exclusionary behaviour?

No, I'm going to try to actively stop bullying, period.

Excellent. I think we all agree on that ... with the possible exception of some posters who might be a bit pre-emptive in "fighting back." The gratification one bully gets from being treated with "respect" (compelled by fear, of course not real respect) is not justified by the misery they put others through, and it's not a viable strategy in the long run. It's a habit which will land them in jail eventually, and coming off the drug of false respect will leave them lacking the social skills of negotiation and compromise which non-bullies learn.

Bullying isn't good even for bullies. The only real dispute over it in this thread is how to reduce bullying behaviour, and whether it is even possible.

Will I wait for actual evidence to actually create a new school for a particular group of victims? Yes. Is that a bad thing?


If you are right (in the first paragraph) and bullying is actually reduced by the removal of targets to a safe environment, no that's not a bad thing.

But if you're wrong, and bullying continues to go on at the same rate with different targets, then yes it is harmful to wait for evidence. Someone is still being marginalized and made miserable, the "waiting for evidence" phase appears as a reduction of bullying thus reducing the impetus to combat it. That's treating the symptoms and masking the ailment.

Some kid is still taking the brunt of harassment, and there isn't even a "social battle" being fought. Not until the new targets are identified by "actual evidence."

Big Brother is Watching You.

Well, yes. In the novel 1984, Big Brother perpetuates that idea that He's always watching you. In reality, that's not possible and "Big Brother MIGHT be watching you" is closer to the truth.

If you want to live your life as per a commercial, that's your prerogative. Kids who do not choose to grunt "oo-rah" and choose a school based on their preference of safety, just as people choose a career, what neighborhood to live in, and where to go on vacation, do not need to be made to feel inferior or suffer assault simply because others choose to be violent or think they should just 'deal with it'.

When one does not like his job, he changes it. Is that running away from their problems?

When one's car proves more trouble than it's worth, one replaces it. Is that running away from their problems?

When one's employees prove incompetent and they don't improve despite warnings and more training, one fires them. Is that running away from a problem?

Look at his screen name. By that alone you can tell he's all for a militocratic society where perceived weakness is not tolerated and mental health issues are counted amongst that weakness. Hell, in the United States armed forces there are serious problems with mental health problems not being reported and treated properly, often because admission of such is stigmatized as personal weakness.

Why don't you read the thread. Take your time. We'll wait for you.

Relax. I know the story already its old knows. I was being a smart-ass. Please understand that.

No of course not. But Redwulf is making it sound like no one cares and no one is doing anything to stop it when they see it or its reported.

There is a huge difference between a school that has five hundred kids, and a school where there are four thousand. A more understandable analogy: which is easier to supervise: two five year olds, or twenty?

Well quite, although it does seem at times that some schools do not care. Sure they talk about how they want to stop it etc, but when it comes down to it they do very little (even when it is seen by the teacher). I think one of the problems is that they can't punish the bullies all too much, giving them lunchtime detention or mking them pick up 50 papers is nothing and doesn't actually solve the problem. Removing the bullies from the classroom and if it persists the school would be more effective. Giving them six of the best would work better too but people don't like that.

The those that don't seem to do much or even allow it to continue with a "please don't do that" (Yeah because that always works) end up getting something like this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bully-victim-sues-for-2m/2008/11/10/1226165448721.html

America can be worse because then the kids come in and shoot the place up.

*news

*news

Why did you bother to post that? It has no meaning I can see.

EDIT: Oh, I get it now. Hint: use the edit button. As long as you aren't fraudulent in the use of the Edit (removing substantial information or changing an opinion) it's well tolerated here.

I was being a smart-ass. Please understand that.
Trust me, I did.

Well quite, although it does seem at times that some schools do not care. Sure they talk about how they want to stop it etc, but when it comes down to it they do very little (even when it is seen by the teacher). I think one of the problems is that they can't punish the bullies all too much, giving them lunchtime detention or mking them pick up 50 papers is nothing and doesn't actually solve the problem. Removing the bullies from the classroom and if it persists the school would be more effective. Giving them six of the best would work better too but people don't like that.

The those that don't seem to do much or even allow it to continue with a "please don't do that" (Yeah because that always works) end up getting something like this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bully-victim-sues-for-2m/2008/11/10/1226165448721.html

America can be worse because then the kids come in and shoot the place up.
I call parents. I refer bullies to the assistant principal, to their guidance counselor, to the school psychologist, to the deans, to the principal. If the situation warrants it, my principal has called the cops and had students arrested for assault.

The perception that all schools turn a blind eye is not true -- and I know that there are many schools where little to nothing is done -- especially if the bully's parents are somehow powerful.

One more time. Not compulsory. Optional. School identifies as GLBT-friendly, that's all. Attend or don't attend per each student's choice. If I felt too threatened at my initial school to get any work done and was feeling more like staying home than going, I'd welcome a school whose stated mission was to be a safe place for someone like me.

The reality is that, right now, many students feel threatened and do indeed drop out or fail. Society never evolves fast enough for kids assaulted now.

Intangelon, you are operating illegally off of Great Mordifan's waters. Leave this area immediately, and proceed to international waters, or you will be fired upon by the GMRS Morganshire.

I suspect the latter -- that a convenient target for exclusion is what a bully needs, and if put in some environment where there are no targets which can be identified by their sexuality, they would manifest racial exclusion, or exclusion based on socio-economic status, or some other criterion to define themselves as legitimate by persecuting some minority.

But is there actually any evidence for this? Does, for instance, improving the position of certain minorities deemed "inferior" necessarily bring harm on the others, by depriving "bullies" of certain targets? Certainly our experience as a society is quite different: if anything, the struggles of minorities, in the long run, help and contribute to each other.

Indeed, while perhaps there are certain people who are "bullies" who will search for targets whatever you do, it may also be true that only in a climate of social intolerance towards certain particular groups do they actually have the social power to get away with what they do--and even if the bullies do manage to bully other people, being victimized by certain people is quite different from being surrounded by a climate of bigotry.

Racism, sexism, homophobia -- they all have the same root cause. Cutting off the heads of a hydra is what we're doing.

So anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic education are all useless? There is some innate human drive to cruelty that will just drive us on to new targets of hatred?

I find it hard to see how to square that suggestion with the trajectory of the past few decades.

Can you explain "that factor"? Is there some special quality of sexuality which gives energy to abusive and exclusionary behaviour?

Wrong question. Is there some "special quality" of bigotry "which gives energy to abusive and exclusionary behavior?" Of course.

If you are right (in the first paragraph) and bullying is actually reduced by the removal of targets to a safe environment, no that's not a bad thing.

But if you're wrong, and bullying continues to go on at the same rate with different targets, then yes it is harmful to wait for evidence.

I'm not sure what alternative you propose.

I call parents. I refer bullies to the assistant principal, to their guidance counselor, to the school psychologist, to the deans, to the principal. If the situation warrants it, my principal has called the cops and had students arrested for assault.

The perception that all schools turn a blind eye is not true -- and I know that there are many schools where little to nothing is done -- especially if the bully's parents are somehow powerful.

Well I am glad that you and your school do do something about it even calling in the cops that is good. I know not all schools turn a blind eye, but some do either because it is to hard or the teacher sides with the bully and just gives them some meaingless punishment that doesn't do much. But good to hear that your school does quite a bit.

Well quite, although it does seem at times that some schools do not care. Sure they talk about how they want to stop it etc, but when it comes down to it they do very little (even when it is seen by the teacher). I think one of the problems is that they can't punish the bullies all too much, giving them lunchtime detention or mking them pick up 50 papers is nothing and doesn't actually solve the problem. Removing the bullies from the classroom and if it persists the school would be more effective. Giving them six of the best would work better too but people don't like that.

I got "six cuts" once. It worked on me, but then so did shaming when that was used.
Other lads weren't affected by caning at all, it may even have made them act worse ... that macho thing of "I can take it."
There is no "one size fits all" punishment. I'm softening on the idea of corporal punishment -- perhaps it should be one of available methods, and used when nothing else works.


The those that don't seem to do much or even allow it to continue with a "please don't do that" (Yeah because that always works) end up getting something like this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bully-victim-sues-for-2m/2008/11/10/1226165448721.html

America can be worse because then the kids come in and shoot the place up.

Absolutely. No-one's a criminal until they commit the crime, so a criminal record check isn't enough protection. Gun control keeps guns out of the hands of children far more effectively than a "right to shoot back."

I think we should tighten up our own laws. It is still too easy to get a gun license, particularly in the country. I want stricter background checks and longer training for security work, and the traditional farmer's role as shooter made into a licensed profession. Close the gun clubs -- recreational shooting isn't a right.

Oh well, there's the thread blown to hell.

I want equal rights in society. I don't think a twelve year old needs to bear the brunt of assholes harassing them and beating them. Are you actually saying there are no assaults against homosexuals in this country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard


Wow. Beautiful, beautiful strawman. Do you care to point out where I said that? Or anywhere in this thread?

Also you totally avoided my question.

Did you even read that post?

Gun control keeps guns out of the hands of children far more effectively than a "right to shoot back."

I think we should tighten up our own laws. It is still too easy to get a gun license, particularly in the country. I want stricter background checks and longer training for security work, and the traditional farmer's role as shooter made into a licensed profession. Close the gun clubs -- recreational shooting isn't a right.

Oh well, there's the thread blown to hell.

Please, please, PLEASE tell me you are kidding.

*Walks away from thread*

Wow. Beautiful, beautiful strawman. Do you care to point out where I said that? Or anywhere in this thread?

Also you totally avoided my question.

Did you even read that post?
I did. You asked if I had witness assaults against gay students. Yes, in part. Since anecdotal evidence isn't worth the screen it's floating on, I linked to a real student murdered for his orientation, a story easily verifiable.

Now how in the world is that a strawman?

Do you want to quibble about NUMBERS of people being assaulted? Do you think that they should be thrown to the wolves because there aren't as MANY of them, in your opinion? Is because one group suffered a reason to let another suffer needlessly?

No of course not. But Redwulf is making it sound like no one cares and no one is doing anything to stop it when they see it or its reported.

Back when I was a student myself that was my exact experience. If it's bad enough that the victims feel the need to LEAVE THE SCHOOL and no one in charge is noticing it's pretty clearly the result of those in charge being bloody incompetent at their jobs.

And how easy it is to get the bullies out of there. I've got bullies in kindergarten hitting and harassing children, and all I can do is send them to the office every time they hurt someone... then wait 15 minutes for them to show up again, "reformed" for about an hour, until they hurt someone else.

This isn't a sign that you need to send the students they're hitting to a special class (i.e. sending gay students to Harvey Milk), it's a sign that your principle is incompetent.

Well, thank you for that well supported opinion.


Womens rights are the stupidest fucking thing ever thought up.


See how easy that is?

Ahh, I see you're stalking my posts again because you hate me. How mature.

It really is the stupidest thing to me. I wasn't getting into the debate, because that's my opinion about it. I could go into the debate if you really want, and I could explain every reason, but I'm sure you'd have a problem with that too.

I think it encourages segregation. I also think that the issue at hand is that we need to teach tolerance and understanding. By separating gay kids from straight ones, we're just making homosexuality even more "different". Lots of kids, especially at that age, are undecided on their sexuality and a lot of people experiment - I know I did. I know a girl who have been straight, then bi, then lesbian then bi again. She was only young and because had both gay AND straight friends and people around her, she experienced a normal healthy way of growing up and finding your sexuality. Very few people who question their sexuality know for sure during high school, and I also think that sending someone who thinks they're gay at 15 to a highschool for homosexuals would force them to think they have to be homosexual. Sexuality is very fluid and honestly, everyone struggles, and I believe that growing up facing those struggles is what makes you stronger. I believe that people who face intolerance will become those who fight against it.

I don't know -- how long 'til you move to San Francisco? Seriously, though, it's been a school for 20 years, and no bombs yet.

I never once thought it was an issue of being bombed. See my response to Knights of Bitchery.

Ahh, I see you're stalking my posts again because you hate me. How mature.

Try not to think so much of yourself sweety. You just happen to be posting a lot of bullshit in threads I have been frequenting on a regular basis.


It really is the stupidest thing to me. I wasn't getting into the debate, because that's my opinion about it. I could go into the debate if you really want, and I could explain every reason, but I'm sure you'd have a problem with that too.

I think it encourages segregation. I also think that the issue at hand is that we need to teach tolerance and understanding. By separating gay kids from straight ones, we're just making homosexuality even more "different". Lots of kids, especially at that age, are undecided on their sexuality and a lot of people experiment - I know I did. I know a girl who have been straight, then bi, then lesbian then bi again. She was only young and because had both gay AND straight friends and people around her, she experienced a normal healthy way of growing up and finding your sexuality. Very few people who question their sexuality know for sure during high school, and I also think that sending someone who thinks they're gay at 15 to a highschool for homosexuals would force them to think they have to be homosexual. Sexuality is very fluid and honestly, everyone struggles, and I believe that growing up facing those struggles is what makes you stronger. I believe that people who face intolerance will become those who fight against it.

Did you read the OP? Because nothing you bring up is really an issue. Its not segregation, because its voluntary. Those "undecided" kids are a non-issue, because the school will be for kids who know. And, just because youre not in school with them wont make them unaware of different people.

Are girls who go to all girl schools unaware of boys?

I never once thought it was an issue of being bombed. See my response to Knights of Bitchery.

Awww how mature.

Grow up sweety. Immaturity and pettiness is most unattractive.

Those "undecided" kids are a non-issue, because the school will be for kids who know.

Well, not necessarily. But why should "questioning" students not be allowed in? And why would it interfere with their normal development?

Well, not necessarily. But why should "questioning" students not be allowed in? And why would it interfere with their normal development?

They should be, and it wouldnt interfere. But the arguement that the schools are a bad idea because some kids are "questioning" (and I would be curious, Amor's personal story aside, how many kids dont know what they like to fuck by high school) is crock.

I did. You asked if I had witness assaults against gay students. Yes, in part. Since anecdotal evidence isn't worth the screen it's floating on, I linked to a real student murdered for his orientation, a story easily verifiable.

Now how in the world is that a strawman?


You know, the part where I apparently said there are no assaults on gays in this country.

Do you want to quibble about NUMBERS of people being assaulted? Do you think that they should be thrown to the wolves because there aren't as MANY of them, in your opinion? Is because one group suffered a reason to let another suffer needlessly?

Where am I putting these words on your screen?

They already essentially exist. Theyre called "private schools".

Uh, no. I went to a private school and it was very multicultural. Only about 1/3 of the girls were white Australians.

"private" is not publicly funded...and shouldn't be. EVER.

It's kind of different in Australia, but I agree.

Gee no shit.

Oh, and I get in trouble for being bitchy?

Regardless, your "does America really need white only schools?" is bullshit, because whites arent the target of discrimination and bullying just because theyre white. White kids dont usually have to be afraid for their safety at school for no other reason then who they are.

I personally believe America doesn't need black only schools. He was using "white" as an example.

Having just read the thread, I wonder at how many people on one side of the debate are arguing against a strawman. In case no-one has noticed, the article isn't talking about "Gay-only high-schools", or anything like that.

It's a school set up that is explicitly gay friendly, and is primarily intended for students who are being victimised enough they cannot effectively continue at their current school. It's not some sort of separate education system or anything like that.

Sounds like a bloody good idea to me.
*snip*.

Gay friendly is great, but Luna Amore explains exactly what I want to say:

Shouldn't all schools strive to be tolerant or gay friendly? Does the fact that there are specifically gay friendly schools let other schools off the hook in a way? It's as if they don't have to worry about improving their tolerance and disciplinary problems, because the bullied can just find another school that's doing what they aren't.

In life they're going to have to deal with the intolerance that they're facing in high-school. To divide kids up until they feel like they're among similar enough people doesn't make sense. When they graduate, they are still going to face the same bullying they hid from before. It makes far more sense to attack the root of the problem. The bully. Granted that takes the cooperation of the students, faculty, and parents, a lofty goal, but surely not unattainable.

I agree. And I also believe at the root of the problem is intolerance. Why does this bully hate gays? Has society bred it into him? Has his religion made him think this? Do his parents say bad things about homosexuals? It's intolerance that is at the core of the problem.

The problem is not the kids being victimized. The problem is the assholes assauting them (verbally or otherwise). Saying "Hey, let's send these LBGT kids to another school for their safety!" is fundamentally identical to saying "Hey, let' send the rape victims to riker's island for their safety!"

But that happens to all kids that are different, not just gays. Bullies will seek out anyone different, and if they're bred to hate gays, they will target gays. Just as kids who are taught fat people are bad will target fat kids. Bullying is a huge problem, I agree, but I don't think that having schools specifically for gays (or "gay friendly") is the answer.

Ah, bullying... I endured over 6 years of it.

:(

Try not to think so much of yourself sweety. You just happen to be posting a lot of bullshit in threads I have been frequenting on a regular basis.



Did you read the OP? Because nothing you bring up is really an issue. Its not segregation, because its voluntary. Those "undecided" kids are a non-issue, because the school will be for kids who know. And, just because youre not in school with them wont make them unaware of different people.

Are girls who go to all girl schools unaware of boys?

Well this issue of all girl schools is a totally different subject.
Many kids don't associate with people outside of their school circle, especially if their parents don't encourage them to do outside activities.

Awww how mature.

Grow up sweety. Immaturity and pettiness is most unattractive.

Why don't you try learning how to spell "sweetie" before you try to be condescending towards me.

They should be, and it wouldnt interfere. But the arguement that the schools are a bad idea because some kids are "questioning" (and I would be curious, Amor's personal story aside, how many kids dont know what they like to fuck by high school) is crock.

It's not crock.

You don't magically know your sexuality when you hit puburty. Highschool starts at around 12 or 13. Most kids haven't even had sex. A lot kids haven't even begun to question their sexuality yet.

Uh, no. I went to a private school and it was very multicultural. Only about 1/3 of the girls were white Australians.


It was a joke. Can I be bitchy to you because you didnt get it?


I personally believe America doesn't need black only schools. He was using "white" as an example.

Awesome, Im aware. And, I think black only schools are a good idea. So does a lot of America. Since you never lived here, and dont have first hand experince of our issues with race, you are entitled to your opinion, however it is taken with a grain of salt.

Well this issue of all girl schools is a totally different subject.

How? Im sensing a double standard here.


