The topic was bullying. And I am sort of friends with the person who said it. I led the group and did not want to make a huge fuss about this statement. Like we all have to condemn it now. I think a self-help group should be open to stigmatized and unpopular postions. I want that this group is open and less judgemental. I moved on to a different topic because otherwise we would have shitted on this one person for his position and I did not want that. Because this is what society demands exactly that when such positions are held. I certainly disagree with this opinion and I think it is a pretty stupid one. But I don't think there is much damage done if someone shares something like that. However, I pointed one example out why this is too much black-white thinking. The woman I once had a crush for (the unempathetic psychology student) wanted to make a fuss about it. But I steered the conversations to a different aspect.
So now after this long introduction you might be curious what he said. He said if he hears about a shooting at a school there is only one person he has empathy for. And it implied he only has empathy for the shooter. Someone asked if this is what he meant. And he agreed.
I said this is too easy. It is also the case that victims of bullying are also at least sometimes bullies. And vice versa. Sometimes the bullies were victims. I opened up how I was bullied and that I think I also was sometimes opportunistic in my actions. We could have also started a discussion why this position is dogshit. But I did not want to shit on one person this much.
Here are in my opinion some very valid points against it. In most shootings the victims are random. Not the actual bullies die. In fact also bullied people can die. (Often also minorities) I don't buy that the shooters are in most cases are poor victims. Not seldomly extreme political beliefs play a role. And non white people are targeted. Or certain minorities. The bullying won't be healed by shooting innocent people. It is pretty selfish to do something like that. And quite sick. Some shooters want fame. There are other ways to cope with bullying. Especially, in societies where you can start therapy for free. It is pretty insane to think justice is served by such an act. Only way way more injustice is created by such an action. And I think getting other people PTSD, getting them disabled who were not involved in any bullying is a really evil action. Now we can start a debate what if the actual bullies get shot. I still think vigilante justice is really dangerous. And it is still an insane take. A different question for this would be: should there be the death sentence for bullying (often for minors) and the judge is one single individual who is also a minor. I can understand vigilante justice to a certain degree under some circumstances but not in this one.
I don't know this position is really crazy. The guy who said is also really smart. But I think this was not thought through. I think it still was not necessary that we all need to condemn this statement now. I think he did not convinc any of us with this. And there was no significant damage done. Except if he starts a shooting one day. But I doubt that.
So now after this long introduction you might be curious what he said. He said if he hears about a shooting at a school there is only one person he has empathy for. And it implied he only has empathy for the shooter. Someone asked if this is what he meant. And he agreed.
I said this is too easy. It is also the case that victims of bullying are also at least sometimes bullies. And vice versa. Sometimes the bullies were victims. I opened up how I was bullied and that I think I also was sometimes opportunistic in my actions. We could have also started a discussion why this position is dogshit. But I did not want to shit on one person this much.
Here are in my opinion some very valid points against it. In most shootings the victims are random. Not the actual bullies die. In fact also bullied people can die. (Often also minorities) I don't buy that the shooters are in most cases are poor victims. Not seldomly extreme political beliefs play a role. And non white people are targeted. Or certain minorities. The bullying won't be healed by shooting innocent people. It is pretty selfish to do something like that. And quite sick. Some shooters want fame. There are other ways to cope with bullying. Especially, in societies where you can start therapy for free. It is pretty insane to think justice is served by such an act. Only way way more injustice is created by such an action. And I think getting other people PTSD, getting them disabled who were not involved in any bullying is a really evil action. Now we can start a debate what if the actual bullies get shot. I still think vigilante justice is really dangerous. And it is still an insane take. A different question for this would be: should there be the death sentence for bullying (often for minors) and the judge is one single individual who is also a minor. I can understand vigilante justice to a certain degree under some circumstances but not in this one.
I don't know this position is really crazy. The guy who said is also really smart. But I think this was not thought through. I think it still was not necessary that we all need to condemn this statement now. I think he did not convinc any of us with this. And there was no significant damage done. Except if he starts a shooting one day. But I doubt that.
Last edited:
