In my high school, there was hierarchy of bullies. Some bullied other bullies. The victim bullies bullied other weaker kids. And some bullies only bullied other bullies, they were considered heros.
I'm curious. If you had some that you would categorize as only bullying people that bullied others, would this fit with a justice perception? How does this account for someone "repenting," as it were, of bullying?
Put differently, I think the objection is that "bully" is not an immutable facet of someone. For many, it often isn't even a choice moreso a by product of the general environment they find themselves in. Obviously malicious actors are defined by their intent to bully. But sometimes people will feel bullied from someone's intent to maintain a preexisting order? How does that get categorized?
> If you had some that you would categorize as only bullying people that bullied others, would this fit with a justice perception? How does this account for someone "repenting," as it were, of bullying?
I think some of it was complex rivalries. Bullies on the top were the cool kids who cared about their image a lot. They mostly bullied bullies who were challenging their status. They were also more sophisticated in their bullying and have other bullies do the dirty work of physical fights.
Then there were hero bullies who targeted other bullies. These hero bullies were usually stronger kids and really looking for fights. They didn't care about their images as much. A lot of time they were already in trouble with school. They would become protectors of the weakest kids. But they were probably the most violent and beat up the bullies of those weakest kids pretty bad. Maybe they had a savior complex. We really considered them heros at the time but now I realize that they went too far and probably pushed their victim bullies to get more violent.
> For many, it often isn't even a choice moreso a by product of the general environment they find themselves in
Yes, it was indeed the environment, at least, for some kids. Almost every kid was victim and a bully at the same time. We were like dogs, there was power hierarchy that was constantly challenged and enforced. Things would be fine most of the time if you didn't challenge anyone, every once in a while someone try to establish their dominance over you by verbally or physically assaulting you.
I have known at least 7 people in my short life whose MAJOR defining personality attribute was bullying. Two of them were old enough to have had kids at the time, and both had 5 or more. One has a PhD and that was and still is way outside of the norm. Just anecdotal, but it is a data point.
There is also the effect of the person that engaged in bullying behaviour after having been bullied on the past and finally having the means to enjoy the feeling of being on the other side.
Do you reject the premise that people can be tagged or filtered by any aspects, whatsoever? Bullying behavior, perhaps, needn't be a "core" or "genetic" attribute of a person in order to meaningfully discern whether or not one's engaged in it at significantly higher rates.
A: Bullying behavior constitutes repeated aggressive actions intended to harm or intimidate another individual.
Q: Is there any context that would shift or nullify the label?
A: Contexts such as mutual consent, playful interactions among friends, or cultural differences may shift or nullify the label of bullying.
Q: How often must someone engage in this behavior to have it be a defining characteristic?
A: Engaging in bullying behavior consistently over time, rather than as an isolated incident, typically defines it as a characteristic of an individual.
Q: What parameters would allow someone to shed the label?
A: To shed the label, a person would need to demonstrate a sustained change in behavior, showing empathy and respect towards others over a significant period.
It's amusing/frustrating that such a premise is taken seriously.