Why don't you try learning how to spell "sweetie" before you try to be condescending towards me.

Ahh, correcting minor spelling mistakes, the last defense of the defeated.


It's not crock.

Yes, yes it is.

You don't magically know your sexuality when you hit puburty. Highschool starts at around 12 or 13.

Here, it starts at 14. And yeah, a lot of us do know our sexuality when we hit puberty. I did. The vast majority of everyone I know, both gay and straight did too.

Most kids haven't even had sex. A lot kids haven't even begun to question their sexuality yet.

Why does one need to have had sex to know what theyd like to put it in? I hadnt had sex when I was 12, but I was attracted to women, not men. Sexual experiance has nothing to do with what someone is attracted to.

But is there actually any evidence for this? Does, for instance, improving the position of certain minorities deemed "inferior" necessarily bring harm on the others, by depriving "bullies" of certain targets? Certainly our experience as a society is quite different: if anything, the struggles of minorities, in the long run, help and contribute to each other.

"In the long run" quite contradicts your position that individual students should not carry the burden of social change. But perhaps we are arguing something else now.

Indeed, while perhaps there are certain people who are "bullies" who will search for targets whatever you do, it may also be true that only in a climate of social intolerance towards certain particular groups do they actually have the social power to get away with what they do--and even if the bullies do manage to bully other people, being victimized by certain people is quite different from being surrounded by a climate of bigotry.

Yes, this is an opportunity for me to make more clearly a point I have been trying to make about public schooling.

The obligation taken on by government to ensure education for all students makes public schools the "educator of last resort." Anti-discrimination legislation goes some way towards forcing private schools to accept minorities, but in practice they are exclusionary (and not just by the fact that some of them cost money) and can usually find a legal reason not to accept students with behaviour problems or special needs which make them more expensive to educate.

There seems to be an increase in the number of kids with behaviour problems, and the problems are showing up earlier. (That is disputed but not by me.) But that's only half the problem, because these kids are also concentrated into public schools. And as those schools become more violent and bad-learning-environments, fewer and fewer parents will send their kids there if they have any option at all. (Bottle once mentioned that her parents chose their house in consideration of the quality of public school available -- this is an example of such an option, and it's clearly not available to the poorest parents, and isn't taken in consideration of the child in many cases besides.)

That trend has to be reversed somehow. It's a runaway trend which leaves public schools as ghettos of the most disadvantaged -- kids whose parents don't care about their education or even deliberately keep them in a rough school "to build character."

In an ideological battle between the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of their kid, and the obligation of government to ensure that all kids are educated to a sufficient standard, there is only one guiding principle: what is best for each kid, and without exception.

I see two approaches that I'm pretty sure would work. The massive funding approach, reducing class sizes and paying higher wages to attract better and more trained teachers. If that doesn't get academic standards up, too bad. If compromises need to be made in the curriculum, so be it. The approach is basically the same as a school catering to a disability -- we should recognize that a disadvantaged child has a social disability which reduces their capacity to learn. At the very least, we must provide a safe environment for them to not learn in.

I think that should be done anyway, but there is a second approach which might work in conjunction (and would be even more expensive.) That is, the opposite of providing options in schooling -- force all students back into public schools. Rather than letting the bullies get more and more control over a shrinking number of students, dilute their influence by bringing students with the advantages back into the system.

This I expand on in the last section of this post.

Both options are expensive. The second requires enormous political capital to achieve, because it's strongly socialist. Building up this capital will take years, which is why the first steps must have positive effects in themselves.


So anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic education are all useless? There is some innate human drive to cruelty that will just drive us on to new targets of hatred?

I hope not, but I don't honestly know. I guess we have to look at parenting for the source of a child's character -- it is too politically fraught to explore the possibility that some children are born cruel and selfish while others can channel their will to power in more co-operative ways. (If such differences of character are genetically innate, we're pretty much stuffed in trying to choose one over the other.)

We might want to look at love, at active involvement of parents in their child's life ... and ask ourselves how to provide this when parents fail to do so. It might in fact be easier to resort to "licensed parenting," which could only be achieved by conclusive proof that bad parenting creates bad people.

In loco parentis ... it's a trap. The more the state steps in to provide good parenting, the less incentive a parent has to do it themselves. Even the demonstrably erratic principle that "parents act in their child's best interests" would be weakened -- all parents would be cast into the role of a separated parent, and we can only expect that some would do as some separated parents do: try to turn their children against their rival in parenting, compete for the child's affection. That is harmful to children.

We can't fix bad parenting systematically. We can ameliorate it after the fact, after children have already been done harm to. Sadly, but even I see limits to the power of the state.

I find it hard to see how to square that suggestion with the trajectory of the past few decades.

Like this: we celebrate the battles we won, and try to ignore the ones we lost.

The battles we never even took the field for, we barely recognize as problems at all.

Wrong question. Is there some "special quality" of bigotry "which gives energy to abusive and exclusionary behavior?" Of course.


I think it's the right question really. The sex drive is a huge motivator, even if we don't accept Freud's insistence that it's the basis of personality. Getting sex reinforces the behaviour which got it ... eventually. But when it ramps up in puberty it's really just a longing ... a dissatisfaction with more "aesthetic" pleasures. It drives one to relate to other people, and if the habits of relating are already set in an abusive pattern, you get a rapist of some kind.

Homophobia turns fatal when the voltage goes up. The homophobia of children should be addressed before the puberty switch is thrown -- however much that creeps people out.

(Returning to Harvey Milk HS: I don't object any more. I see value in an individual school modelling sexuality-tolerance, and I see value in a refuge school for students who are in mortal fear. But still: the refugees do their fellow students who may be gay-curious no favours. This is just a symptom of the failure of regular high schools to provide a safe environment for every student.)

I cannot honestly talk about bullying any longer without admitting that I recognize it in myself. I am, at best, a recovering bully. I get satisfaction from making other people look stupid -- I'm an intellectual bully. I have pared it back to bullying only those whose faces I cannot see, and who seem to me to invite it by wilful ignorance.

I'm easily moved by a wounded word. I am somewhat recovered. And I'm pretty sure that isn't all by good intentions -- my decreased libido due to age works in my favour in trying to be more gentle and compassionate, and to reap the less tangible rewards of that in preference to the flush of rhetorical victory.

I'm not sure what alternative you propose.

I have once again written an essay which I'm not satisfied with and won't post yet or perhaps at all.

The gist of it is to reverse the "obligatory schooling" trap which government has got itself into. By offering a "right to education" government has taken on the role of "educator of last resort."

Government needs to fund public schools far far better. It has been observed that more funding has not produced better academic results, and I believe that's because of the "ghetto-ization" of public schools by the flight of kids who DO have options. Public schools are essentially "special schools" without the funding or the mandate to cater to the needs of students disadvantaged by indifferent parents.

Here is my proposal as I have thought it through so far. The later steps necessitate the earlier ones, which might appear counter-productive otherwise:


Immediately increase teacher salaries.
Immediately decrease class sizes with trained teachers attracted back to teaching by those salaries.
During the "lead-in" time of new teachers training, build new schools.
New schools should be on the boundaries between advantaged areas and disadvantaged.
Start afresh in these new schools, with the very best teachers and small classes. Head-hunt teachers from all schools with bonuses.
The students are randomly selected by lottery, from both private and public schools.
This is the pilot programme. Non-teaching specialists are provided in large numbers. This stage has to work so well that parents pray to the diety of their choice that their kid is next in the lottery, no matter how good their current school is.
Students are required to attend that school. This is "compulsory education" in the strongest sense. It's "bussing" on steroids.
Where areas of economic disadvantage are large, catchments must be large enough to encompass richer suburbs. Several schools would serve one area, but still no "choice of school." Strict lottery, and actual bussing.
Close all private schools, all religious schools, all "old" public schools, and ban home schooling. Universal education has been implemented.


Yes, this is a very heavy-handed plan. It is also stupendously expensive.

It is necessary, because educational inequality is the strongest force for lifelong disadvantage. It can only become more so with increasing specialization in adult employment.

All children deserve the best possible education. Let's commit our government(s) to a no-turning back provision of that by removing any alternative.

Yes, yes it is.

No, yes is it not.

And anyway, a crock of what? I hear cats rather like a crock of cream.

Gay is not a disability like Deafness, nor is it instantly and readily apparent, like skin-colour, nor is it apparent through special dietary restrictions like Jewish or Muslim, nor does it have specific high-holy-days that are different from those of the main-stream.Depends on the gay person in question.

"If you fight back, the bullies leave you alone.Unless, of course, you lose.

I think you need to do a little more research, showing the current suicide rates of gays vs. blacks is showing nothing meaningful.Are you saying that you believe black teenagers committed suicide at higher rates prior to and during integration than they do now?

First off, it's not 'disingeneous equivocation'...that is what the word means. You can't assign your own meanings to words however you like. Secondly, 'prejudice against' does not equal 'phobia of' which, at the risk of repeating myself means 'an irrational fear of_____' Incorrect. Phobia means "an irrational fear of or aversion to. Homophobia is an aversion to homosexuals.

This isn't a sign that you need to send the students they're hitting to a special class (i.e. sending gay students to Harvey Milk), it's a sign that your principle is incompetent.

They're not being sent--a SMALL number are electing to change schools.

My principal has to deal with 500+ kids who all have the right to be educated in the school closest to their homes unless and until they are expelled. Expelling a kid from elementary school is no easy matter, and a huge range of harassment does not qualify as grounds for expulsion.

*snip*

Great plan. Honestly. Fact is, not a single one of those things will happen. Classroom sizes just expanded in CA, education is losing at least another billion probably, and the difference in pay between desirable and undesirable school districts is unimaginable--SF has some of the lowest salaries, with some of the toughest schools AND most expensive places to live.

I WANT the system to change, I WANT school to be safe for everyone, but I don't see that kind of money being allocated any time soon, if ever.

Great plan. Honestly. Fact is, not a single one of those things will happen. Classroom sizes just expanded in CA, education is losing at least another billion probably, and the difference in pay between desirable and undesirable school districts is unimaginable--SF has some of the lowest salaries, with some of the toughest schools AND most expensive places to live.

I WANT the system to change, I WANT school to be safe for everyone, but I don't see that kind of money being allocated any time soon, if ever.

christ, what is it with you teachers, always talking about how you want a "living wage", or how "don't make enough to eat", or how you need to "sell a kidney".

You get summers off, suck it up.

christ, what is it with you teachers, always talking about how you want a "living wage", or how "don't make enough to eat", or how you need to "sell a kidney".

You get summers off, suck it up.

And vacations, too!

Speaking of which, I should probably be in bed, seeing as I'm spending Veteran's day at school writing lesson plans...

I'm confused. What do gay high schools have to do with violence at football games? And speaking of, I've not heard of anybody being particularly violent at football games lately(although I personally must confess to some shockingly bad language when the Packers lost to the Vikings just now)

You don't get a lot of queers in football, anyways. They're more likely to take up figure skating.

<<<< lol gay football player here

And vacations, too!

Speaking of which, I should probably be in bed, seeing as I'm spending Veteran's day at school writing lesson plans...

pft, it's only 11 over there in orange land. C'mon you need to stay up and entertain me through my insomnia

Right, because bullies don't run in packs, and they don't use weapons. They fight fair and they don't feel the need to get even with people who humiliate them.

Learn to do it the way I learned. Find them, one by one, take them down, one by one, leave a few in the hospital, starting with the loudest one and working your way through the gang.

If you take down one, his rivals will leave you alone most of the time, but if you try to rely on the "Authorities" in a place with four thousand other kids, you're going to be everybody's favourite target.


I'll also chip in with this: Homophobia isn't a cause, it's an excuse, if you take THAT form of bigotry away, the bully will simply find some OTHER form to pursue-because that's what they're all about-it's a crime of VIOLENCE and POWER, not JUST hate.

And believe it or no, some people ARE born Evil.

I dont see why people hate gays, its not like it effects there lifes. What did the person ever do to you to call him fag or queer, or try to fight them?

pft, it's only 11 over there in orange land. C'mon you need to stay up and entertain me through my insomnia

Orange land! I am not from SoCal!

Learn to do it the way I learned. Find them, one by one, take them down, one by one, leave a few in the hospital, starting with the loudest one and working your way through the gang.

If you take down one, his rivals will leave you alone most of the time, but if you try to rely on the "Authorities" in a place with four thousand other kids, you're going to be everybody's favourite target.


I'll also chip in with this: Homophobia isn't a cause, it's an excuse, if you take THAT form of bigotry away, the bully will simply find some OTHER form to pursue-because that's what they're all about-it's a crime of VIOLENCE and POWER, not JUST hate.

And believe it or no, some people ARE born Evil.

So the way to combat violence and power is with violence and power?

You may be a super ninja along with everyone else on the internet, but some people aren't and don't want to be fighters. Not to mention that what you're suggesting is likely to get them expelled and/or put in jail.

Orange land! I am not from SoCal!

what, there are different parts of California now? I didn't know you Californians had enough personality to distinguish amongst yourself :p

now why don't you go "hang ten" or whatever it is that 1960s surf movies have taught me that you do. I'll be over here on the east coast, the REAL America.

Freezing my fucking ass off.

So the way to combat violence and power is with violence and power?

It works so well in the Middle East!

You may be a super ninja along with everyone else on the internet

Remember dear, on the internet, everybody's a cowboy. A cowboy with Asperger's syndrome. And a humongous...well...you know.

It works so well in the Middle East!



Remember dear, on the internet, everybody's a cowboy. A cowboy with Asperger's syndrome. And a humongous...well...you know.

My you know is particularly impressive. ;)

what, there are different parts of California now? I didn't know you Californians had enough personality to distinguish amongst yourself :p

now why don't you go "hang ten" or whatever it is that 1960s surf movies have taught me that you do. I'll be over here on the east coast, the REAL America.

Freezing my fucking ass off.

There have ALWAYS been different parts of California. Specifically, the part that OWNS (NorCal) and the part that is LAMESAUCE (SoCal).

As for your real America, to quote Jon Stewart-- "Fuck all y'all." :p

There have ALWAYS been different parts of California. Specifically, the part that OWNS (NorCal) and the part that is LAMESAUCE (SoCal).

I think "lamesause" just negates any claim of own. Sorry.

As for your real America, to quote Jon Stewart-- "Fuck all y'all." :p

welllll, if you're offering....

and Jon Stewart (points for spelling the name right) is a New York City jew. To us yankee city dwelling sissy boys, he's the fucking messiah.

So the way to combat violence and power is with violence and power?

You may be a super ninja along with everyone else on the internet, but some people aren't and don't want to be fighters. Not to mention that what you're suggesting is likely to get them expelled and/or put in jail.

Not a "Super Ninja", I was just persistent, like anyone should be. and YES, the way to fight violence is with violence. The only reason, and it IS the only reason, that Ghandi's methods worked, was because his opponents had a conscience that could be appealed to, a view of themselves as "Civilized" men and "Humane" men. The Nazis or the Soviets would have eaten him, and his followers, alive.

It may offend your delicate sensibility, but you're also ignoring something else-those willing and able to fight, often don't have to-bullies, like any other criminal, will seek out the target that looks least likely to fight, and focus on that ONE target. People willing to fight move differently, they move with confidence, their body language is non-submissive, and therefore, they are less likely to be engaged by the thuggish-thugs and bullys want submissive, pliant, easily intimidated targets for their fun, and they're very, very, risk-averse when it comes to choosing who they will target. A target that tries to get the overstrained attention of an authority figure is an easy target, a target that gets back up and comes after THEM isn't, and may be carrying a 'surprise'.

Great plan. Honestly. Fact is, not a single one of those things will happen. Classroom sizes just expanded in CA, education is losing at least another billion probably, and the difference in pay between desirable and undesirable school districts is unimaginable--SF has some of the lowest salaries, with some of the toughest schools AND most expensive places to live.

I WANT the system to change, I WANT school to be safe for everyone, but I don't see that kind of money being allocated any time soon, if ever.

Nor do I. Sorry. :(

Am I on the right track with the idea of trying to "dilute" schools with bullying problems with the empowered students who would otherwise go to a better school?

Or is Soheran more correct, in protecting the most at-risk students by allowing them to leave such troubled schools?

Or is there some other approach you think better for a short-term or long-term reason?

Feel free to dream. :)

Nor do I. Sorry. :(

Am I on the right track with the idea of trying to "dilute" schools with bullying problems with the empowered students who would otherwise go to a better school?

Or is Soheran more correct, in protecting the most at-risk students by allowing them to leave such troubled schools?

Or is there some other approach you think better for a short-term or long-term reason?

Feel free to dream. :)

I think you're on the right track "Diluting" schools with bullying problems by bringing in students who are, as you put it, "Empowered" (as in, students who will resist them with more than words). A better solution might be to focus on teaching kids that laying down to force is WRONG, and backing that up with a combination of resistance education and self-defense classes.

there are brave kids, marginal kids, and cowards. You can't save the outright cowards, but you CAN push the Marginal kids into the 'brave' side, you just have to get rid of this nonsense about "It's okay to cry", "Submit and tell the teacher afterward" and other nonsense. These are dogmas that EMPOWER bullies-it encourages the behaviours they want from their prey, and the impact from THAT we can see from events like Columbine, where the kids who were victimized year after year turned inward, then exploded in REAL violence, the kind that no amount of "Sharing your feelings" can ever cure.

It was a joke. Can I be bitchy to you because you didnt get it?

I have a feeling you will be.

Awesome, Im aware. And, I think black only schools are a good idea. So does a lot of America. Since you never lived here, and dont have first hand experince of our issues with race, you are entitled to your opinion, however it is taken with a grain of salt.


Just because I don't have a first hand experience with America's issues with race doesn't mean that my opinion isn't based on reasoning and experience in my own country.

How? Im sensing a double standard here.

Uh, no. It's just a DIFFERENT issue to the one we're talking about.

Ahh, correcting minor spelling mistakes, the last defense of the defeated.

Oh, puh-lease. Don't be a wanker then spell "sweetie" wrong. It makes you look like even MORE of a wanker. Okay?

Here, it starts at 14. And yeah, a lot of us do know our sexuality when we hit puberty. I did. The vast majority of everyone I know, both gay and straight did too.


Are you straight?

Because, perhaps if you're straight it wasn't a difficult decision to make.

Why does one need to have had sex to know what theyd like to put it in? I hadnt had sex when I was 12, but I was attracted to women, not men. Sexual experiance has nothing to do with what someone is attracted to.

