Amanda Todd Coverage

[Scrib]

Yeah, I'm really not going to say that I don't think that her being pretty had nothing to do with it, sorry. I was watching a video on TYT where this exact thing came up, unconsciously of course. The man was like "and she's such a pretty girl" or something. I hate that shit. I don't get why people need to slip that shit in there. All I hear is "She could have had a really good life, because non-pretty people can't ". The fuck? This always comes up.

IDK, I think that the thing about this case is that it's clearly someone being taken advantage of in a way that hits all the right buttons. It was a young, impressionable girl taken advantage of by some creep on the internet. The narrative is familiar. She made one silly mistake and her life was ruined etc. People are getting more and more worried about the internet and the possibly destructive pictures on it. Sad to say that this story combined those two issues.

[Versac]

Yeah, I'm really not going to say that I don't think that her being pretty had nothing to do with it, sorry.

Apologies, but I honestly have no idea what you're saying here.

[Scrib]

Yeah, I'm really not going to say that I don't think that her being pretty had nothing to do with it, sorry.

Apologies, but I honestly have no idea what you're saying here.

I'm saying that I disagree with the idea that her beauty had nothing to do with the story's prominence.

[TheFeniX]

Eventually kids will end up in places they can't get expelled from anyway. All forcing bad people down does is create an underclass of juvie/crap school kids.

The problem isn't what should be done, whether jail or some form of rehabilitation. The big problem, at least what I can see, is that even people in positions of authority don't take the problem seriously. Maybe I'm wrong and things have changed, but the only time I see a school take decisive action against students is when there's direct video evidence or in cases of "Full Retard" when you commit a "crime" against the school. Oh wait, the school doesn't do shit, they just call the cops.

Any other type of issue where it requires someone to connect the dots seems to get pushed off on Detective Trash McCan. Investigating complaints seems to be well outside their comfort level, even when more than one complaint is made.

After the bully kicked Asher down the stairs, another student witness filled out an incident report, but the school took no action, according to the complaint. Hamilton Middle School punished the bully by sidelining him from one football game.

Although I have to say, Football is serious business here in the Lone Star State. I don't care about creating some kind of underclass school kid or understanding his motivation for illegally using deadly force against another person, I care about a school implying that kicking someone down a flight of stairs means no real consequences.

Not everyone who bullies in school turns into a criminal or asshole or whatever, and understanding why people start a behaviour and why people stop it is probably useful.

We do understand bullying. And whereas emotional or psychological bullying may be a grey area, physical bullying is much easier to nail down because it's prosecuted anywhere else but schools where assault and battery is played off as "boys will be boys." Let me put it this way: In the real world, 3+ assailants, even unarmed, against 1 person backed into a corner would easily justify deadly force be used in response. There wouldn't be any hand-wringing about ruining one of the attacker's football career. In the real world, kicking someone down stairs means you go to jail. Do attackers like this, even in middle school, really deserve to have their motivations understood? In any other situation, they'd be labelled violent criminals and be treated as such.

People stop bullying when they leave school because they enter a system that doesn't encourage it. Yes, there are obvious exceptions, but they are just that. Schools, like prisons, exist in some kind of microcosm where the rules of society make no fucking sense.

[General Brock]

.....
People stop bullying when they leave school because they enter a system that doesn't encourage it. Yes, there are obvious exceptions, but they are just that. Schools, like prisons, exist in some kind of microcosm where the rules of society make no fucking sense.

And that would be... where exactly?

[Edit: Adult bullying exists.]

[Stark]

The problem isn't what should be done, whether jail or some form of rehabilitation. The big problem, at least what I can see, is that even people in positions of authority don't take the problem seriously.

Yeah that's what I'm saying; that 'bullying' is treated in some special way unlike other situations or crimes and this is what creates the niche it exists in. The more people talk about how mysterious and insoluble a problem it is, the easier bullying becomes.

When I was a kid the only way someone was going to stop getting picked on is if they fucked someone up and showed that they weren't someone you picked on. If someone got, say, knifed in a drug deal gone wrong, well holy shit call the cops get the parents involved serious adult consequences!!!!! That distinction is the significant one; everyone knows leaning on the fatties for cash is basically consequence free, in a way beating up your girlfriend, petty theft, drug use, and other school crimes are not.

I don't mean to snip your post so much, but I think we agree on a lot of things about this issue. Treating it differently, especially with special weak rules, is stupid and counterproductive. I'm just not sure the other extreme (SHIP THEM TO JUVIE) is any better without broad cultural change in schools in general.

[TheFeniX]

And that would be... where exactly?

[Edit: Adult bullying exists.]

No shit? I didn't know that because0 I've never worked a day in my life. Yes, bullying exists even in the workplace. That's why I said there are exceptions. There are however major differences between school and workplace bullying. Namely, you can just quit your job. There's also the issue that workplace bullying is counterproductive to a business making money, thus not encouraged in an intelligently run business. Further, allowing hostile workplaces to continue existence when there's a clear paper chain documenting it can lead managers into all kinds of legal and civil trouble.

Please find me another venue in which kicking someone down a flight of stairs leads to no legal consequences. Please tell me another place where someone can stalk you and continue verbal harassment over the course of several weeks with a clean paper trail documenting the situation and no legal action is taken. They don't exist. And when they do, they are viewed as injustices such as rape victims being harassed.

Your own link is a list of shit people get fired for and/or go to jail for every year:

negligence
incompetence
maladministration
neglect of duty
dereliction of duty
misappropriation of budgets
financial irregularities and fiddling the books

Seriously, find me people who would argue the adult equivalent of "boys will by boys" WRT that shit. Besides, that's not a bully: that's a moron and criminal. Upon further reading, that whole link is pretty verbose and repeats shit people already know over and over again.

[TheFeniX]

I don't mean to snip your post so much, but I think we agree on a lot of things about this issue. Treating it differently, especially with special weak rules, is stupid and counterproductive. I'm just not sure the other extreme (SHIP THEM TO JUVIE) is any better without broad cultural change in schools in general.

I see your point, but the extreme doesn't even work all that well. LCISD had the "Alternative Education Building" which was basically "prison school." It was considered a badge of honor among certain groups for getting through a stint there. Even trying to scare kids straight by taking them down to the local police station for a bit would likely be treated the same way.

The only punishment that ever got bullies (or general asshats) shamed was community service. One kid had a photo snapped of him picking up trash on the highway by another student and I don't think he ever heard the end of it. I don't know if it had any positive effect on the kid, but it was clear it had some effect. CS was considered "bitch duty" and any shithead would do everything he could to avoid it.

If you can't find a way to shame bullying, I think we'd be better off with shaming them via consequences. But really, something consistent with reporting and enforcement needs to be done. The message right now is clear: dodging bullying consequences is extremely easy if you pick the right targets and even if you get punished, the benefits far outweigh the risk. And these consequences need to also be applied to complacent administration at the school. Right now, all that happens is the school gets sued, thus passing the actual consequences on to the tax payer.

[Stark]

That sort of thing is culture- dependent, I think. In Australia, that sort of thing is exceptionally effective for kids from cultures with large families or communities where standing is important, but largely ineffective against people from small families or small communities where pride and face is less important than violence or money.

Regardless, a part of ending the special treatment has to be making it more open. I mean, maybe the boys will be boys thing just mutated into the current situation, but it need to be actively pushed to its place as a regular offence, rather than a normal part of life that reporting won't stop anyway. When kids will ask other kids to punch out a bully rather than ask a teacher to do anything.

[TheFeniX]

Regardless, a part of ending the special treatment has to be making it more open. I mean, maybe the boys will be boys thing just mutated into the current situation, but it need to be actively pushed to its place as a regular offence, rather than a normal part of life that reporting won't stop anyway. When kids will ask other kids to punch out a bully rather than ask a teacher to do anything.

I heard a quip years back that was essentially, people ignore injustice amoung the young because it's a problem that kids "grow out of." You see entire agencies and departments focused specifically around removing workplace injustice, primarily because it affects the bottom dollar. Many businesses fought tooth and nail against workplace reworking and the idea of "happy employees are good employees." But once the data came out and they realized the money they stood to gain, they really did most the legwork themselves. But there are other industries where this type of idiocy is kept around for no good reason.

My mother, while working at a Houston medical laboratory, would constantly tell stories about the "hazing" new doctors go through with their assignments and work hours. The main reason for the doctors allowing this to continue was "I had to go through it and someday they'll do the same thing to the next batch of new doctors" all the while the idioctic system of "I had to go through it" was getting people killed. Medical doctors stared sanity in the face and laughed at it.

Grade school politics has been going this same route for probably just as long. Assaults, not always physical, that would land any normal person in deep shit with the law are laughed off as "well, I went through it (or was the agressor) when I was young. You should too, it makes you tougher." And it's not just students and parents, from the link I posted earlier, the school was actively destroying evidence of these crimes. US Public schools have no real incentive for cracking down on bullying because even admitting it's a problem makes them look bad. If you ignore the problem except to destroy evidence of it, then there's no data to show there's even is a problem.

Like overworked medical residents, students and parents who complain about the condition are deemed trouble-makers. Someone outside the system is going to have to step in and do something. But I think you're right, the label "bully" kind of does a huge injustice to the system. The kid who was kicked down two flights of stairs wasn't "bullied," he was the victim of a violent crime that could have killed him. Since he was targeted specifically because he was disabled, it wouldn't be hard to show it as a hate crime. The girl from the OP was stalked and sexually harassed. We already have laws covering this stuff: calling it "bullying" really only serves to dilute the severity.

[General Brock]

... Seriously, find me people who would argue the adult equivalent of "boys will by boys" WRT that shit. Besides, that's not a bully: that's a moron and criminal. Upon further reading, that whole link is pretty verbose and repeats shit people already know over and over again.

Amanda Todd's case is more like a serious and extensive social problem finally reaching a breaking point and finding its poster child, its martyr for the moment.

Kids who are bullies do grow up to become antisocial adults. Some are good at not getting caught or at least delaying it for a very long time, and if Todd's case is any indicator, very good at linking up with like-minded and/or soft-minded people to do so. Bullying is everywhere in the news, particularly in politics. Could it be, society has broadly failed to contain the sociopaths amongst us? Failed to keep them out of important positions of decision making, rule making, and enforcement? That maybe some of these people are smart more like banksters than serial killers?

It would be interesting what Canadian social scientists have to say on the phenomenon; however they are under general orders to shut up, especially if they work for the government.

People are pushing for Amanda Todd's tormenters to be brought to justice. They want that paper trail exposed and justice delivered. Yet that point is blunted in the coverage.

Similarly, Amanda Todd had the chance after the ditch beating to press criminal charges, but declined, indicating perhaps the people she was up against were very popular, with well-connected parents. Convincing enough to not rudely rock their little world with consequences.

I'm not sure why the RC didn't find another way, but then, the RCMP has serious internal problems with bullying with its own ranks. The same culture that indulged Ms. Todd's tormenters, and convinced her to harm herself rather than 'harm' her attackers with so much as criminal charges, appears to have parallels in other environments.

Now it seems many of those who have ever been harmed by bullying [are] seeing a piece of themselves in Amanda Todd and locking on; the sheeple push back. Its not just some visible minority, some disabled person, some tg, gay or lesbian, some other hard-luck mainstreamer; its somehow personal.

So, its interesting the lack of coverage her actual peer bullies are getting, as if there is a subconscious attempt to steer around them, or those protecting them; or rather, avoiding examination of the reasons why bullies find protection. Perhaps that would start to unravel the entire culture of intimidation that seems to pervade nowadays.

