It's actually simple logical progression from the extreme SJW liberal point of view. They are the people pushing the narrative that we must be "inclusive" and "tolerant" of everybody no matter how different they are and warning us about "triggering" and "microagressions" against any so-called minority. They are the one's who have elevated teasing and not speaking to the weird kid into bullying and probably a hate crime.
In the multicultural paradise of the future where "diversity is our strength" it will be immoral to not be friends with Nazis, if you take the SJW messages to the logical extreme.
Thank you for the laugh. This seems to be effectively the same thing as arguing that open-mindedness leads to people believing anything, and just as easily dismissable. There are indeed grains of truth here, but there's so much chaff mixed in that it's really not worth dealing with as is. The first big mistake, of course, was trying to treat the "extreme SJW liberal point of view" (a.k.a. one of those groups of supposedly obvious crazies that's easy to pick on, but only barely relevant to the mainstream) as so much more worthy of addressing than the more mainstream positions.
But then, hey, this is also a funny accusation after how popular the "Nazi-punching" of Spencer was in similar parts of the left to what you describe and how unpopular it especially was for many of those on the right.
The evidence I have is she said they ostracised him.
She seems like a brainy chick, so I'm thinking she knows what it means.
If you have evidence she doesn't you could post it.
...
In short, the fundamental difference between the ostracism and bullying continues to elude you, given that you refuse to accept that bullying is not about the specific actions so much as it is about the combination of action and intent.
There's been little disagreement that some of them fairly certainly ostracized him. There's been much disagreement that the ostracism that was described, as described, qualifies as bullying, with direct explanations as to why. Consistently circling back to the argument that all ostracism is bullying without even remotely actually addressing the arguments for why it's not bullying is quite unconvincing.
So ostracising a kid because they say happen to need a wheel chair isn't bullying
Understood
Bullying is active, aggressive intimidation of the target, either physically or psychologically. The bully seeks out the target in order to do them harm.
Ostracising is passive, exclusion of the target. Those who ostracize others want to stay away from them and have nothing to do with them.
Actually, it would be far more correct to say that ostracism
can be bullying. Why the ostracism is happening matters quite a bit there. In Cruz' case, the statements seem to point directly at it not qualifying, but Cruz is hardly the only person who's been ostracized.
Ok. I get that argument
If as you say ostracising is not a form of bullying, do you think it has the same effect as bullying and can do as much damage?
Same effect? As much damage? There are indeed some similarities, quite unsurprisingly, given that it's clearly a case of a person being rejected, which is pretty much always unpleasant to have happen to you, regardless of form, and one could conceivably describe bullying as being a subset of the ways that people reject people. In the cases where it actually qualifies as bullying, though, it's one of the relatively minor forms, so definitely less actual damage, unpleasant as it may be.