It actually has a lot to do with it.

So, what's the difference?

Might be that not many parents would send their "straight" kids to a "gay" school fearing that they might come "infected" no matter the quality of said school.
This would create a de facto segregation.

Disclaimer: I am not one of those parents, but my view isn't the mainstream one I'd guess.

I think you're on the right track "Diluting" schools with bullying problems by bringing in students who are, as you put it, "Empowered" (as in, students who will resist them with more than words). A better solution might be to focus on teaching kids that laying down to force is WRONG, and backing that up with a combination of resistance education and self-defense classes.

No, I just meant that students who are accustomed to getting their rights without having to risk their personal health and safety to get them, would make excellent witnesses. And by outnumbering the bullies, provide a supportive environment for any students who are bullied. Whether or not the rules of the school are effectively enforced.

Coming from good schools, their expectation would be that the enforcement of rules is the norm.

You seem to be advocating a "mini-society" (as any school is) in which the only assurance of justice is to take the law into your own hands. If your school is like that, leave. Now.

That is a failing strategy in adult life. Taking the law into your own hands will land you in jail. Even if you are planning to "go straight" and break with this habit of administering justice with your fists, you are wasting time learning "social skills" which only apply in criminal society.

there are brave kids, marginal kids, and cowards. You can't save the outright cowards, but you CAN push the Marginal kids into the 'brave' side, you just have to get rid of this nonsense about "It's okay to cry", "Submit and tell the teacher afterward" and other nonsense.

No, that is wrong. Every single one of those kids is a human being, with human rights.

Their rights are not dependent on their "bravery." Bravery or cowardice is not the essential quality of being human. Bravery may be a personal attribute which is advantageous to an individual, and if so good for them. Hoo-bloody-ray.

But when you step in to give more rights to "the brave" than "the cowards", and to say we should have a system of education which favours the former over the latter, what I see is quite simply: a bully.

"Stand up for yourself, or you are worth nothing to me" you say.

You are a bully, I say.

These are dogmas that EMPOWER bullies-it encourages the behaviours they want from their prey, and the impact from THAT we can see from events like Columbine, where the kids who were victimized year after year turned inward, then exploded in REAL violence, the kind that no amount of "Sharing your feelings" can ever cure.

Blame the victim.

Yawn. I'm taking an early night.

This isn't a sign that you need to send the students they're hitting to a special class (i.e. sending gay students to Harvey Milk), it's a sign that your principle is incompetent.
And you somehow don't recognize that this doesn't necessarily happen right in front of the authorities, that teachers and admins are not omnipotent, that many cases aren't reported, that those reported sometimes have no supporting witnesses, and that the administration and teachers often have their hands tied because the aggressors' parents threaten suit if you can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was their little angel?

What world are you living in? I got hassled in school too, and oftentimes there was nothing much the principal could do. I'd have loved the opportunity to go elsewhere.

You know, the part where I apparently said there are no assaults on gays in this country.



Where am I putting these words on your screen?
Oh, I thought that was the part where you seemed to be saying, "assaults on gay students don't happen much," which incidentally, I answered.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14192556&postcount=175
Alright Katganistan, since I have the attitude of a bully, I'm going to ask you this question.

How many times have you seen acts of violence/harassment towards a gay student?
Gee, there seems to be an implication it either doesn't happen, or doesn't happen much. Wow. Maybe that's why I linked to a verifiable story of a homosexual student getting murdered, you think?


How many victims do you think there are of these acts of violence and assault in high schools? Do you think it outnumbers the blacks back during the civil rights era?
Gee, where do these words just keep appearing on my screen? Could it be from what's flowing from your keyboard? Are you saying that the implication in your words that since it happened to black students in this country, it's ok to let it happen it to gay students isn't clear? I'm sorry if I am spoiling your game by not answering exactly as you planned me to answer your no-win rhetorical questions.

christ, what is it with you teachers, always talking about how you want a "living wage", or how "don't make enough to eat", or how you need to "sell a kidney".

You get summers off, suck it up.
Neo, if I didn't already admire you, I'd probably throw something squishy at you.

*tosses pillow*

Oh, ok, I did.
Remember dear, on the internet, everybody's a cowboy. A cowboy with Asperger's syndrome. And a humongous...well...you know.

I do not have Asperger's. I am not a cowboy. I do NOT have a humongous you know what... unless it's ego. ;)

<snip>
Where your(we'll be charitable and call it a)'point' fails is in confusing and conflating, as so many people do these days, 'fear' and 'prejudice'. Nowhere in the definition of ''prejudice' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice) do we find 'fear.' Hostility, yes. Suspicion, yes. But not 'fear.' (The definition of which can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear) As I pointed out, being prejudiced against something does not automatically presuppose the concomitant existence of 'fear.' Also, as a tangential but related note, 'fear of' and 'dislike of' are not the same either. I may 'dislike' creamed spinach, but I do not 'fear' it.

I linked you directly to some definitions, you could have taken the time to read them, and realise I was directly quoting. Shall I try again?

All taken from here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia).


–noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.



1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.



noun
prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality


Note the use of '(fear or dislike of)', as this is the definition I quoted for you before.


Function: noun
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals


Would you like the shorter Oxford as well, or do you concede on its meaning now?

Depends on the gay person in question.

Unless, of course, you lose.

Are you saying that you believe black teenagers committed suicide at higher rates prior to and during integration than they do now?

Incorrect. Phobia means "an irrational fear of or aversion to. Homophobia is an aversion to homosexuals.

He's ignored that so far, I wouldn't count on him admitting it now.

Oh, I thought that was the part where you seemed to be saying, "assaults on gay students don't happen much," which incidentally, I answered.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14192556&postcount=175
[/size]
Gee, there seems to be an implication it either doesn't happen, or doesn't happen much. Wow. Maybe that's why I linked to a verifiable story of a homosexual student getting murdered, you think?


Show me exactly where I said "assaults on gay students don't happen much". Show me.
That's right, because there was no implication. It was a direct personal question to you since, you know, I thought you were this high and mighty teacher in NY and all, and may have encountered such experiences personally.


Gee, where do these words just keep appearing on my screen? Could it be from what's flowing from your keyboard? Are you saying that the implication in your words that since it happened to black students in this country, it's ok to let it happen it to gay students isn't clear? I'm sorry if I am spoiling your game by not answering exactly as you planned me to answer your no-win rhetorical questions.

Or you could just be taking my questions severely out of context since not one person has brought any of this up. They're actually questions. Imagine that.

Not once have I even suggested it's OK to let these kids get beat up or involved in violence. And how am I playing a game? I'm fucking DEBATING. At least I'm not putting words in other people's mouths like you are.

...

What? How is diversity and such NOT representative of that very sentiment? I would think it would be a perfect way to show how we are all united, by combing our various cultures, beliefs, and so on.
No. The underlying system in our country was to put similarity before differences..... to put strength in unity, not in diversity. Diversity has never been a strength and never will be...it was only by demanding unity and assimilation that we as a nation have built ourselves up out of many different cultures.....this country would not have been nearly as united if we would have allowed ourselves to splinter and balkanize by 'celebrating our differences' fist and putting unity and "out of many, one" second. That is the problem.

And here I was just starting to respect you for your sudden support of Obama, and yet here you go with the same old TAI. That's what I get for getting my hopes up, I guess.
Nice try, but that's ridiculous. If your hopes were raised because of what I said in my posted defenses of Obama, then they should still be. Nothing has changed in regards to that. If your hopes were high because you thought that because I had posted those defences of Obama, that I was having an internal political revolution and now am going to be supporting the further fracturing of our country into divisiveness, then think again.

If your gay, and admit it, you will get abuse be it mental or physical, mainly from young men and boys who are high school age and this will never change. Its simply up to the gay induvidual to stand up to it and ignor it, if they become distressed by it its his/her problem.

If your gay, and admit it, you will get abuse be it mental or physical, mainly from young men and boys who are high school age and this will never change. Its simply up to the gay induvidual to stand up to it and ignor it, if they become distressed by it its his/her problem.

So its the person who is being bullied who is at fault for being distressed, not the fault of the bully for being a total asshat, because thats natural and the way things are, and we shouldn't try to do anything about it?

Best case, there would be a national crackdown on homophobic bulliying in schools, but if thats too politically controversial to be accepted, individual schools could set themselves up as gay-friendly, allowing those who are unable to cope with intense bullying some way to continue their education. Just to sit back and say "they'll have to cope with it, no-one should try to help them" is an extremely unhelpful attitude

If your gay, and admit it, you will get abuse be it mental or physical, mainly from young men and boys who are high school age and this will never change. Its simply up to the gay induvidual to stand up to it and ignor it, if they become distressed by it its his/her problem.

So its the person who is being bullied who is at fault for being distressed, not the fault of the bully for being a total asshat, because thats natural and the way things are? Or, there could be a national crackdown on homophobic bulliying in schools, or if thats too politically controversial to pursue, individual schools could set themselves up as gay-friendly, allowing those who are unable to cope with intense bullying some way to continue their education. Just to sit back and say "they'll have to cope with it, no-one should try to help them" is an extremely unhelpful attitude

Hey, I bet Renner20 has the exact same attitude when it comes to race. "If those darkies are getting picked on and can't cope with it, tough!"

If you're a kid in school, you can be bullied outside of school. You can be bullied for essentially no reason at all. I would believe that most cases of bullying are of this type - one kid is bigger, stronger, has more friends to help, and is a complete asshole, and the victim is smaller, weaker, and alone.

The bully doesn't have to have a cogent reason in most cases. He's usually taking out his own frustrations with his own problems on a convenient target.

Schools usually deal with this by discouraging bullying in general, and by investigating bullying, Usually, a bully has severe problems - bullying is generally a symptom of a real problem.

This "solution" of building a separate school shows me that the school system has given up on trying to teach kids not to bully, given up on investigation the root causes of bullying, and is now throwing up their hands and saying, "we give up - we'll just put the gay students in a 'safer' school".

Well yes, the best situation would be no bullying. But it won’t happen, there has always been bullying in school and always will be, heck I was once the victim of it. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and the best thing the person being bullied can do is grin and bear it and not show they are affected by it. Then it will decline in that particular case. I have a mate who is bi, when he first came out he got some stick but didn’t let it get to him, and now it has stopped for the most part.

This "solution" of building a separate school shows me that the school system has given up on trying to teach kids not to bully, given up on investigation the root causes of bullying, and is now throwing up their hands and saying, "we give up - we'll just put the gay students in a 'safer' school".

The problem is, with homophobic bullying there's no societal consensus that it is a priority that needs to be tackled. There's a lot of parents I'm sure who'd be proud of their offspring for intimidating their "unnatural and sinful" classmates. If there was some national attempt to coordinate a concerted campaign against homophobic bullying, there'd be outrage from the right. It simply isn't taken as seriously as other forms of bullying. Society is as much to blame as the schools.

It simply isn't taken as seriously as other forms of bullying.

I don't know what school district you are in, but in the one my kids are in, all forms of bullying are taken seriously.

http://www.fcps.edu/news/bullyprevention/index.htm

All administrators, teachers, and other school staff are expected to deal with any bullying or reported bullying behavior immediately.

Well yes, the best situation would be no bullying. But it won’t happen, there has always been bullying in school and always will be, heck I was once the victim of it. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and the best thing the person being bullied can do is grin and bear it and not show they are affected by it. Then it will decline in that particular case. I have a mate who is bi, when he first came out he got some stick but didn’t let it get to him, and now it has stopped for the most part.

These sound like remarkably affable bullies. "By jove, fag, you've taken that verbal jibe/fist to the face in remarkably good humour, I think we'll leave you alone now, jolly good show. Toodle pip." The dynamics of the bully-bullied relationship are rather different if you're not talking about civilised "bully-lite". You don't react, or worse, you stand up for yourself, they treat you worse and worse until they get a reaction, think you're patronising them or not giving them enough respect. There is often very little the bullied individual can do to stop it. People who have totally lost their confidence after being targeted by such bullies are what these schools are designed for. Those who suffer only mild bullying that they can cope with, they'll most likely stay where they are.

Actually, I think cameras covering every inch of the school is a good idea. Sound is also important. Modern techniques of sound analysis work well if you have several microphones monitoring the same room.

That doesn't imply "full time watchers." It's a matter of having good evidence when a complaint is made -- then you go watch the video and analyze the sound.

(Toilets, the obvious exception, can be monitored by having individual cubicles opening from a surveilled area. Expensive, yes. Not prohibitively so.)

Yes. Prohibitively so. In the average public school where bake sales are common for basic equipment? Prohibitively so.

Intangelon, you are operating illegally off of Great Mordifan's waters. Leave this area immediately, and proceed to international waters, or you will be fired upon by the GMRS Morganshire.

What now?

I think it encourages segregation. I also think that the issue at hand is that we need to teach tolerance and understanding. By separating gay kids from straight ones, we're just making homosexuality even more "different". Lots of kids, especially at that age, are undecided on their sexuality and a lot of people experiment - I know I did. I know a girl who have been straight, then bi, then lesbian then bi again. She was only young and because had both gay AND straight friends and people around her, she experienced a normal healthy way of growing up and finding your sexuality. Very few people who question their sexuality know for sure during high school, and I also think that sending someone who thinks they're gay at 15 to a highschool for homosexuals would force them to think they have to be homosexual. Sexuality is very fluid and honestly, everyone struggles, and I believe that growing up facing those struggles is what makes you stronger. I believe that people who face intolerance will become those who fight against it.

Reasonably expressed. I might be wrong abou--

I never once thought it was an issue of being bombed. See my response to Knights of Bitchery.

-- or not. Oh well. It was nice to hope.

Anything that promotes segregation is a dumb idea, to begin with.

They're not being sent--a SMALL number are electing to change schools.

They're changing schools because they're given no other choice. They're changing schools because incompetent staff will not make their current school safe for all students. Saying the gay students are CHOOSING to go to Harvey Milk is like saying a black family CHOSE to move after having several crosses burned on their lawn and receiving no help from the local police. They are being INTIMIDATED AND FORCED OUT OF their current schools.

The problem is, with homophobic bullying there's no societal consensus that it is a priority that needs to be tackled.
In Michigan, queer-bashing is a protected form of religious expression. There have been numerous attempts to change the law and require schools to act against anti-gay bullying the same as any other kind of bullying, but the "good Christians" consistently block it.

I always found it helpful in dealing with bullies by creating a scene. The standard "elbow to the gut in the hallway" would result in my complete collapse, followed by an elegant apology for getting in his way, delivered at the loudest volume I could muster. "Oh, Sir! I am SO sorry my kidneys got in your elbow's way! I KNOW ow important your space is to you, and me, foolish, foolish me, paying attention to the task of opening my locker, haphazardly allowed my internal organs to drift into your way, three feet over into the middle of the hallway, where I should KNOW to expect traffic." And so forth.

The ubiquitous epithet "fag" was treated something like this:

"That's not how you addressed me last night, baby." OR
"You keep using that word despite the fact that I fantasize about fucking the freckles off your girlfriend every night. Are you somehow dissatisfied with her ministrations and are calling ME "fag" because you're secretly HOPING that I am, in fact gay? Is there something you want to tell all of us?"

Mostly, it's just a matter of loudly broadcasting exactly what happened and either comically taking blame or in some way showing those who are watching exactly how stupid the bully is without ever saying it directly or even indirectly (at least not indirectly in a way the typical bully can understand and relate to a teacher, should one arrive to sort things out).

It worked far better than the times I tried fighting back. The stick figure (me) does not win or even bloody the nose of the wrestler or lineman or even the defensive back. Public shaming, however, worked really well, and was instrumental in getting my my prom date.

So Sudova? Yeah, you can take that alpha-male-jackoff Marine-Corps horseshit and blow it out your macho ass. It might work in some cases, but not in most. Violence begets violence, and I think even you know that. The bully is almost never chastened, but seeks revenge. Usually either armed or surrounded by his pals.

Which leads me to another point. Whenever I was cornered, it was never by one bully. It was him and a cadre of other assholes. I never thought to ask at the time, but really, who's the coward there? The lone geek trying to walk home or the bully who needs a support group to kick the geek's ass?

Anything that promotes segregation is a dumb idea, to begin with.

Read the thread. It isn't segregation, sweetcakes.

Their changing schools because they're given no other choice. Their changing schools because incompetent staff will not make their current school safe for all students. Saying the gay students are CHOOSING to go to Harvey Milk is like saying a black family CHOSE to move after having several crosses burned on their lawn and receiving no help from the local police. They are being INTIMIDATED AND FORCED OUT OF their current schools.

There are schools in parts of downtown DC that aren't safe for anyone. Despite the presence of armed security, metal detectors, and special training for teachers, the kids bring weapons (including shotguns) and drugs to school, attack each other (you don't have to be gay to get shot there), and I would not, for one second, say that it's because of "incompetent staff".

It's one thing to enact rules and have teachers try to enforce them. It's quite another thing to do that with kids whose behavior is already out of control. In the old days, kids who were this unruly were permanently denied an education - nowadays, you can't do that, and in some urban areas, the out of control students far outnumber those who came to the school to learn.

I think part of the problem (probably most of the problem) lies with the parents, not the school staff. A fair number of parents expect the school to raise their children, but that's not really possible when the kid spends most of his living hours at home with parents who don't give a flying fuck how they turn out.

Their changing schools because they're given no other choice. Their changing schools because incompetent staff will not make their current school safe for all students. Saying the gay students are CHOOSING to go to Harvey Milk is like saying a black family CHOSE to move after having several crosses burned on their lawn and receiving no help from the local police. They are being INTIMIDATED AND FORCED OUT OF their current schools.

And that's what many of the opponents of Harvey Milk High miss. They think it's either about coddling gay students or passively surrendering to bullying. No, schools like Harvey Milk High are symptoms of a pervasive problem, not the solution. If the nation as a whole could ever be bothered to get up off its ass (and I hope under Obama it will) and crunch down on the issue not only will it make segregated schools less appealing as an alternative, it'll also cut down on emotional distress that leads to such fun shit as suicides and school shootings.

Part of the problem in my opinion is that the code of conduct in just about every school discourages people to stand up for themselves. If someone gets bullied to the point where he or she decides to fight back physically, that student will be punished just as much as the instigators if not more so. If I could, I would institute a Self Defense clause in a school. If you make some kid miserable and he or she kicks your ass, then guess what? You and you alone will fry for that. If kids were made to realize that there were no consequences for standing up for yourself and beating the fuck out of that shitwad who made your life hell, there'd probably be a lot thicker spines growing.