One of the few articles to even mention that Ms. Todd's bullies are getting away with it points out we have the legal remedies, but are not using them. Perhaps, those who would otherwise want to act justly are being effectively bullied into silence and inaction. It may be some form of this, that Ms. Todd was talking about when she said she had no-one.

[Edit: Its not cheapening the seriousness of criminal activity to call it bullying; its more like identifying an important component of the culture of criminality.]

[Scrib]

Yeah, everyone is trying to direct all the hate at the one lone internet creep.

Reminds me of the movie The Final where the nerds kill/cripple their tormentors and the news completely refuses to point out why this was so. Messes with the narrative.

[General Brock]

Come to think of it... in all the cases of bullying suicides in the news the past few years, there hasn't been much focus at all on the actual bullies, just bullying in the abstract and a kind of culture of victimhood. This is could be reasonable since most stories break for only one day or two and that's all there is time for. However, despite the sustained intensity of coverage, Amanda Todd's bullies remain as strangely anonymous as the bullies in the other news stories - despite obvious interest in the perpetrators.

The first wave of coverage broke upon an alleged cyberstalker outed by Anonymous, (whom the police appear to have cleared), scapegoated almost as the sole aggressor.

Even as the first wave crested, a second wave focused on the bullying at her online memorial site, including brief mention-then-forget of a troll claiming to have been one of Ms. Todds tormenters. Discussion then delved into more cyberbullying, including some guy who lost his job for his trolling and the phenomenon of bullying the bully, and whether or not to criminalize bullying.

There is absolutely no coverage of the people who had live as well as virtual access to Amanda Todd. There has been little if any speculation of what kind of people they are; no mention of race, prior histories, or socioeconomic status. What happened to the bullies she had to face IN PERSON?

So, did they break out the party hats or what? Get therapy? Everyone in the dead girl's former communities is suddenly her friend and supporter.

Isn't it a story how a guy she knew IN PERSON and turned to, took advantage of her sexually and later, he and his girlfriend (who seems to also have been one of her bullies) rounded up a posse to beat her up? The double standard of girls to be chaste yet indulgence for guys to bait and score and that girls use this as a weapon against one another? What may have been a sophisticated staging of a casus belli - Ms. Todd was led to poach another girls boyfriend to justify an escalation?

There's no indication of remorse among the actual bullies she had to face IN PERSON, not just over the internet. She never even met, face-to-face (as far as anyone knows) her original online stalker, yet the coverage focuses on that one individual whose attacks would have been duds in a healthy, genuinely supportive social environment.

The police claim to be investigating 'all aspects' of the case, but were delayed by the rumours surrounding her. All well and good - but there were no rumours, nary comment or mention at all, of her peer bullies, and to read the headline stories, they appear to have been hustled out of the spotlight under cover of - ironically - anti-bullying hubris.

So, is there is a tacit decision amongst reporters and commentators to respect the police and wait and let them deal with her live bullies, while playing up internet phantoms, or there is a decision not to go after them at all despite the risk these people pose to other vulnerable children in their community? Wouldn't this latter media reaction - blind-eyeing the bullies - the behavior alleged to have gotten bully victims suicided in the first place?

By comparison, the killers of Reena Virk were all the focus of attention from day one. Of course, they did cross the line into hands-on direct murder.

Up to 15 bullies are still at large, likely to reoffend at some point, apparently facing no consequences save what their consciences might feel, if they have such things.

So... why are the actual bullies of Amanda Todd complete unknowns? Had Amanda Todd been a visible minority, would there have be attention focused on their identities (if not by name, than other indicators)? Are the bullies of the same class and race? Troubled youth? Are they the spawn of well-off parents whose prospects are not to be tainted by their indescretions?

Why is all the coverage still looking the other way?

[Stark]

Probably because bullying is an abstract and impossible to solve problem - if you ask hand-wringers who don't want to accept the responsibility of their own culture.