There are schools in parts of downtown DC that aren't safe for anyone. Despite the presence of armed security, metal detectors, and special training for teachers, the kids bring weapons (including shotguns) and drugs to school, attack each other (you don't have to be gay to get shot there), and I would not, for one second, say that it's because of "incompetent staff".

If they aren't expelled (and arrested) after the very first weapons offense, yes. Yes it is.

If every time someone brings a weapon to school they are expelled and arrested then no one will be bringing weapons to school.

If they aren't expelled (and arrested) after the very first weapons offense, yes. Yes it is.

If every time someone brings a weapon to school they are expelled and arrested then no one will be bringing weapons to school.

The ones with weapons go to jail. They don't come back.


I think you believe that these kids actually give a shit if they're punished. They don't.

Read the thread. It isn't segregation, sweetcakes.

I know, Inta-sama. I already read it. I´m merely responding to some of the ideas that have been vented so far.:wink:

Not once have I even suggested it's OK to let these kids get beat up or involved in violence. And how am I playing a game? I'm fucking DEBATING. At least I'm not putting words in other people's mouths like you are.

In a "debate" a question is often taken as a rhetorical question ... ie skeptical or even sarcastic. Perhaps just try again?

============

No. The underlying system in our country was to put similarity before differences..... to put strength in unity, not in diversity. Diversity has never been a strength and never will be...

Tolerance of differences is essential to all getting along.

And that DOES require strength -- the strength of principle.

========


If you're a kid in school, you can be bullied outside of school.

That's quite true. The threat of violence outside of school can be used by bullies to give their demands traction ... so that seemingly trivial bullying in school, beneath the level which can really be verified by staff, can still compel submission.

For instance the kid who gets the other kids' lunchmoney without even having to ask. Protection money.

Good public transport helps (providing the bus driver or train guard is actually empowered to kick kids off -- often that's considered 'unfair' but it shouldn't be.)

I think I can resist the urge to go into an unrelated rave ... *resists*

The protection of the law is more effective outside of school than in. If it's a good area, there are adult witnesses who aren't afraid to come forward or even physically intervene

You can be bullied for essentially no reason at all. I would believe that most cases of bullying are of this type - one kid is bigger, stronger, has more friends to help, and is a complete asshole, and the victim is smaller, weaker, and alone.

Yes. It's an illegitimate means to gain power.


The bully doesn't have to have a cogent reason in most cases. He's usually taking out his own frustrations with his own problems on a convenient target.

Schools usually deal with this by discouraging bullying in general, and by investigating bullying, Usually, a bully has severe problems - bullying is generally a symptom of a real problem.

This "solution" of building a separate school shows me that the school system has given up on trying to teach kids not to bully, given up on investigation the root causes of bullying, and is now throwing up their hands and saying, "we give up - we'll just put the gay students in a 'safer' school".

All very good points.

I know, Inta-sama. I already read it.

bet you didn't read it ALL :tongue:

bet you didn't read it ALL :tongue:

Yesh, I did.:(

I know, Inta-sama. I already read it. I´m merely responding to some of the ideas that have been vented so far.:wink:

Gomen asai, por favor!

I have a feeling you will be.


Just because I don't have a first hand experience with America's issues with race doesn't mean that my opinion isn't based on reasoning and experience in my own country.

No, it doesnt, youre right. But it also doesnt mean Ill take your opinion very seriously.


Uh, no. It's just a DIFFERENT issue to the one we're talking about.

Care to explain?

Are you straight?

Because, perhaps if you're straight it wasn't a difficult decision to make.

But tahts not what you said.


It actually has a lot to do with it.

No, it has jack shit to do with it. I knew what I was attracted to long before I had sex. I knew I liked boobs and vagina before I had touched boobs or a vagina.

"Sexual experiance has nothing to do with what someone is attracted to. "
It actually has a lot to do with it.
Not so.

Yesh, I did.:(

Sucker. Even I didn't read all of that rave ... I think I might have written some of it in my sleep.

Not so.

I know that's the accepted wisdom.

It seems rather perplexing that such a clearly identifiable pleasure reward would not reinforce whichever behaviour brought it about.

I think that really, we try to ignore the development of sexuality in childhood, and hence see sexual proclivity bursting onto the scene already formed (innate.)

*scratches prosthetic jaw*

It seems rather perplexing that such a clearly identifiable pleasure reward would not reinforce whichever behaviour brought it about.
But when I tried sleeping with women, it creeped me out. That's just how it is.

Show me exactly where I said "assaults on gay students don't happen much". Show me.
That's right, because there was no implication. It was a direct personal question to you since, you know, I thought you were this high and mighty teacher in NY and all, and may have encountered such experiences personally.



Or you could just be taking my questions severely out of context since not one person has brought any of this up. They're actually questions. Imagine that.

Not once have I even suggested it's OK to let these kids get beat up or involved in violence. And how am I playing a game? I'm fucking DEBATING. At least I'm not putting words in other people's mouths like you are.
Well, then, why are you asking if I personally have seen it? What difference does it make whether I personally have seen it -- since in these debates, anecdotes are generally held to be worthless. Fact: gay students have been harassed so badly that they have opened a school for those who would otherwise have dropped out for harassment. It's in the original articles, it's on the Harvey Milk website, next question please.

What difference does it make if they are suffering less than, equal to, or worse than black students who have been harassed? What is the point of the question, other than to then state that since group A had bad things happen to them, group b should not be allowed to avoid having bad things happen to them?

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am answering your questions, and I was not referring to you as a high and mighty anything or using fucking profanity in speaking to you. You might want to consider why it is so important to you to attack me personally and use vulgarities rather than dealing with the matter at hand. As for why no one else is commenting, it's pretty obvious you've chosen a bone to pick with me personally -- why would anyone else get into that?

And it seems that Bunnysaurus Bugsii has commented after all about the nature of rhetorical questions. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14199346&postcount=351

There are schools in parts of downtown DC that aren't safe for anyone. Despite the presence of armed security, metal detectors, and special training for teachers, the kids bring weapons (including shotguns) and drugs to school, attack each other (you don't have to be gay to get shot there), and I would not, for one second, say that it's because of "incompetent staff".

It's one thing to enact rules and have teachers try to enforce them. It's quite another thing to do that with kids whose behavior is already out of control. In the old days, kids who were this unruly were permanently denied an education - nowadays, you can't do that, and in some urban areas, the out of control students far outnumber those who came to the school to learn.

I think part of the problem (probably most of the problem) lies with the parents, not the school staff. A fair number of parents expect the school to raise their children, but that's not really possible when the kid spends most of his living hours at home with parents who don't give a flying fuck how they turn out.
I never thought I would be in this position, but on this subject, you and I are in agreement. Just goes to show that you learn something new about your forum mates every day.

If gay kids feel like they need a seperate school to be safe from harassment, then maybe they are the best judges of that.

This is a good idea.

For those saying it should be bullies who should be punished, get real. Especially in US, as seen from the referendums, how can you expect kids to be rational when adults arent?

As for those saying, kids shouldnt be protected in high school cause they'll face homophobia when they graduate, dont be silly. Adults have sex but that doesnt mean 11 years should be having sex just because they will "in the real world". Clearly, you are more vulnerable when younger. So it's better to provide teens with safe schools so they will have better self esteem and be more ready to face the diffuculties of "the real world" when they graduate.

And for those who think kids should be all forced together for a tolerant society, again dont be silly. You dont have to force everyone to live together for them to get along. You shouldnt force bad married couples together so they would get along and stay together. Plus, the dutch have the concept of pillar society, "living separetely together", and they are more tolerant than US will ever be.

So, this is a good idea, and the proms should be real good!

Sucker. Even I didn't read all of that rave ... I think I might have written some of it in my sleep.

Bunny-kun, you´re so mean to Neko-kun.:(

Meh, I do read OPs, most of the time, you know.:tongue:

Reasonably expressed. I might be wrong abou--



-- or not. Oh well. It was nice to hope.

Oh, please. Sometimes you need to accept that I joke around, okay?

Read the thread. It isn't segregation, sweetcakes.

Sweetcakes? How dare you have a go at me for being "snide"? Hypocrite, much?

No, it doesnt, youre right. But it also doesnt mean Ill take your opinion very seriously.

Okay, so the opinion of everyone who doesn't live in the USA is automatically null and void in this thread.

Care to explain?

Are you kidding me? I don't support all girls or all boys schools, but it's a different fucking topic. Make a thread about it if you want, but there's no need to hijack this one.

No, it has jack shit to do with it. I knew what I was attracted to long before I had sex. I knew I liked boobs and vagina before I had touched boobs or a vagina.

But not everyone knows at first. Kids are taught straight is normal. Heaps of little boys probably don't even know that some boys have sex with boys. Finding your sexuality isn't always simple.

Not so.

Everyone is different.

If you're a kid in school, you can be bullied outside of school. You can be bullied for essentially no reason at all. I would believe that most cases of bullying are of this type - one kid is bigger, stronger, has more friends to help, and is a complete asshole, and the victim is smaller, weaker, and alone.

The bully doesn't have to have a cogent reason in most cases. He's usually taking out his own frustrations with his own problems on a convenient target.

Schools usually deal with this by discouraging bullying in general, and by investigating bullying, Usually, a bully has severe problems - bullying is generally a symptom of a real problem.

This "solution" of building a separate school shows me that the school system has given up on trying to teach kids not to bully, given up on investigation the root causes of bullying, and is now throwing up their hands and saying, "we give up - we'll just put the gay students in a 'safer' school".

Thats true. Many people who were bullied when they were smaller may themselves bully later. Most people are no better than each other, I guess.

Well, then, why are you asking if I personally have seen it? What difference does it make whether I personally have seen it -- since in these debates, anecdotes are generally held to be worthless. Fact: gay students have been harassed so badly that they have opened a school for those who would otherwise have dropped out for harassment. It's in the original articles, it's on the Harvey Milk website, next question please.


Because I'd like to know if/how badly these children are bullied, and you speak as if you've seen this personally.

What difference does it make if they are suffering less than, equal to, or worse than black students who have been harassed? What is the point of the question, other than to then state that since group A had bad things happen to them, group b should not be allowed to avoid having bad things happen to them?

So I could ask if the government decided to ever build black only high schools to shelter them from violence, not segregation.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am answering your questions, and I was not referring to you as a high and mighty anything or using fucking profanity in speaking to you. You might want to consider why it is so important to you to attack me personally and use vulgarities rather than dealing with the matter at hand. As for why no one else is commenting, it's pretty obvious you've chosen a bone to pick with me personally -- why would anyone else get into that?

And it seems that Bunnysaurus Bugsii has commented after all about the nature of rhetorical questions. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14199346&postcount=351


So to you, answering means beginning every post with "So what you're saying is..."

And what comes after is way off, you're building strawmen. And saying that it is in fact I who have the attitude of a bully based off of those strawmen. It's frustrating.

But when I tried sleeping with women, it creeped me out. That's just how it is.

Sure. I'm not saying anyone can choose to be gay or straight or whatever. (And none of this is intended to apply to you, I can relate it back to the subject if anyone is interested.)

But people's tastes can change gradually. They try something new, it's a bit weird but not entirely creepy (I'm thinking of things like sex toys or perhaps a bit of bondage) and then they get more and more into it. If they'd lept too far into it with the first experience they would find it creepy or frightening.

So do we say that person had a latent love of bondage masked by "bondage-phobia" or do we say that they gradually re-inforced something which wasn't much fun at first?

I think it makes quite a difference to how we treat homophobia in schools. If kids know their sexuality before puberty or early in puberty, that's the time they should be able to come out about it. Before the rush of hormones makes it a huge deal.

Thats true. Many people who were bullied when they were smaller may themselves bully later. Most people are no better than each other, I guess.

I'm gutted. Not only do I completely agree with a post of Hotwife's, but ... YOU?

It's devastating. I'm going to go kill something from the vegetable kingdom. :mad:

Oh, please. Sometimes you need to accept that I joke around, okay?

No. Why? Because YOU make no effort to point it out. No smileys, nothing. You are not qualified, let alone fit, to judge what I should or should not accept.

Sweetcakes? How dare you have a go at me for being "snide"? Hypocrite, much?

Wow. Missed the point that you opened with that tone and have been using it ever since, did you? Not surprising.

Okay, so the opinion of everyone who doesn't live in the USA is automatically null and void in this thread.

Nope. Just people whose opinions seem permanently benighted.

Everyone is different.

Well, that much is true. Well said.

Bunny-kun, you´re so mean to Neko-kun.:(

Meh, I do read OPs, most of the time, you know.:tongue:

I apologize in Japanese AND Spanish, and I get nothing? I see how you are. :(




(kidding)

I'm gutted. Not only do I completely agree with a post of Hotwife's, but ... YOU?

It's devastating. I'm going to go kill something from the vegetable kingdom. :mad:

I know. I'm trying not to think about it. My liberal elitist world is all askew!

I know. I'm trying not to think about it. My liberal elitist world is all askew!

quick, call someone the Man and drink a latte!

We've careened around the subject until I think the original topic's been forgot.

Let's go back for a moment, and seriously look at the question posed...

"SHOULD there be high schools for Gays and Gays alone?"

The answer is... if they're PRIVATE schools, or if the Community in which they are located feels a need, and is paying for it willingly, sure...but don't ask someone who doesn't understand the problem in East Texas to pay for it-he's going to look at you and say "Teach 'em to fight the bullies" and go about his merry, passive-aggressive way.

(East Texas being only a "Cheapshot example" for ease of imagining. It could easily be anywhere else that hasn't got enough Gays to actually staff a High-School.)

It's just like having a "School for the Performing Arts" in New York. If the Community that's paying for it, wants it and thinks it's important, then it's basically their option to have it. I think it's a bad option-Gays have filled many positions of society that are NOT based on Victimhood, including a couple of the best soldiers I ever served with (and no, I didn't "tell". Why screw up someone who's better at the job than I am, when the job is protecting my country? duhr..._) Isolation breeds weakness more often than strength, and only reinforces itself.

No. Why? Because YOU make no effort to point it out. No smileys, nothing. You are not qualified, let alone fit, to judge what I should or should not accept.



Wow. Missed the point that you opened with that tone and have been using it ever since, did you? Not surprising.



Nope. Just people whose opinions seem permanently benighted.



Well, that much is true. Well said.

You really are pathetic.

We've careened around the subject until I think the original topic's been forgot.

Let's go back for a moment, and seriously look at the question posed...

Here is the Original Post. It is the "question posed." Here, read it, and perhaps (forgive me if I ask too much of you) actually follow the two links which put the question in a context of ... brace yourself ... having any knowledge at all to answer the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk_High_School
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/13/gay.friendly.school/


As stated in the title, are they necessary? Should gay students really be given their own high schools to be "safe" from the rest of society? Does it promote segregation even more?

I personally don't think there is a need, and yes it does promote segregation. It works against everything that gay rights promoters work for; acceptance in our culture. Also, just think about the football games and violence springing up from that. They must have a whole police force for sporting events.

Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

Harvey Milk HS is not a school for gays and gays alone. Unless you can prove that.

I'm not going to tell you to shut the fuck up. I would instead ask you to answer my own post, which was a direct answer to yours, and in my vanity I believe utterly destroyed your conceited opinion:

No, I just meant that students who are accustomed to getting their rights without having to risk their personal health and safety to get them, would make excellent witnesses. And by outnumbering the bullies, provide a supportive environment for any students who are bullied. Whether or not the rules of the school are effectively enforced.

Coming from good schools, their expectation would be that the enforcement of rules is the norm.

You seem to be advocating a "mini-society" (as any school is) in which the only assurance of justice is to take the law into your own hands. If your school is like that, leave. Now.

That is a failing strategy in adult life. Taking the law into your own hands will land you in jail. Even if you are planning to "go straight" and break with this habit of administering justice with your fists, you are wasting time learning "social skills" which only apply in criminal society.



No, that is wrong. Every single one of those kids is a human being, with human rights.

Their rights are not dependent on their "bravery." Bravery or cowardice is not the essential quality of being human. Bravery may be a personal attribute which is advantageous to an individual, and if so good for them. Hoo-bloody-ray.

But when you step in to give more rights to "the brave" than "the cowards", and to say we should have a system of education which favours the former over the latter, what I see is quite simply: a bully.

"Stand up for yourself, or you are worth nothing to me" you say.

You are a bully, I say.



Blame the victim.

Yawn. I'm taking an early night.

Yes, it is also rather abusive. It might even break a rule or two of the forum. But I think fit destroys the position you took.

Answer it, report it, return to the subject as quoted above, or shut the fuck up.

You cannot recast the question as you please, in blantant contradiction of the OP as quoted above, to make your own statements sensible, let alone correct.

I'm a huge target. I have (I admit right now) made many statements in this thread which are demonstrably incorrect. I've made some bold claims (I admit, I cannot defend them from my current knowledge, they're guesses which, with further research, I might have to abandon) so have at them.

Stand up to them, of admit that you don't have a clue, haven't read the thread, don't have a clue, didn't read the links in the OP, don't have a clue, and don't know what the thread is about.

Or, if that is the more comfortable option for you, shut the fuck up.

You really are pathetic.

Intangelon is not pathetic.

I know nothing of Intangelon but what 'he' posts here. He has my respect.

I would like to give you my respect too. I'd like us ALL to respect each other ... and hold out the hope of winning each other's respect for trying, for improving ourselves, for at tje very least being tolerant of each other.

So shut the fuck up. :tongue:

e:
Originally Posted by BunnySaurus Bugsii View Post
No, I just meant that students who are accustomed to getting their rights without having to risk their personal health and safety to get them, would make excellent witnesses. And by outnumbering the bullies, provide a supportive environment for any students who are bullied. Whether or not the rules of the school are effectively enforced.

Coming from good schools, their expectation would be that the enforcement of rules is the norm

Reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than the position I WAS taking. Sensible, it might even work for a time.
You seem to be advocating a "mini-society" (as any school is) in which the only assurance of justice is to take the law into your own hands. If your school is like that, leave. Now.
Everyone advocates for more than they ever expect to happen, and often more than they would endure willingly IF it were to happen.
No, that is wrong. Every single one of those kids is a human being, with human rights.
And human choices...just a sec...
But when you step in to give more rights to "the brave" than "the cowards", and to say we should have a system of education which favours the former over the latter, what I see is quite simply: a bully.

"Stand up for yourself, or you are worth nothing to me" you say.

You are a bully, I say.

You're entitled to your opinion, but permit me to provide you a small look at something...

For the last fifty years, people have been pushed, coerced, and coddled with a mindset of submission. Submit to authority, submit to power, someone else will take care of it, what-have-you. In 2001, four airplanes were hijacked by guys armed, not with machine-pistols or small-arms, or even grenades...but with Box Knives. Three of those planes went into office buildings and the fourth into a field in Pennsylvania. Now, prior to that event, the conventional wisdom conferred by Law Enforcement and Antiterrorism "Experts" was "Submit to it, negotiate, you'll be rescued eventually".

The result of this, was the "Patriot Act" and a host of violations of basic liberties, two unpopular wars, another massive government agency (actually two-the TSA, and Homeland Security), trillions of dollars spent, and for what? Can you say with certainty that four guys with box-knives can't hijack a plane TODAY? Or some guy walks into your bank and kills a few people, lives through the "Seige" and then goes on to write a best-seller? When you condition people to submit, you get submissive people. Submissive people are easy to intimidate, easy to control, easy to manipulate-everything you DON'T want in a free society. They're also prone to depression and anxiety-because if they're submissive-by-indoctrination, they're likely NOT comfortable with it-depression is a means by which you know something is WRONG, it's like pain-pain tells you something is damaged, not right, broken.

You also misunderstand something else: "Coward" is the core of a bully. Bullies seek out those WEAKER than themselves, and do so for a rush of powerful feelings other, normal, people get from doing something that is difficult, and doing it well. Fundamental to self-respect, is the feeling of self-reliance. Cowards don't have that, they have something called "Self Esteem". Self Esteem has no basis in what you do, it's just a measure of how good you THINK you are, or how much better you think you are than someone else.

Bullies, dear friend, are the Cowards to which I refer in my previous post-they're always there, you either acknowledge the fact of them, or you pay a price. Sometimes that price runs really, really, REALLY high-drive-by-shootings high, McDonaldland Massacre high.
Columbine High.

When your system punishes the kid who stands up to the Bully as harshly (actually more harshly-the one who stands up is trying to STOP the abuse), it seeps into the rest of the culture-next time, your witnesses will be silent, or the time after that-because it's not worth the risks to fight both the bully, and the school or the bully and the authorities. People work on patterns-patterns of what they experience, and what they observe. If the pattern you observe is that standing up to thugs gets you treated like them, you end up either identifying with the thug (REALLY BAD) or you end up ignoring the problem (Not quite, but almost worse), unless you have some strong influence outside of school (like, Parents) who teach you ideas of right-and-wrong and can explain the situation. Notably, parenting appears (according to what I read in the news) to be a dying craft, with more and more parental roles being adopted by the State.

Now, I know that's not the reply you wanted. I'm sorry about that. I don't consider your answer abusive, and find no offense in it. In order, after all, to have anything like a competition of ideas and ideals, there have to be two sides, and often they shouldn't like one another very much, or it turns into a softball pap mutual admiration society instead of an argument or debate.

On the original subject, though...

While it's not necessarily a terrible idea, "voluntary apartheid" is essentially destructive in the end-maybe not in the beginning, but in what it tends to create in terms of expectations, stereotypes, and bad assumptions. Take a kid from a highly accepting culture of people just like himself, and plunge him into a judgemental, closed-minded, ignorant, hostile environment without giving him some hardening (as in, learning to deal with assaults on his mental and moral self-image, possibly physical body) and that kid will be a wreck for the rest of their life, unable to deal on equal terms with 'wild' humans raised to discern between what is, and is not, a real threat, a real judge of character, or a really important opinion.

MOST of learning "How" to fight back, is learning "When" and in what way-but the will to resist has to be there, and the confidence that resisting is not a worthy target of condemnation must also be there.

Now, I went overboard a bit, I got too wrapped up in being a curmudgeon and didn't present a good argument. I'll admit that.

We've careened around the subject until I think the original topic's been forgot.

Let's go back for a moment, and seriously look at the question posed...

"SHOULD there be high schools for Gays and Gays alone?"

The answer is... if they're PRIVATE schools, or if the Community in which they are located feels a need, and is paying for it willingly, sure...but don't ask someone who doesn't understand the problem in East Texas to pay for it-he's going to look at you and say "Teach 'em to fight the bullies" and go about his merry, passive-aggressive way.

(East Texas being only a "Cheapshot example" for ease of imagining. It could easily be anywhere else that hasn't got enough Gays to actually staff a High-School.)

There is a huge assumption. "Only a gay teacher can teach a gay high-school"

A gay-friendly high school is not gay from stem to stern. It's not like the staff are required to be gay, from the principle to the janitor. Nor are the students selected by some "gay test" -- the mind boggles -- but Harvey Milk can deliberately exclude homophobes by their own arbitrary standards.

If you want to attack the exclusionary nature of HMHS, have at them for being a selective high school. Which they are. Their intake is not determined by any academic standard which all students from the public school system are assessed equally for.

There is no doubt in my mind that the outstanding academic results of HMHS students show that the school is "cherry-picking" academically gifted students. You don't get results like that by choosing the students most at risk, the students from the general school population who most need to be protected from homophobia in public school. You get results like that by picking only the most gifted of the many persecuted students who want an alternative.

That's right on-topic. Bring it, Soheran.

It's just like having a "School for the Performing Arts" in New York. If the Community that's paying for it, wants it and thinks it's important, then it's basically their option to have it. I think it's a bad option-Gays have filled many positions of society that are NOT based on Victimhood, including a couple of the best soldiers I ever served with (and no, I didn't "tell". Why screw up someone who's better at the job than I am, when the job is protecting my country? duhr..._) Isolation breeds weakness more often than strength, and only reinforces itself.

Wow, I missed all that the first time through.

Don't shut the fuck up after all. Forgive me for being drunk.

"Don't ask don't tell" is homophobia. It's admitting that the homophobe can't recognize a gay guy as a full human being until they prove themself so. But evidence from the "don't ask, don't tell" regime shows that some troops ask against orders, and some tell when tortured (strong word, but well related to bullying and not too far from the truth in the services.)

"Don't ask, don't tell" is homophobia with legal immunity for the employer (the military) against being right now, or in the future, found to have discriminated against a citizen. Surely you would agree that a soldier is a citizen?

There is a huge assumption. "Only a gay teacher can teach a gay high-school"

A gay-friendly high school is not gay from stem to stern. It's not like the staff are required to be gay, from the principle to the janitor. Nor are the students selected by some "gay test" -- the mind boggles -- but Harvey Milk can deliberately exclude homophobes by their own arbitrary standards.

If you want to attack the exclusionary nature of HMHS, have at them for being a selective high school. Which they are. Their intake is not determined by any academic standard which all students from the public school system are assessed equally for.

There is no doubt in my mind that the outstanding academic results of HMHS students show that the school is "cherry-picking" academically gifted students. You don't get results like that by choosing the students most at risk, the students from the general school population who most need to be protected from homophobia in public school. You get results like that by picking only the most gifted of the many persecuted students who want an alternative.

That's right on-topic. Bring it, Soheran.



Wow, I missed all that the first time through.

Don't shut the fuck up after all. Forgive me for being drunk.

"Don't ask don't tell" is homophobia. It's admitting that the homophobe can't recognize a gay guy as a full human being until they prove themself so. But evidence from the "don't ask, don't tell" regime shows that some troops ask against orders, and some tell when tortured (strong word, but well related to bullying and not too far from the truth in the services.)

"Don't ask, don't tell" is homophobia with legal immunity for the employer (the military) against being right now, or in the future, found to have discriminated against a citizen. Surely you would agree that a soldier is a citizen?

Dude, I think the entire section on "Sexual misconduct" in the UCMJ needs to be edited with a meat-axe, particularly the five year sentence for sodomy (defined, basically, as having sex in any way other than heterosexually, in the missionary position, without most common forms of foreplay), and that Gays should be able to serve in the open just like everyone else. The only things that should be a crime there, are:

1. Rape.
2. Child Molestation.

That's it. Neither of those are "gay" things, they're just disgusting and abhorrent things that should be grounds for some particularly vile forms of execution that I can only imagine due to being an insensitive bastard myself.

Instilling "Discipline" should be enough to prevent in-barracks abuse, if it isn't, some nice trips down a few existing (but rarely enforced) punishments in the UCMJ and AR's should be quite efficient at quelling any transitional problems and instilling the right attitude. (remember kids, when you enlist, you're giving up free excercise of rights and liberties for the sole and only purpose of protecting those rights and liberties for others. Forget this at your peril.)

Oh, and quite alright, I'm up WAAAYYY too late. Got work tomorrow.

I apologize in Japanese AND Spanish, and I get nothing? I see how you are. :(




(kidding)

Kuso! Inta-sama, gomen asai!! *huggles*:fluffle:


:D

For the last fifty years, people have been pushed, coerced, and coddled with a mindset of submission. Submit to authority, submit to power, someone else will take care of it, what-have-you. In 2001, four airplanes were hijacked by guys armed, not with machine-pistols or small-arms, or even grenades...but with Box Knives. Three of those planes went into office buildings and the fourth into a field in Pennsylvania. Now, prior to that event, the conventional wisdom conferred by Law Enforcement and Antiterrorism "Experts" was "Submit to it, negotiate, you'll be rescued eventually".

Yes, they got it wrong. Remember, for decades hijackers took the plane and held it hostage. They rarely got their demands met in full, and the only cases of all the passengers being killed was when special forces tried to storm the plane. Let alone all the passengers and the hijackers themselves being used to attack some other target.

It's obvious in hindsight. But if you remember that day, it took most people a long time, they had to be told over and over again even while watching the video over and over, to believe that "hijacking" could have such serious consequences.

I travelled on planes long before then, hijackers were a bit of a joke. You'd basically go somewhere you didn't want to go, your baggage would get lost and you'd arrive two days late. In the seventies, there were cartoons in the newspaper which basically treated hijacking as a bit of harmless fun.

We were all wrong about that. A hijacked plane can do far more harm than that, we know now.

So you say it was only possible because the passengers were weak and uninformed? That's just blame-the-victim again. Nobody saw this coming? Where were the government employees, the airline employees, the airline lawyers, who didn't see that coming? Fuck no, let's blame the passengers who did what governments and airlines told them to do, and left it to the crew and to special forces. Let's blame the civilians who did nothing wrong, had no legal obligation to save others ... and who died.

Very chivalrous of you. Where were the military when this happened, this supposed "act of war against the United States?" Well, what the fuck did they do?

Nothing. Diddly-fucking-squat. No, it was the responsibility of unarmed civilians to defend other civilians. Let's just take "blame the victim" to the limit, and blame each adult on those planes for not risking their individual lives to stop something none of us saw coming.

I don't think so.


The result of this, was the "Patriot Act" and a host of violations of basic liberties, two unpopular wars, another massive government agency (actually two-the TSA, and Homeland Security), trillions of dollars spent, and for what? Can you say with certainty that four guys with box-knives can't hijack a plane TODAY?

No, I can't. I'd worry about four people with far more effective weapons ... and I won't speculate about what those are. I'm pretty much an amateur in engineering, but I can think of several ways to fuck up a plane so it crashes. I'm aware of several means to effectively threaten the lives of the crew which would get past any test I know of.

The main reason it hasn't happened again is that no-one has done it again. Really. Bali and Madrid were copycat attacks ... and both were far softer targets than the airspace over New York. That was it. That was the "war" which GWB claims we are still fighting.

If you doubt that, ask yourself if Al Qaeda has other targets, representing the United States or its commercial interests, which they could attack the same way with planes from other countries with laxer controls. Of course they do. Army barracks. Office blocks. Oil facilities. That of all the strife happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of that explosive has been used on the really critical targets to western capitalism -- and again, I won't specify. I'm not on the side of the terrorists, so I won't point out the obvious targets.

The "Patriot Act" -- foul name -- and the airport checks are hardly better than demonstrations of "due dilligence." The checks are more about reassuring air passengers that they are personally safe, so that air travel doesn't fall in a big hole as an industry, than protecting any targets from jet attack.

I do suspect that more effective means of 9/11 prevention, like fly-by-wire at the discretion of ground control, have been implemented. If an uniformed civilian like me can see that, it's done already.

Or some guy walks into your bank and kills a few people, lives through the "Seige" and then goes on to write a best-seller?

Profits of crime. Simply dealt with by civil suits to take the "guy"s royalties away as compensation.

When you condition people to submit, you get submissive people. Submissive people are easy to intimidate, easy to control, easy to manipulate-everything you DON'T want in a free society.

We quite explicitly disagree now. You see a "free society" as one where each individual stands up for themselves -- because you see the enemy of freedom as oppressive government. A government which apparently has as its mission, it's reason for being, to come after each and every one of us and "take away our freedoms." And the way to oppose that, as being each of us defending our own interests, with deadly force if need be.

I see a "free society" as one in which each individual is free against the only force which is likely to, and which we see daily restricting our freedom to do this or that -- other people. I see a "free society" as one where laws are enforced, where even the weakest and most ignorant knows the rights which government grants them, and demands those rights, and gets them. That is, their legal rights, their rights as protected by law.

Regardless of whether they have the strength or the will or the firepower to enforce their own rights at the moment they are threatened. It's a right if you can count on it, and it will be defended. It saves government money if you can do it for yourself ... but if you can't, that is government's role. I see the enforcement of law as the first responsibility of government. It comes even before defending a country from invasion.

I'm happy to have you stand up for my rights before the facts are established in court. If your firearm saves my life, you have my thanks. But when you stand up in court and give your account of the circumstances where you killed or injured someone, don't expect me to tell anything but the truth. I recognize the law, and only the law, as the ultimate authority in disputes between individuals.

They're also prone to depression and anxiety-because if they're submissive-by-indoctrination, they're likely NOT comfortable with it-depression is a means by which you know something is WRONG, it's like pain-pain tells you something is damaged, not right, broken.

No, wait. If I run a red light, and a cop pulls me over and fines me ... I should get "depressed" about that because I had to submit? I can't just submit and admit I was wrong? I have to fight them all the way to jail, and then not get depressed ... because I have protected my dignity by not submitting?

You also misunderstand something else: "Coward" is the core of a bully. Bullies seek out those WEAKER than themselves, and do so for a rush of powerful feelings other, normal, people get from doing something that is difficult, and doing it well.

That's not so different from something I said before. The eventual punishment a bully should get (in the enforcement of school rules) might come too late. Like the hangover from a big night of drinking, it doesn't stop you having that extra drink. In the midst of the "rush" they don't think of the consequences.

But I'm almost agreeing with you here. The bully is taking a shortcut to "respect." Earning respect is hard, dog knows for some people it's near impossible. I can see the attraction of forcing someone else to say "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir."

Fundamental to self-respect, is the feeling of self-reliance. Cowards don't have that, they have something called "Self Esteem". Self Esteem has no basis in what you do, it's just a measure of how good you THINK you are, or how much better you think you are than someone else.

No. Who made your shoes? Who taught you to read, or to speak your own name?

To reduce "self-reliance" to an ability to defend yourself against physical violence is to throw away the better part, and the bigger part, of human society. None of us grows our own food, generates our own electricity ... none of us manufactured the CPU in the computers we use now.

You, I, every person reading this, are reliant on other humans in some way. In many ways, in fact. This goes right to the heart of "entitlement," for we rich westerners cannot claim to have "earned" all we have, it was our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and so on back, whose work we enjoy the wages of.

So don't strut your "self-reliance" before me. I'll just laugh at you. If you would claim to be contributing more to the society which supports you, than I contribute to the same society, well I'll consider that. It's probably true. But don't cross that line of saying that some of us "deserve" to live, or to be offered the benefits of civilization, and some of us don't. Neither of us deserve everything we have, we earned a tiny fraction of it.

Bullies, dear friend, are the Cowards to which I refer in my previous post-they're always there, you either acknowledge the fact of them, or you pay a price. Sometimes that price runs really, really, REALLY high-drive-by-shootings high, McDonaldland Massacre high.
Columbine High.


I'm not going to "acknowledge" bullies as a "fact."

I will consider treatment of bullies as if they are in some way sick.
I will consider intervention in their lives before school, if bullies are "born bullies."
I will even consider eugenics to prevent the birth of bullies.
I will consider taking children away from their parents, if it's parental influence which makes them bullies.
I will consider rewarding bullies not to bully other kids.

But I refuse to accept that the presence of bullies is a fact of public school.

As I said before, by "guaranteeing" a right to universal basic education, government takes on an obligation to provide that. Where that coincides with providing to kids the same legal protections against crime as are available to adults, and where government also must represent and defend those legal rights ... it becomes very difficult.

The simplest solution, kicking some of the kids out of school, simply isn't good enough. It's damn tempting though ... throwing all three obligations out at once, unless the kid comes to the attention of police thereafter.

In adult life, in "free" society, there is no place for the kind of bullying which occurs in high school. Unprovoked physical assault is illegal, and on a slippery slope of increasing penalties. Verbal abuse, intimidation, lying to police ... obstructing police ... failing to report a crime. These are illegal, and if government won't enforce the same standard of law for these people, young people, when they are in school then government is arrantly wrong.

When your system punishes the kid who stands up to the Bully as harshly (actually more harshly-the one who stands up is trying to STOP the abuse), it seeps into the rest of the culture-next time, your witnesses will be silent, or the time after that-because it's not worth the risks to fight both the bully, and the school or the bully and the authorities.

If you define "standing up to" as "physically assaulting" yes.

The teacher, year or subject head, deputy-p or principle can actually distinguish between restraint and violence. They do have the discretion to punish more severely a punch to the head than cornering someone without touching them -- both are intimidation, but only the first is assault.

Now, I know what you will say: what to do with a kid who is brandishing a knife, or pulls out a gun. Can other students really be expected to "restrain" them (you might even make some ludicrous case for one of them pulling out a gun and shooting that person 'in self-defence') but I will say "yes." Numbers count, and there are viable defences against a knife -- pick up a chair, and if your mate does too that's the end of it. They're cornered until armed police arrive.