[Scrib]

It's the same circlejerk bullshit that happens when there's a shooting. People act "shocked and saddened" by the "cowardly, horrific act of violence", wait a day, start talking policy, get insulted for making the issue a political matter, wait a few more days and make the issue a political matter again. Then they basically sit around and hand-wring (those who think that there's a problem anyway) about how the problem is too widespread to be fixed, too entrenched and by the time the outrage has cooled nothing at all has happened. And that's a case where I can see the political problems inherent with dealing with that issue. Here...

Why is all the coverage still looking the other way?

I assume that it's because the better story is the eveel of the internet, and how it's corrupting the kids.

But I have noticed a kind of fucked up:"Yeah, she just reached a breaking point" attitude.As if it was a completely unprovoked decision. Luckily the person making the comment was immediately corrected and told that getting therapy for bullying =/= fixing the problem.

Other than that I honestly can't think of a logical reason why these people aren't being dragged out in public. I guess because they're minors and we see bullying as a thing that everyone is involved with on some level? So they get away under the guise of "kids will be kids"

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's almost as if working out why behaviours occur and why they stop is more important than hand wringing over BULLIZ and TEH CHILDRONS! Congratulations, you're perspective is better than almost every policy-setter in the country.

And man if people think EXPELL THEM will make bullies go away, that's a pretty terrible perspective. 'Tough on bullies', just like 'punch the bullies', will just displace it onto other people. Changing school cultures that reinforce stuff like this is probably the only really effective way to change anything, and terrible school enforcement and posturing is probably why the situation is getting worse (if it is, outside of BULLIZ hysteria).

EDIT wtf why quote box empty

I don't have anything against people trying to work out why bullying occurs. What I do wonder is what we are going to do for the victims until the bully reforms. At least if they are expelled or suspended the victim gets a break. People don't commit suicide after one episode of bullying, its after several, so I see it as a good thing that victims get a reprieve. In any event if all school cultures reinforced stuff like suspension or expelling them, where are we going to displace the problem to? Are they going to go another culture to bully the kids there?

BTW the last statement is not meant to be a dig against you, but I simply curious given your stance on expelling bullies will only displace the problem.

To be blunt, we already have an underclass of kids. The ones who are bullied. They are not only treated as such by other students, but school administrators. They are often (and were in my case) further victimized directly by said administrators by being punished when they report bullying (because apparently, calling someone a bastard after they shove your head into a brick wall makes you a terrible person) or are treated as threats to public safety (because we might go postal, and the solution is naturally to search their backpacks under police scrutiny in public and have the police interrogate them without a parent or lawyer present on the columbine anniversary, rather than deal with the bullies).

As I see it, there are two goals, each acting on different time frames.

1) Directly protect bullied kids now. This can be done by actually punishing bullies. In school suspension is good for that, that way they dont get a mini-vacation. Reporting violent bullying to law enforcement and treating it like the actual assault/attempted murder (in some cases such as kicking someone down stairs) that it is. Informing parents. Making sure there are safe places where bullied kids can go (literally a life saver in my case) to escape-- the library, teachers classrooms, anywhere really.

2) Understanding why kids bully and changing the teenage culture so that it happens less, and fixing the social issues that create some of it in the home etc. For example: that thing in Minnesota where where teachers were prohibited from "endorsing" gayness, which thus gave license to children from "conservative" families free reign to torment gay kids leading to a suicide epidemic? Yeah, that must not be permitted to occur.

This cannot be a one or the other thing. Both must happen.

[Saxtonite]

I have always heard this excuse, but I don't recall people actually posting evidence to back up their assertion that its society's fault, er I mean they are from broken homes. At least the people who argue the opposite have at least put forward their arguments and evidence.

I know a wrestling bully - he did local wrestling and harassed people. It turned out his home life was weird and he had issues with his mother and older brother as they apparently "abandoned" him or something. He became a wrestler as a WWF pro wrestler saw him when he was dealing with some childhood disease. He became much nicer when I uh...wrestled/fought back and he stopped taking some medications.