If they're carrying a gun, they have already committed a serious crime. There isn't much anyone can do to "restrain" them. Well, to hell with you and your whole society if a legal minor has access to a gun. I can't help you there. The right of "citizens" -- but in the majority of cases, grown up male bullies -- to own a firearm is why school students have access to these tools which clearly they are not competent to operate.

People work on patterns-patterns of what they experience, and what they observe. If the pattern you observe is that standing up to thugs gets you treated like them, you end up either identifying with the thug (REALLY BAD) or you end up ignoring the problem (Not quite, but almost worse), unless you have some strong influence outside of school (like, Parents) who teach you ideas of right-and-wrong and can explain the situation. Notably, parenting appears (according to what I read in the news) to be a dying craft, with more and more parental roles being adopted by the State.

Agreed, only replace "State" with "Cable." ;)

Now, I know that's not the reply you wanted. I'm sorry about that. I don't consider your answer abusive, and find no offense in it. In order, after all, to have anything like a competition of ideas and ideals, there have to be two sides, and often they shouldn't like one another very much, or it turns into a softball pap mutual admiration society instead of an argument or debate.

It's a far longer reply that I expected.

One of the things about long posts is that they are hard to attack point by point.

But I will disagree with this point too. The "softball pap" of Soheran's posts actually turned me around on the subject of Harvey Milk High School. I've got a new issue about that school (which I may have posted already, it's late and I don't remember) but So and others have pretty much persuaded me that the US public education system can't be radically overhauled. So I'm now in favour of whatever harm-minimizing compromises can be achieved.

I advise you to read Soheran's posts, again if you already have. He has the knack of asking the unanswerable question. I lose sleep over his polite and seemingly equivocal posts.

On the original subject, though...

While it's not necessarily a terrible idea, "voluntary apartheid" is essentially destructive in the end-maybe not in the beginning, but in what it tends to create in terms of expectations, stereotypes, and bad assumptions. Take a kid from a highly accepting culture of people just like himself, and plunge him into a judgemental, closed-minded, ignorant, hostile environment without giving him some hardening (as in, learning to deal with assaults on his mental and moral self-image, possibly physical body) and that kid will be a wreck for the rest of their life, unable to deal on equal terms with 'wild' humans raised to discern between what is, and is not, a real threat, a real judge of character, or a really important opinion.

Excellent argument for abolishing high school.

No, wait ...

It's about legal competence to choose for yourself. It's about the legal culpability of anyone who would assault you, and the effectiveness of punishment which can be delivered to them.

I'm with Soheran on this. If government can't provide a safe environment in high school, and some option is available to a kid to get their high school qualifiications, but more importantly become legally adult and be entitled to defend their legal rights against bullies, then I won't stand in their way.

I'm not going to lock them up in an environment where their rights as people aren't protected by law, with thugs who can't be held fully accountable to law and punished for what would be crimes in adult society.

I'm not going to "toughen them up" with some kind of boot camp ... not when what they are being acclimatized to is a brutal, homophobic and essentially criminal environment that they don't have to, and most likely won't have to suffer as adults.

If you graduate high school with a good result, if you work hard and take a few bold decisions (moving state or country for instance) then the "bully society" is NOT what you have to live in. You're acclimatized to a decent adult society where you don't have to fight for your rights ... while the bullies are acclimatized to a criminal society where the only way to get rights is the fight for them and wrest them off someone else. Which is to say, they go to jail.

MOST of learning "How" to fight back, is learning "When" and in what way-but the will to resist has to be there, and the confidence that resisting is not a worthy target of condemnation must also be there.

I will endorse martial arts training as good for anyone who feels threatened. You don't have to use the option to benefit from having it ... and it might save your life.

Never did much of it myself, but I've seen the positive benefits.

This was long. I'm going to once again mention surveillance cameras. Extreme cases of bullying can in fact be punished by adult law, and while the testimony of other students is useful, video is much stronger evidence. I'm a bit perplexed that teachers don't seem strongly in favour of it ... makes me wonder if they are afraid themselves of being sued for negligence in preventing crimes.

Yes, they got it wrong. Remember, for decades hijackers took the plane and held it hostage. They rarely got their demands met in full, and the only cases of all the passengers being killed was when special forces tried to storm the plane. Let alone all the passengers and the hijackers themselves being used to attack some other target.

It's obvious in hindsight. But if you remember that day, it took most people a long time, they had to be told over and over again even while watching the video over and over, to believe that "hijacking" could have such serious consequences.

I travelled on planes long before then, hijackers were a bit of a joke. You'd basically go somewhere you didn't want to go, your baggage would get lost and you'd arrive two days late. In the seventies, there were cartoons in the newspaper which basically treated hijacking as a bit of harmless fun.

We were all wrong about that. A hijacked plane can do far more harm than that, we know now.

So you say it was only possible because the passengers were weak and uninformed? That's just blame-the-victim again. Nobody saw this coming? Where were the government employees, the airline employees, the airline lawyers, who didn't see that coming? Fuck no, let's blame the passengers who did what governments and airlines told them to do, and left it to the crew and to special forces. Let's blame the civilians who did nothing wrong, had no legal obligation to save others ... and who died.

Very chivalrous of you. Where were the military when this happened, this supposed "act of war against the United States?" Well, what the fuck did they do?

Nothing. Diddly-fucking-squat. No, it was the responsibility of unarmed civilians to defend other civilians. Let's just take "blame the victim" to the limit, and blame each adult on those planes for not risking their individual lives to stop something none of us saw coming.

I don't think so.



No, I can't. I'd worry about four people with far more effective weapons ... and I won't speculate about what those are. I'm pretty much an amateur in engineering, but I can think of several ways to fuck up a plane so it crashes. I'm aware of several means to effectively threaten the lives of the crew which would get past any test I know of.

The main reason it hasn't happened again is that no-one has done it again. Really. Bali and Madrid were copycat attacks ... and both were far softer targets than the airspace over New York. That was it. That was the "war" which GWB claims we are still fighting.

If you doubt that, ask yourself if Al Qaeda has other targets, representing the United States or its commercial interests, which they could attack the same way with planes from other countries with laxer controls. Of course they do. Army barracks. Office blocks. Oil facilities. That of all the strife happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of that explosive has been used on the really critical targets to western capitalism -- and again, I won't specify. I'm not on the side of the terrorists, so I won't point out the obvious targets.

The "Patriot Act" -- foul name -- and the airport checks are hardly better than demonstrations of "due dilligence." The checks are more about reassuring air passengers that they are personally safe, so that air travel doesn't fall in a big hole as an industry, than protecting any targets from jet attack.

I do suspect that more effective means of 9/11 prevention, like fly-by-wire at the discretion of ground control, have been implemented. If an uniformed civilian like me can see that, it's done already.



Profits of crime. Simply dealt with by civil suits to take the "guy"s royalties away as compensation.



We quite explicitly disagree now. You see a "free society" as one where each individual stands up for themselves -- because you see the enemy of freedom as oppressive government. A government which apparently has as its mission, it's reason for being, to come after each and every one of us and "take away our freedoms." And the way to oppose that, as being each of us defending our own interests, with deadly force if need be.

I see a "free society" as one in which each individual is free against the only force which is likely to, and which we see daily restricting our freedom to do this or that -- other people. I see a "free society" as one where laws are enforced, where even the weakest and most ignorant knows the rights which government grants them, and demands those rights, and gets them. That is, their legal rights, their rights as protected by law.

Regardless of whether they have the strength or the will or the firepower to enforce their own rights at the moment they are threatened. It's a right if you can count on it, and it will be defended. It saves government money if you can do it for yourself ... but if you can't, that is government's role. I see the enforcement of law as the first responsibility of government. It comes even before defending a country from invasion.

I'm happy to have you stand up for my rights before the facts are established in court. If your firearm saves my life, you have my thanks. But when you stand up in court and give your account of the circumstances where you killed or injured someone, don't expect me to tell anything but the truth. I recognize the law, and only the law, as the ultimate authority in disputes between individuals.



No, wait. If I run a red light, and a cop pulls me over and fines me ... I should get "depressed" about that because I had to submit? I can't just submit and admit I was wrong? I have to fight them all the way to jail, and then not get depressed ... because I have protected my dignity by not submitting?



That's not so different from something I said before. The eventual punishment a bully should get (in the enforcement of school rules) might come too late. Like the hangover from a big night of drinking, it doesn't stop you having that extra drink. In the midst of the "rush" they don't think of the consequences.

But I'm almost agreeing with you here. The bully is taking a shortcut to "respect." Earning respect is hard, dog knows for some people it's near impossible. I can see the attraction of forcing someone else to say "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir."



No. Who made your shoes? Who taught you to read, or to speak your own name?

To reduce "self-reliance" to an ability to defend yourself against physical violence is to throw away the better part, and the bigger part, of human society. None of us grows our own food, generates our own electricity ... none of us manufactured the CPU in the computers we use now.

You, I, every person reading this, are reliant on other humans in some way. In many ways, in fact. This goes right to the heart of "entitlement," for we rich westerners cannot claim to have "earned" all we have, it was our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and so on back, whose work we enjoy the wages of.

So don't strut your "self-reliance" before me. I'll just laugh at you. If you would claim to be contributing more to the society which supports you, than I contribute to the same society, well I'll consider that. It's probably true. But don't cross that line of saying that some of us "deserve" to live, or to be offered the benefits of civilization, and some of us don't. Neither of us deserve everything we have, we earned a tiny fraction of it.



I'm not going to "acknowledge" bullies as a "fact."

I will consider treatment of bullies as if they are in some way sick.
I will consider intervention in their lives before school, if bullies are "born bullies."
I will even consider eugenics to prevent the birth of bullies.
I will consider taking children away from their parents, if it's parental influence which makes them bullies.
I will consider rewarding bullies not to bully other kids.

But I refuse to accept that the presence of bullies is a fact of public school.

As I said before, by "guaranteeing" a right to universal basic education, government takes on an obligation to provide that. Where that coincides with providing to kids the same legal protections against crime as are available to adults, and where government also must represent and defend those legal rights ... it becomes very difficult.

The simplest solution, kicking some of the kids out of school, simply isn't good enough. It's damn tempting though ... throwing all three obligations out at once, unless the kid comes to the attention of police thereafter.

In adult life, in "free" society, there is no place for the kind of bullying which occurs in high school. Unprovoked physical assault is illegal, and on a slippery slope of increasing penalties. Verbal abuse, intimidation, lying to police ... obstructing police ... failing to report a crime. These are illegal, and if government won't enforce the same standard of law for these people, young people, when they are in school then government is arrantly wrong.



If you define "standing up to" as "physically assaulting" yes.

The teacher, year or subject head, deputy-p or principle can actually distinguish between restraint and violence. They do have the discretion to punish more severely a punch to the head than cornering someone without touching them -- both are intimidation, but only the first is assault.

Now, I know what you will say: what to do with a kid who is brandishing a knife, or pulls out a gun. Can other students really be expected to "restrain" them (you might even make some ludicrous case for one of them pulling out a gun and shooting that person 'in self-defence') but I will say "yes." Numbers count, and there are viable defences against a knife -- pick up a chair, and if your mate does too that's the end of it. They're cornered until armed police arrive.

If they're carrying a gun, they have already committed a serious crime. There isn't much anyone can do to "restrain" them. Well, to hell with you and your whole society if a legal minor has access to a gun. I can't help you there. The right of "citizens" -- but in the majority of cases, grown up male bullies -- to own a firearm is why school students have access to these tools which clearly they are not competent to operate.



Agreed, only replace "State" with "Cable." ;)



It's a far longer reply that I expected.

One of the things about long posts is that they are hard to attack point by point.

But I will disagree with this point too. The "softball pap" of Soheran's posts actually turned me around on the subject of Harvey Milk High School. I've got a new issue about that school (which I may have posted already, it's late and I don't remember) but So and others have pretty much persuaded me that the US public education system can't be radically overhauled. So I'm now in favour of whatever harm-minimizing compromises can be achieved.

I advise you to read Soheran's posts, again if you already have. He has the knack of asking the unanswerable question. I lose sleep over his polite and seemingly equivocal posts.

On the original subject, though...


Excellent argument for abolishing high school.

No, wait ...

It's about legal competence to choose for yourself. It's about the legal culpability of anyone who would assault you, and the effectiveness of punishment which can be delivered to them.

I'm with Soheran on this. If government can't provide a safe environment in high school, and some option is available to a kid to get their high school qualifiications, but more importantly become legally adult and be entitled to defend their legal rights against bullies, then I won't stand in their way.

I'm not going to lock them up in an environment where their rights as people aren't protected by law, with thugs who can't be held fully accountable to law and punished for what would be crimes in adult society.

I'm not going to "toughen them up" with some kind of boot camp ... not when what they are being acclimatized to is a brutal, homophobic and essentially criminal environment that they don't have to, and most likely won't have to suffer as adults.

If you graduate high school with a good result, if you work hard and take a few bold decisions (moving state or country for instance) then the "bully society" is NOT what you have to live in. You're acclimatized to a decent adult society where you don't have to fight for your rights ... while the bullies are acclimatized to a criminal society where the only way to get rights is the fight for them and wrest them off someone else. Which is to say, they go to jail.



I will endorse martial arts training as good for anyone who feels threatened. You don't have to use the option to benefit from having it ... and it might save your life.

Never did much of it myself, but I've seen the positive benefits.

This was long. I'm going to once again mention surveillance cameras. Extreme cases of bullying can in fact be punished by adult law, and while the testimony of other students is useful, video is much stronger evidence. I'm a bit perplexed that teachers don't seem strongly in favour of it ... makes me wonder if they are afraid themselves of being sued for negligence in preventing crimes.

Game, set and match, BSB. :hail:

Well said.

Kuso! Inta-sama, gomen asai!! *huggles*:fluffle:


:D

Adigato gozaimas-ta, Nantsu-sensei.

interesting...
Is it black gay or white gay schools?
More fun to come

Intangelon is not pathetic.

I know nothing of Intangelon but what 'he' posts here. He has my respect.

I would like to give you my respect too. I'd like us ALL to respect each other ... and hold out the hope of winning each other's respect for trying, for improving ourselves, for at tje very least being tolerant of each other.

So shut the fuck up. :tongue:

Uh, he's the one whose bitching about everything I say. So, I don't need to shut the fuck up. It IS pathetic to constantly badger someone, especially with his tone. He needs to get over it.

Well it depends do you think seperation helps. By the logic of having gay high schools should we have religous only schools, athiest only schools, gender only schools, straight only schools and whatever else the private school system can think off.

In the end you live in the same city as homosexuals. Why not learn how to talk with them without thinking they want a sexual relation.

Uh, he's the one whose bitching about everything I say. So, I don't need to shut the fuck up. It IS pathetic to constantly badger someone, especially with his tone. He needs to get over it.

Well, I'm glad that neither you nor Sudova took offence at the "stfu" lines. Even with a smiley, I shouldn't do that. It was heavily ironical, meant to be funny in light of how long my own posts were.

But I thought you were doing fine at defending yourself, up to the moment you opted to flame. Perhaps you think you shouldn't have to put up with niggling criticism, but really the only option is ignoring a poster if they aren't actually breaking a rule. Intangelon wasn't, so far as I can see.

It's a pretty mild flame. I sure won't be reporting you for saying "you are pathetic" instead of "that is pathetic."

============

Well it depends do you think seperation helps. By the logic of having gay high schools should we have religous only schools, athiest only schools, gender only schools, straight only schools and whatever else the private school system can think off.

Um, HMHS is a public school. Seems it started out as a non-profit


In the end you live in the same city as homosexuals. Why not learn how to talk with them without thinking they want a sexual relation.

Quite a few posters have dealt with this already. I comes down to: why should students have to suffer harassment, intimidation or even life-threatening violence, to build a better future society?

You really are pathetic.

It's really sad that when I point out exactly why I have a problem with your attitude.

You make an outlandish statement.

Said statement has no evidence of you joking. No smileys, nothing.

Newer or other poster who might not even know your post history reads your post and takes it as read because there's no evidence to tell him you're kidding.

You quote his reply and basically call him an idiot for not being able to read your mind.

That's my problem with you.

If finding that behavior to be condescending and needlessly arrogant makes me pathetic, then I am King Pathetic.

Sweetcakes? How dare you have a go at me for being "snide"? Hypocrite, much?

Let's see, how about the fact that "sweetcakes" was clearly not directed at you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14198571&postcount=345)?

You seem to go out of your way to be unpleasant. Why?

then I am King Pathetic.

Sure, your magesty.

Let's see, how about the fact that "sweetcakes" was clearly not directed at you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14198571&postcount=345)?

You seem to go out of your way to be unpleasant. Why?

And my comment on that other thread wasn't directed at you, but you felt the need to but in. Don't be a hypocrite.

Nooooooooooo

Sure, your magesty.



And my comment on that other thread wasn't directed at you, but you felt the need to but in. Don't be a hypocrite.

*sigh*

Where I post a link, you post vagueness. I'll cop to hypocrisy if it can be shown. Besides, I've never had a problem with who you respond to and when, but rather how. You're obliviously rude to people who've done nothing to deserve it, and that's reprehensible. I'll call you on it whenever I see it. I don't go looking for you because I only go into threads I think I might be interested in. Hell, I've even complimented you on some of your posts (such as the one you decided to end with that petulant "Knights of Bitchery" line, again, with no hint of joking).

My problem with you is documented. Yours with me seems to be the fact that I have dared to call you on your horseshit, and "hypocrite" is all you've got to come back with. You could be so much more, and yet you choose to be smaller. Again, I wonder why.

Sure, your magesty.



And my comment on that other thread wasn't directed at you, but you felt the need to but in. Don't be a hypocrite.

Also? Majesty.

Yes, they got it wrong. Remember, for decades hijackers took the plane and held it hostage. They rarely got their demands met in full, and the only cases of all the passengers being killed was when special forces tried to storm the plane. Let alone all the passengers and the hijackers themselves being used to attack some other target.

It's obvious in hindsight. But if you remember that day, it took most people a long time, they had to be told over and over again even while watching the video over and over, to believe that "hijacking" could have such serious consequences.

Not all people, BSB. The Hijackers pulled a stunt that was used in a book by Tom Clancy published in the nineties, but with the added fun of a planeload of hostages. (read the ending of "Debt of Honor" and check the pub. date.)

I travelled on planes long before then, hijackers were a bit of a joke. You'd basically go somewhere you didn't want to go, your baggage would get lost and you'd arrive two days late. In the seventies, there were cartoons in the newspaper which basically treated hijacking as a bit of harmless fun.

We were all wrong about that. A hijacked plane can do far more harm than that, we know now.

So you say it was only possible because the passengers were weak and uninformed? That's just blame-the-victim again. Nobody saw this coming? Where were the government employees, the airline employees, the airline lawyers, who didn't see that coming? Fuck no, let's blame the passengers who did what governments and airlines told them to do, and left it to the crew and to special forces. Let's blame the civilians who did nothing wrong, had no legal obligation to save others ... and who died.

Very chivalrous of you. Where were the military when this happened, this supposed "act of war against the United States?" Well, what the fuck did they do? That's like asking "Where are those Cops, they should have prevented this!" Fact is, BSB, the cops, or the military-Can't Be There all the TIME.

And to be quite clear, here... I'm not blaming the victims-I"m blaming the people that told them, taught them, indoctrinated them to submit to this sort of thing. I blame the fuckers that set things up so that a ruthless opportunist could pull this sort of scheme off-people who apparently didn't understand (and, I suspect, still don't understand) that giving in to violent assholes doesn't stop them, and if you do it enough, eventually they'll use you to hurt someone else. In September of 2001, there were a grand total of twelve aircraft assigned to north american air-defense missions on the ready-line. Most Americans (referring to the U.S.) still didn't have the idea that there are people out there who want us all dead.

Guess what? those people wanted us all dead long before 2001, and they still do, and still will even if we adopt the supine position of total surrender.


Nothing. Diddly-fucking-squat. No, it was the responsibility of unarmed civilians to defend other civilians. Let's just take "blame the victim" to the limit, and blame each adult on those planes for not risking their individual lives to stop something none of us saw coming.

There's a bright spot-four aircraft hijacked, but the civilians on one of them DID stand up. Sure, they died, but they didn't take anyone ELSE with them.

Obviously they understood what you're not understanding.



No, I can't. I'd worry about four people with far more effective weapons ... and I won't speculate about what those are. I'm pretty much an amateur in engineering, but I can think of several ways to fuck up a plane so it crashes. I'm aware of several means to effectively threaten the lives of the crew which would get past any test I know of.

The main reason it hasn't happened again is that no-one has done it again. Really. Bali and Madrid were copycat attacks ... and both were far softer targets than the airspace over New York. That was it. That was the "war" which GWB claims we are still fighting.

In 2001, there was NO softer target than U.S. domestic airspace. The U.S. is a continental-size country with a province-sized alert reaction force that year. Ten years of "Peacekeeping missions" and foreign deployments, combined with eight years of steady decrease in funding and support (taken in "Real Dollars" amounts-that is, accounting inflation and devaluation of the dollar) stripped things pretty bare. By 1994 we were cannibalizing equipment to keep equipment running, and the administration of the time was rushing to get rid of experienced NCO leadership with the RIF programme, gutting training budgets, and cutting units wholesale. U.S. forces in 2001 were pretty close to a "Hollow force"-part of the reason for the Body-Armor scandals of the current conflicts (2002 to the present) being that there WAS NONE in the budget for ten years prior, and that shit takes time to make.

If you doubt that, ask yourself if Al Qaeda has other targets, representing the United States or its commercial interests, which they could attack the same way with planes from other countries with laxer controls. Of course they do. Army barracks. Office blocks. Oil facilities. That of all the strife happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of that explosive has been used on the really critical targets to western capitalism -- and again, I won't specify. I'm not on the side of the terrorists, so I won't point out the obvious targets.

Absolutely. When I was based at Khobar Towers, I looked out the window and figured out that there was a problem with that soccer-field-a close, unguarded approach. About a year later, somebody used that unguarded approach to bomb the towers with a tanker truck full of catalyst.

The "Patriot Act" -- foul name -- and the airport checks are hardly better than demonstrations of "due dilligence." The checks are more about reassuring air passengers that they are personally safe, so that air travel doesn't fall in a big hole as an industry, than protecting any targets from jet attack.
You can't protect a point target from jet-attack without shooting the jet down-at least, from OUTSIDE the jet.


I do suspect that more effective means of 9/11 prevention, like fly-by-wire at the discretion of ground control, have been implemented. If an uniformed civilian like me can see that, it's done already.

You've used a cell-phone, right? RF has certain behaviours, and one of the main reasons commercial aircraft have manual controls ('cause most major airports have ALS systems that land the plane for you) is as a safety measure in case the remote systems and the computers screw up. Any system like you propose would rely on wireless networking-and this presents a problem. Currently, there's a favourite 'hacking' method called wardriving in which someone equipped with a laptop that is wireless capable hacks into your wireless network...from their car. Terrorists aren't all necessarily ignorant goat-herders, a lot of them have university educations and access to technology. It's like trying to fight a brushfire using remote-control, you can't do it. you still need people on the ground.


Profits of crime. Simply dealt with by civil suits to take the "guy"s royalties away as compensation.

Charles Manson.


We quite explicitly disagree now. You see a "free society" as one where each individual stands up for themselves -- because you see the enemy of freedom as oppressive government. A government which apparently has as its mission, it's reason for being, to come after each and every one of us and "take away our freedoms."

Not exactly. I simply acknowledge a few facts:
1. Corruption is drawn to power and Power tends to corrupt. Tyranny is a more efficient means of corrupting completely.

2. Government, like any large organization, will tend to look toward growing itself at the expense of the citizens.

3. Governments do very few things competently beyond basic tasks like waging war, building highways, administering prisons, and collecting taxes.
When you look at the condition of Public Education in the U.S., VA hospitals (the closest we currently have to socialized medicine for folks that aren't already holding public office), and taking care of the elderly...government doesn't do a good job.

4. Per Supreme court decisions dating back more than a decade, the Government is not obligated to protect the life of individual citizens-it's only obligation is to protect "society" at large-that is, if you're murdered or raped, they're only obligated to try to catch the guy after-the-fact. Prevention is up to YOU. They don't even have to protect those holding no-contact orders who are under very real threat from domestic violence.

And the way to oppose that, as being each of us defending our own interests, with deadly force if need be.

Yes...within reason. I'm not advocating Anarchy-the outcome of Anarchy is Tyranny, but if you're going to demand someone else help to protect you, you have to be willing to, at some point, stand up and do your part. it's like Seatbelts, or wearing a helmet on your bike-it is immoral to demand that others protect you from the outcome of your own refusal to take prudent steps. Likewise, it is immoral to demand help when you won't help others, or even Yourself.


I see a "free society" as one in which each individual is free against the only force which is likely to, and which we see daily restricting our freedom to do this or that -- other people. I see a "free society" as one where laws are enforced, where even the weakest and most ignorant knows the rights which government grants them, and demands those rights, and gets them. That is, their legal rights, their rights as protected by law.

Youve pefectly described some of the most aggressive dictatorships in history. Benefit does not flow from Government, partly because goverrnment is finite even in relation to the population as a whole, but also partly because government is best at restricting or destroying. CITIZENS create.

Further, it is not Government that grants rights- "Rights" are derived from the Citizenry, including Government's privelage to Govern. No government can function without the implicit consent of the Governed. Now, this consent can be manufactured or courted by many means, but the easiest (because it is ALWAYS easier to destroy than to create) is to use fear. Fear is easier to use, if the citizen feels or believes himself powerless weak and dependent.

Regardless of whether they have the strength or the will or the firepower to enforce their own rights at the moment they are threatened. It's a right if you can count on it, and it will be defended. It saves government money if you can do it for yourself ... but if you can't, that is government's role. I see the enforcement of law as the first responsibility of government. It comes even before defending a country from invasion.

And who enforces the laws on Government itself? That's right, nobody but the mass of the citizens. Tyranny can not arise without this consent I spoke of earlier.

I'm happy to have you stand up for my rights before the facts are established in court. If your firearm saves my life, you have my thanks. But when you stand up in court and give your account of the circumstances where you killed or injured someone, don't expect me to tell anything but the truth. I recognize the law, and only the law, as the ultimate authority in disputes between individuals.

Look, when someone kills a bunch of people, we all pay a price. If you're alive in the aftermath, then it's worth it, even if you'd rather be a dead martyr.


No, wait. If I run a red light, and a cop pulls me over and fines me ... I should get "depressed" about that because I had to submit? I can't just submit and admit I was wrong? I have to fight them all the way to jail, and then not get depressed ... because I have protected my dignity by not submitting?

You agreed to it when you got your driver's license, and started using the roads. If you're depressed, it's because you didn't think it through. Speeding is illegal, driving is a privelage. Privelages are NOT rights.


That's not so different from something I said before. The eventual punishment a bully should get (in the enforcement of school rules) might come too late. Like the hangover from a big night of drinking, it doesn't stop you having that extra drink. In the midst of the "rush" they don't think of the consequences.

Punishment, combined with bruises and injuries from the victim tends to be more of a deterrent than being punished for being caught-which is, inevitably, what most bullies see it as.

But I'm almost agreeing with you here. The bully is taking a shortcut to "respect." Earning respect is hard, dog knows for some people it's near impossible. I can see the attraction of forcing someone else to say "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir."

Well...it's a start.



No. Who made your shoes? Who taught you to read, or to speak your own name?

To reduce "self-reliance" to an ability to defend yourself against physical violence is to throw away the better part, and the bigger part, of human society. None of us grows our own food, generates our own electricity ... none of us manufactured the CPU in the computers we use now.

I wasn't clear...apparently. I'm not reducing 'self reliance' to such simplistic levels, but on the simplistic level, the guy who can't make the CPU, or the shoes, or his pants, or his breakfast...can still stand up and say "No". And THAT is the core of self-reliance. The ability to refuse, and accept the consequences of that refusal.


You, I, every person reading this, are reliant on other humans in some way. In many ways, in fact. This goes right to the heart of "entitlement," for we rich westerners cannot claim to have "earned" all we have, it was our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and so on back, whose work we enjoy the wages of.

True.

So don't strut your "self-reliance" before me. I'll just laugh at you. If you would claim to be contributing more to the society which supports you, than I contribute to the same society, well I'll consider that. It's probably true. But don't cross that line of saying that some of us "deserve" to live, or to be offered the benefits of civilization, and some of us don't. Neither of us deserve everything we have, we earned a tiny fraction of it.

I think you're putting words in my mouth there.


I'm not going to "acknowledge" bullies as a "fact."
Your choice. Otoh, can you show me ONE society that doesn't have it? has never had it? just one, that's all. Even when the bullying isn't physical, it's still there.


I will consider treatment of bullies as if they are in some way sick.
I will consider intervention in their lives before school, if bullies are "born bullies."
I will even consider eugenics to prevent the birth of bullies.
I will consider taking children away from their parents, if it's parental influence which makes them bullies.
I will consider rewarding bullies not to bully other kids.

Did you even THINK about this before you posted it? Eugenics??? Hiring the thugs to protect-that worked REAL well at Altamont in '72, didn't it? The LAST person you want protecting you, is someone who gets off on dominating others. They'll take your payment, then bully you anyway. Treating it like a mental illness? Okay, so you want to make an excuse for it?


But I refuse to accept that the presence of bullies is a fact of public school.

As I said before, by "guaranteeing" a right to universal basic education, government takes on an obligation to provide that. Where that coincides with providing to kids the same legal protections against crime as are available to adults, and where government also must represent and defend those legal rights ... it becomes very difficult.

The simplest solution, kicking some of the kids out of school, simply isn't good enough. It's damn tempting though ... throwing all three obligations out at once, unless the kid comes to the attention of police thereafter.

In adult life, in "free" society, there is no place for the kind of bullying which occurs in high school. Unprovoked physical assault is illegal, and on a slippery slope of increasing penalties. Verbal abuse, intimidation, lying to police ... obstructing police ... failing to report a crime. These are illegal, and if government won't enforce the same standard of law for these people, young people, when they are in school then government is arrantly wrong.


Then treat all potential felonies as...felonies. Dump the Juvenile Justice system and put them in with the real predators, because you know what they say- "When you're under eighteen you won't be doing any time."

Only, that doesnt' work, does it? People do what gets them rewards, it's as old as pavlov's experiments. The problem you have, is that bullies consider the punishment to be punishment for getting caught. Deterrence of the less-disturbed, 'average' ones has to be done at the individual level-just as deterring crims has to be done at the average level (why else does your house have a lock on the door? if punishment-after-the-fact worked, we'd never have to lock our doors or take the keys when we get out of the car.)


If you define "standing up to" as "physically assaulting" yes.

So, you'd rather the victim of a bully lay there bleeding and just take it like a man, then? VERY charitable of you, very civilized. I suppose you think the victim of a rape should just lie back and enjoy it, too?

The teacher, year or subject head, deputy-p or principle can actually distinguish between restraint and violence. They do have the discretion to punish more severely a punch to the head than cornering someone without touching them -- both are intimidation, but only the first is assault.
That is provided the Adults are actually present, and that your "Year head" (I assume you're not a yank, and that it's some kind of student officer) isn't the Bully himself.

Now, I know what you will say: what to do with a kid who is brandishing a knife, or pulls out a gun. Can other students really be expected to "restrain" them (you might even make some ludicrous case for one of them pulling out a gun and shooting that person 'in self-defence') but I will say "yes." Numbers count, and there are viable defences against a knife -- pick up a chair, and if your mate does too that's the end of it. They're cornered until armed police arrive.
THAT is the point at which you run. If running's not an option, and it's just a knife, grab a chair, or something heavy, and get ready to get cut. Kids should not be carrying firearms in school-if they are, something serious just went wrong, and people are going to die of it. Among ADULTS, bearing arms is acceptable. Children are not adults. Children should not be armed, and if they are armed, you've got more than a standard bully problem in your education system.

If they're carrying a gun, they have already committed a serious crime. There isn't much anyone can do to "restrain" them. Well, to hell with you and your whole society if a legal minor has access to a gun. I can't help you there. The right of "citizens" -- but in the majority of cases, grown up male bullies -- to own a firearm is why school students have access to these tools which clearly they are not competent to operate.

Okay, this paragraph's a little bit awkward. I take it you're a Hoplophobe? At any rate, I think we agree children should not vote in real elections, bear arms, or operate commercial equipment until they are ADULTS... at least, I think that's what you're saying, and I happen to agree with it.



Agreed, only replace "State" with "Cable." ;)


LOL!! Too true...but I was serious about people giving up their parenting duties to the State, even BEFORE Cable was widespread.

It's a far longer reply that I expected.

One of the things about long posts is that they are hard to attack point by point.

But I will disagree with this point too. The "softball pap" of Soheran's posts actually turned me around on the subject of Harvey Milk High School. I've got a new issue about that school (which I may have posted already, it's late and I don't remember) but So and others have pretty much persuaded me that the US public education system can't be radically overhauled. So I'm now in favour of whatever harm-minimizing compromises can be achieved.

I prefer devolving control to the locals, and then letting them eat the results if their ideas fail the broader test, myself. i.e. if HMHS works, then great-it's paid for locally, and the parents at least care enough to show up for the school-board meetings and help their kids. I'm not such a myrmidon that I insist on demanding something be changed that is working for the people involved, nor such that I insist on being absolutely right even when I'm wrong. (though I'll argue my ass off first.)

I advise you to read Soheran's posts, again if you already have. He has the knack of asking the unanswerable question. I lose sleep over his polite and seemingly equivocal posts.

Soheran's a solid thinker, even on things I don't agree with.

On the original subject, though...


Excellent argument for abolishing high school.

No, wait ...

It's about legal competence to choose for yourself. It's about the legal culpability of anyone who would assault you, and the effectiveness of punishment which can be delivered to them.

I'm with Soheran on this. If government can't provide a safe environment in high school, and some option is available to a kid to get their high school qualifiications, but more importantly become legally adult and be entitled to defend their legal rights against bullies, then I won't stand in their way.

I'm not going to lock them up in an environment where their rights as people aren't protected by law, with thugs who can't be held fully accountable to law and punished for what would be crimes in adult society.

I'm not going to "toughen them up" with some kind of boot camp ... not when what they are being acclimatized to is a brutal, homophobic and essentially criminal environment that they don't have to, and most likely won't have to suffer as adults.

Ask that Shepard kid about that-wait, you can't, he was MURDERED.

If you graduate high school with a good result, if you work hard and take a few bold decisions (moving state or country for instance) then the "bully society" is NOT what you have to live in. You're acclimatized to a decent adult society where you don't have to fight for your rights ... while the bullies are acclimatized to a criminal society where the only way to get rights is the fight for them and wrest them off someone else. Which is to say, they go to jail.

Oh, if only! If only all Bullies went to Jail, not as guards,but as prisoners, ah, bliss!! Then, maybe, we wouldn't have dirty cops, or people who (ab)use the law to attack their neighbours for painting their house the wrong colour, we wouldn't have gay-bashers, Fred Phelps, wife-beaters, kid-beaters...


I will endorse martial arts training as good for anyone who feels threatened. You don't have to use the option to benefit from having it ... and it might save your life.


Well, that's what I was thinking when I said "Self Defense Courses". The ability to fight back, BSB, people who are confident in that ability don't move like victims, react like victims, or allow themselves to victimized...long before it ever gets to the physical level. People who aren't afraid, people who aren't TAUGHT to be afraid, are far, far, more resistant to bullying than people who ARE taught to be afraid. They're psychologically more likely to intervene, more likely to testify without preconditions that the State can't fulfill, and far more likely to resist, which in turn breaks the pattern of reward for 'beginning bullies' and weeds it down to the hard core that need to be imprisoned or put down.

It's like locking your front door-you don't do it to deter the career criminal, you do it to deter the opportunist.


This was long. I'm going to once again mention surveillance cameras. Extreme cases of bullying can in fact be punished by adult law, and while the testimony of other students is useful, video is much stronger evidence. I'm a bit perplexed that teachers don't seem strongly in favour of it ... makes me wonder if they are afraid themselves of being sued for negligence in preventing crimes.

They don't, because you can't get 100% coverage no matter HOW many you put up. Bullies (or someone) will always find the 'blind spots'.

It seems to me that you read my post very carefully. I apologize that I have snipped a big part of your reply, regarding the origin of rights in the individual or the state.

We have to snip something, right? It seemed to me to be leading off-topic. I deal with all that 9/11 stuff in the first two sections, but be assured that I did read it.