Personal experience, yes.

This psych nonsense doesn't truly tell me anything. People are terrible, terrible animals that do these sorts of things. And children do these things unthinkingly. Well, it's time to teach them better.

Children can also be amazingly nice too, given there's studies of 8 month old babies detecting needs in other people ans trying to help them.

And I was lucky because I'm a guy. Girls really don't have that option. Sure, there were more than a few dust-ups at our high school involving girls, but all the ones I can remember were "popular" girls fighting each other. They also always picked the cafeteria, which was dumb to say the least.

It was done for a social purpose/calling people out. Which is why they did it there. Illogical from one POV, but in a lot of cases it is not to destroy their physical ability to fight, it is to rely on allies more or whatnot.

My mother, while working at a Houston medical laboratory, would constantly tell stories about the "hazing" new doctors go through with their assignments and work hours. The main reason for the doctors allowing this to continue was "I had to go through it and someday they'll do the same thing to the next batch of new doctors" all the while the idioctic system of "I had to go through it" was getting people killed. Medical doctors stared sanity in the face and laughed at it.

reminds me of some of the hazing at Indian universities....and the weird shit done at black american universities....just hazing in general. Some engineering students on this imageboard said part of the curriculum is designed foe that reason.

[weemadando]

reminds me of some of the hazing at Indian universities....and the weird shit done at black american universities....just hazing in general. Some engineering students on this imageboard said part of the curriculum is designed foe that reason.

That's weirdly and specifically racist.

[amigocabal]

It's almost as if working out why behaviours occur and why they stop is more important than hand wringing over BULLIZ and TEH CHILDRONS! Congratulations, you're perspective is better than almost every policy-setter in the country.

And man if people think EXPELL THEM will make bullies go away, that's a pretty terrible perspective. 'Tough on bullies', just like 'punch the bullies', will just displace it onto other people. Changing school cultures that reinforce stuff like this is probably the only really effective way to change anything, and terrible school enforcement and posturing is probably why the situation is getting worse (if it is, outside of BULLIZ hysteria).

EDIT wtf why quote box empty

To whom will bullying be displaced if they are expelled?

[amigocabal]

There are however major differences between school and workplace bullying. Namely, you can just quit your job.

What stops victims from quitting school?

[RogueIce]

To whom will bullying be displaced if they are expelled?

I think he's referring to the fact that bullying doesn't just stop when you leave the school campus, so by expelling the bullies all the school has done is just made it "not on campus, not our problem" and transferred it to the local community: parents, police, etc are now the ones who have to deal with the issue. Which they arguably would anyway, because as I said it easily happens off-campus already. But the school no longer has to "deal with it" because they got rid of the bully but did nothing to address the wider issues. Hence "displaced" the problem.

[Lusankya]

There are however major differences between school and workplace bullying. Namely, you can just quit your job.

What stops victims from quitting school?

If they're under 16, the law, for one.

[Scrib]

To whom will bullying be displaced if they are expelled?

I think he's referring to the fact that bullying doesn't just stop when you leave the school campus, so by expelling the bullies all the school has done is just made it "not on campus, not our problem" and transferred it to the local community: parents, police, etc are now the ones who have to deal with the issue. Which they arguably would anyway, because as I said it easily happens off-campus already. But the school no longer has to "deal with it" because they got rid of the bully but did nothing to address the wider issues. Hence "displaced" the problem.

\
For that current crop of bullies. For everyone else it says:"Your kid, your problem" . When parents have to worry about their kids getting expelled they'll be less likely to talk that "it's a part of life" shit.

[amigocabal]

There are however major differences between school and workplace bullying. Namely, you can just quit your job.

What stops victims from quitting school?

If they're under 16, the law, for one.

Then we should repeal those laws so that the victims can quit school and avoid bullying.

[Jub]

Then we should repeal those laws so that the victims can quit school and avoid bullying.

Shouldn't the bullies be the ones leaving?