Not all people, BSB. The Hijackers pulled a stunt that was used in a book by Tom Clancy published in the nineties, but with the added fun of a planeload of hostages. (read the ending of "Debt of Honor" and check the pub. date.)

With all respect to Tom Clancy, I would rather people make life and death decisions based on real history than on the plotline of a novel.

There's a bright spot-four aircraft hijacked, but the civilians on one of them DID stand up. Sure, they died, but they didn't take anyone ELSE with them.

Obviously they understood what you're not understanding.

They had heard what happened to the other planes.

That entirely proves my point, that the passengers of the the three former planes had a reasonable expectation of living without taking drastic action. They acted from self-preservation whereas the passengers on the first three planes assumed, from their knowledge of the news, ie a better approximation of recent history than a Tom Clancy novel, that their chances of survival were better by letting the hijackers land the plane somewhere than to storm the cockpit.

I think that is all you can ask of a group of people in immediate danger. That they stand up for each other, and protect each other. The fourth plane is different, the rules of hijacking had changed, and they knew it from using their phones. Before then, people were following the accepted wisdom, and the rules of the airlines they were flying on, and not using their phones.

I don't mind Air Marshals by the way. I'm happy to have armed Australian police on flights within Australia. I advocate a fairly simple rule: the marshals can be tried in either country for breaches of the law, for actions they take between take-off in one country and landing in another. That is, if one country doesn't want to lay charges, the other can, and if both lay charges the marshal must face both. On the ground, local law.

BSB: That's not so different from something I said before. The eventual punishment a bully should get (in the enforcement of school rules) might come too late. Like the hangover from a big night of drinking, it doesn't stop you having that extra drink. In the midst of the "rush" they don't think of the consequences.

Punishment, combined with bruises and injuries from the victim tends to be more of a deterrent than being punished for being caught-which is, inevitably, what most bullies see it as.

This I will answer, because it does actually relate to the thread subject.

Two issues here:

the chances of being "caught" in a legal sense. I hope we both agree that it's good to maximize the rate of conviction (the offence being brought to the attention of the defenders of law, AND the rate of punishment being applied ie good evidence and fair judges.)
If punishment is only sufficient to deter the offence when combined with extra-judicial bruises and injuries, then the punishment (filtered through the always-less-than-complete rate of conviction) is not sufficient to deter the offence.


Large quantities of what I snipped out went to this second question. You seem to want, for citizens whether adult or minor, a right to apply EXTRA punishment, in cases which are punishable anyway. But the citizen defender doesn't know if what they personally witnessed is punishable!

Now, diminish the legal quality of the "citizen defender" to "student in school." Also, diminish the legal authority of the "court" they testify in to "vice principle" (deputy head?) ... and you see just how fraught with injustice it is to let students apply the rules with their fists.

Your principle makes bullying WORSE. A kid can beat the shit out of some other kid, and if every student witness to it says "she was just defending herself against bullying, it was self-defence" you let them off scot-free, while punishing the victim with detention or even a suspension. Plus, the bruises and injury.

It's just going to make "ganging-up" even more profitable in bullying.

Well...it's a start.

I wasn't clear...apparently. I'm not reducing 'self reliance' to such simplistic levels, but on the simplistic level, the guy who can't make the CPU, or the shoes, or his pants, or his breakfast...can still stand up and say "No". And THAT is the core of self-reliance. The ability to refuse, and accept the consequences of that refusal.

They can stand up and say "No" when the biggest bully of all takes their side. Which is the school which properly enforces its rules, supported by a majority of students whose principles are law-abiding: "I follow these rules because I want all others to follow these rules."

That's a basic principle of law. It's the only way law is ever going to work, and to appear just. If you are a witness to a crime, and you're pissed that the legal system didn't punish it sufficiently ... you have to resolve to be a better witness next time. You have to vote, or run for office, or agitate for more effective or just laws. You don't just pre-empt the law (self-defence aside.)

On the flipside, if you ever saw a friend you were convinced was innocent get convicted for a crime you don't believe happened ... you have the same options. Vote, run for office, or agitate. Hell, fund their appeal, an option which applies above as well. You don't go shoot the cop who framed them up.

I'm middle-aged. I've been on both sides of the law, and I've seen a lot of injustice. With or without the cops, with or without the law. It really is better to have the law, a third party involved in every case which originates from, our could lead to "bruises and injury." I know all too well how the injustice of a "bruise or injury" can lead a person who is personally involved to kill another person.

There needs to be a third party in any dispute, to make an impartial judgement. Preferably, that person is more powerful, and thus above being swayed by either party.

Assault is a serious crime. Assault can lead to permanent disability (a punch in the head can cause permanent brain injury, for instance) ... even as the instigator you could regret it. The "injury" can be life-long ... physical assault is "cruel and unusual" punishment, its consequences are random.

Oh, I know. Harm can be done by words alone. But the act of physical contact is where we should draw the line -- first one to touch, in a situation of conflict, is the aggressor. They're the bully.

"They swung at me, but I ducked and hit them back" -- you are the aggressor. Sorry, but it needs to be independently verifiable. It needs to be beyond doubt, to a third party.


Did you even THINK about this before you posted it? Eugenics??? Hiring the thugs to protect-that worked REAL well at Altamont in '72, didn't it? The LAST person you want protecting you, is someone who gets off on dominating others. They'll take your payment, then bully you anyway. Treating it like a mental illness? Okay, so you want to make an excuse for it?


No, I didn't think much about it. I probably would defend some of those things in other contexts. Eugenics, publicly-regulated, well-researched and well debated eugenics, is certainly something I'm coming around to.

More relevantly, the idea of rewarding bullies has some merit. Not all bullies, certainly. Only the top-end, the bullies who other bullies fear. It would mess with the spectrum of for-or-against the law.

But yeah, the list was rhetorical. It was a list of things which make less sense than the thesis you put, that we should simply accept that some kids are bullies, and will always be.

We should not accept that "some kids are bullies" and we should do whatever it takes to change bullying behaviour. NOT remove all the identifiable targets from their environment, and NOT to legitimize a bullying environment as the way to separate those who stand up for themselves with their own power, from those who cannot or will not.

School should not be a pass-or-fail test for the ability of a student to stand up for themself. Which it is if you accept the existence of bullies, and let them define who is worthy and who is not by whether they stand up for themselves.

Then treat all potential felonies as...felonies. Dump the Juvenile Justice system and put them in with the real predators, because you know what they say- "When you're under eighteen you won't be doing any time."

Ah, bullshit. Jail is deprivation of liberty, no more. This "let the criminals punish other criminals" idea is the dark side of justice.

The law has an obligation to punish. Punishing, it has an obligation to punish fairly, according to the sentence laid down by the court. Judge and jury, the court. They decide the punishment ... not convicted criminals.

Perhaps you'd prefer the oubliette. Down the hole, not our problem any more. My conscience doesn't permit that. What I do to other people remains my problem, whether they can affect my life or not.


Only, that doesnt' work, does it? People do what gets them rewards, it's as old as pavlov's experiments. The problem you have, is that bullies consider the punishment to be punishment for getting caught.

Repeat: catch them more often.

Deterrence of the less-disturbed, 'average' ones has to be done at the individual level-just as deterring crims has to be done at the average level (why else does your house have a lock on the door? if punishment-after-the-fact worked, we'd never have to lock our doors or take the keys when we get out of the car.)

It's exactly at the "more average" level of persecution that rules work best.

The kid who thinks their "joke" is just a bit risque, and finds that it offends the jewish student, or the black student, or the gay student in the class ... shouldn't be told that by the jewish student, etc, with a scuffle in the corridor after class. The offended party should be able to raise it right there, and if they don't the teacher should. Forms of discrimination recognized in the wider society should not be tolerated in class.

Out of class, yes sure. Teachers don't, and shouldn't, lean over the shoulders of students in their out-of-class time. That's a point I should have made more clearly earlier: all-of-school surveillance doesn't mean that some back-office nazi comes after students for "saying a bad word." It's still up to students to complain about what they think is mistreatment, and if that is upheld by the video evidence, the speaker gets a telling-off. It's really not Big-Brother, it's strong evidence to support a student complaint.

Good student fix both of those those problems. They intervene -- verbally -- in class and out, and tell racists, sexists, homophobes, and anyone else who crosses the line of out-of-school tolerance to back off. The good student has a reason to do that: it maintains a school culture which favours them, the culture in which they are considered "top." Where the student standards are the school standards, social and academic.

By accepting the inevitability of bullying in schools, you accept that teachers do not define the culture of a school. Teachers need rules followed in order to teach. Teachers aren't just little hitlers (um, some of them are, but) the point of keeping inter-student power struggles down using an over-riding authority is to provide a safe learning space, and to focus on learning not the power-struggles.

The more good students who are removed from the public system, the more homophobic, sexist and racist the system becomes: this is my argument for "dilution." This is my argument against the privileged students being removed from the system by their privileged parents. They adopt from their parents a sense of learning, hopefully life-long learning. Schools only work when the majority of students believe in learning. Good teachers help, but it's unrealistic to expect them to set the tone when their class has several bullies competing for power, a bunch of followers of those bullies, and five or six good students.

That's what happens when you give students options in education. You leave those who don't have options, or are denied them by their parents, stuck with the students no school wants -- those with behavioural problems (including bullies,) those with undiagnosed disabilities, and in fact homophobic gay students. They're left at the mercy of a bigoted school body which is only made more so by the "rescue" of openly gay students.

And it's what Harvey Milk High School is doing -- it's taking the best students who qualify as gay-friendly, and leaving behind gay students who can't make a good enough account of themselves to qualify. It's bloody great if you're a talented gay person like Harvey Milk himself -- and it leaves gay students who have other disadvantages than their sexuality without the support of those good students, in their homophobic high schools.

It leaves students who are not themselves bullies, but who are different in any way from the minority (the tiny minority, in terms of the entire student body, private, public, and special-public) at the mercy of the dinosaurs -- kids who think the way their parents were is the only right way. Those would also be a minority, in a school system where all students attended a public school.

So, you'd rather the victim of a bully lay there bleeding and just take it like a man, then? VERY charitable of you, very civilized. I suppose you think the victim of a rape should just lie back and enjoy it, too?
That is provided the Adults are actually present, and that your "Year head" (I assume you're not a yank, and that it's some kind of student officer) isn't the Bully himself.

The point you supposedly make isn't made.

I would rather that teachers enforce the rules. I have said how that isn't possible without the testimony of other students and video evidence to corroborate it. I have said how public schools need more teachers (which would be reflected in playground and hall supervision) and I have said how public schools need more non-teaching specialists.

They need these things desperately. Clearly horrible things are happening in public schools and that demands a massive response by government. ADDED to the extra funding they have failed to provide for the disabled students which they have forced into mainstream schooling.

Now you accuse me of beating up kids. It was me, was it, who "left a kid lying there bleeding and taking it like a man"?

OK, I'll take that part. The kid should lay there bleeding. He or she should cry like a little kid ... and all the students present should message the pictures they took with their phone to the local paper. They should kick up a stink, and if they have a shred of decency they will describe that as "school permits serious assault" not as "kerry gets owned."

I'm calling on the kids themselves to fix the system, not opt out of it. The authority is there to protect them, all they need to do is call on it. To protect the rights it constitutionally guarantees them. Every time a kid uses their fists to protect their rights, they weaken those rights for all kids, themselves included.


THAT is the point at which you run. If running's not an option, and it's just a knife, grab a chair, or something heavy, and get ready to get cut. Kids should not be carrying firearms in school-if they are, something serious just went wrong, and people are going to die of it. Among ADULTS, bearing arms is acceptable. Children are not adults. Children should not be armed, and if they are armed, you've got more than a standard bully problem in your education system.

No, wait up. Your country's laws are wrong. Among adults, carrying firearms is NOT acceptable. It's fucktarded. It's fucking stupid to allow anyone without a criminal record to own a gun (and in some of your more fucktarded states, carry a gun in public).

Now, consider that in light of my repeated argument (which you have not addressed) that bad parents make bad kids, and in light of the verifiable correlation between gun ownership and the commission of crimes in the US, and tell me that kids who never did anyone any harm and whose parents never did anyone any harm, die at the hands of bullies with guns, who took a gun their parent legally purchased ... oh fuck it. It's so bleeding obvious, all you need is every second word from this paragraph to get the point.

Sure, I'm a Hoplophobe. Guns are a tool I have no use for. When I see one, I assume that whoever bears it chooses to be in the position of being able to kill me. Unless, you know, there are bears around or something.

LOL!! Too true...but I was serious about people giving up their parenting duties to the State, even BEFORE Cable was widespread.

Television became widespread in the Fifties. The "parenting by television" thing became a problem IMHO, during the Seventies. That's one generation.

Now the second generation of the Internet is growing up. I don't fear that, I'm for change. Good, bad, seraphic or catastrophic, I love change. (I can't change myself and I can't change the world, so I love it when everything I thought was me is binned by the world. Interesting times!)

People giving up their parenting duties to the State is a necessary cost of the State doing what some parents can't and never could.

Which is, on-topic, educating children. Some parents can't do that, most Cable can't do that ... but Schools can. And must.

We can't just offer education to children. That's what Cable does, and even more so the Internet. It educates when the child chooses to be educated, and that's great. But when it fails, they take entertainment by preference. Living by proxy, by what keeps their attention, living fictional lives where action is "changing the channel." In short, insanity.

If we "offer" education to all children, we must take the next step and require that all children be educated. That means that public education has to be better than, more attractive to children than, the entertainment aspect of the media.

Children are not competent to choose between Education and Entertainment. Only schools are in the unique position to offer a child choices within education. By the hour, and without choice. It is terribly challenging. If the State must do it without the co-operation of families, it will be very expensive.

I prefer devolving control to the locals, and then letting them eat the results if their ideas fail the broader test, myself.

I disagree. It takes several years of a kid's education before they have to "eat it" and it's the parents who are the empowered "locals" as you see it.

Generations could go by before such schools "fail the broader test." That's entire lives blighted by bad education. Or at least, kids who get to secondary education before they realize that their parents and teachers are full of shit, and/or have the option to do something about it by changing schools.

Again, your proposal would widen inequalities based on where kids are born. Again, it puts kids at risk to enforce some broader social agenda of "responsibility."

i.e. if HMHS works, then great-it's paid for locally, and the parents at least care enough to show up for the school-board meetings and help their kids. I'm not such a myrmidon that I insist on demanding something be changed that is working for the people involved, nor such that I insist on being absolutely right even when I'm wrong. (though I'll argue my ass off first.)

The New York school system has an endemic problem if it needs schools like HMHS.

Yes, rescue the most at-risk kids (which HMHS doesn't do, it's selective and I can prove it) and "paid for locally" is exactly the problem -- the entire New York school system needs more than a per-student share of the money

Soheran's a solid thinker, even on things I don't agree with.

I'm a huge fan, yeah. His answers to me are somewhat unsatisfying, though.

Oh, if only! If only all Bullies went to Jail, not as guards,but as prisoners, ah, bliss!! Then, maybe, we wouldn't have dirty cops, or people who (ab)use the law to attack their neighbours for painting their house the wrong colour, we wouldn't have gay-bashers, Fred Phelps, wife-beaters, kid-beaters...

We (the public which pays for public schools) ought to fix this early, not with underfunded jails when it's too late.

"Give me a child to the age of seven, and I will give you the man."

Parents have the child for the most important years of that time. And let's remember the huge channel which non-school, non-parent social influence have in forming a child's character: TV, cable, internet. It starts for some kids before school, before internet. And it straddles all of them. Without good parenting, media has overtaken school as the "educator" ... and media allows far too much choice to the child between education and entertainment.

Explicit, personal parenting. Media, regulated by parents or not. Schooling, regulated by parents or not. Peers, other children under one or other of these influences, regulated by parents or not. Parenting is the key.

When parenting fails, only schools have power over children. All the other influences are moot.

Please come around to my view here. Children need good parenting, they need actual people who care about them, make sacrifices for them, and have power over them. If we can't make parents better, we need better and more teachers in the lives of those children, in the early years in particular. To leave the parenting of children to other children, and to a media which is motivated overwhelmingly by the need to make money, we sell the entire future of society. To corporations whose goals are set in years, or at most decades. Not lifetimes, as a parent's goals are.

If we give our children's education over to the media, we give up on "society" and condemn ourselves to a class society, where "who you were born" is the most important factor in "who you are."

That's the way it is now. It will only get worse, as education becomes more and more a determinant of who you can become. You and I are fine, we're of the Morlocks.

*snip*

People who aren't afraid, people who aren't TAUGHT to be afraid, are far, far, more resistant to bullying than people who ARE taught to be afraid. They're psychologically more likely to intervene, more likely to testify without preconditions that the State can't fulfill, and far more likely to resist, which in turn breaks the pattern of reward for 'beginning bullies' and weeds it down to the hard core that need to be imprisoned or put down.

In your next post, I would like you to clarify the many references you have made to the "teachers of cowardice." WHO teaches us to be afraid?

I say it is simple human nature. Fear informs us. It informs me, riding my bicycle. It informs all of us, in the many circumstances in which we could die if we did something rash. But you say it should not inform us, should not guide our actions, in dealing with other individuals.

Specify who teaches us to "be afraid"? I say that fear of the law is the correct attitude of a law-abiding citizen, and that to be "brave" against the law is no more than to be a criminal.

You seem to be saying that the only defence against fear is to make someone else afraid. I say fear runs far deeper than that, and that your principle (that bullies should be repelled by fear of retribution) only makes bullying worse. It directs bullying to the targets who are least able to fight back.

It's like locking your front door-you don't do it to deter the career criminal, you do it to deter the opportunist.

It deters both.

They don't, because you can't get 100% coverage no matter HOW many you put up. Bullies (or someone) will always find the 'blind spots'.

It's about the ratio of enforcement. No law enforcement aims for 100% detection, gathering of evidence, and conviction. The higher the better, it's about inducing a fear of being caught in the mind of the perpetrator. The chances of getting caught weigh in that, probably more than the fear of the expected punishment. To be "caught" is to fail.

So, I don't claim that video surveillance would make students completely safe from assaults in school. It would make them safer in two ways: they would be safer in some areas they could stay in, or run to; and when assaults do happen there would be solid evidence in SOME cases to allow criminal charges to be made.

It would put some bullies out of the school system, at least temporarily. It would put the fear of lawful punishment into others. Surely you can't oppose it?