Tag: bullying

bookmark_border“Belongs in the dumpster of history”

Posted on by Marissa

“Belongs in the dumpster of history,” you wrote, under a picture of one of the few things in the world that is beautiful and meaningful.

How could you see something magical, one of the few sources of happiness and joy that actually exist, and think that it belongs in a metaphorical “dumpster”?

But then I realized. You’ve never had to deal with the pain, the shame, of not fitting in. Of not being able to make friends. Of having everything you say, everything you wear, everything you do, criticized. Of being told that if only you changed the way you talked, dressed, stood, sat, moved, felt, thought, spent your time, then you would be healthy, and people would like you. You were never bullied and had your parents respond by telling you that you should stop wearing dresses and stop wearing your hair in pigtails, because then people would be less likely to bully you.

You’re not different. You don’t think for yourself. You follow social norms. You have friends. You fit in. You’re a bland, mundane person who is just like everyone else. 

You’ve never suffered. You’ve never felt pain. 

In fact, you’re not really a person at all, because if you were, you would have a soul, and if you had a soul, then you too would be filled with awe and wonder at the statue that is being built, rather than claiming that it belongs in a metaphorical “dumpster.”

You’re a lump of flesh and blood with no soul, no mind, and no capacity for independent thought. 

God forbid that people who are different from you exist. 

God forbid that people who are different from you be honored with monuments. 

Can’t have that. Can’t have any diversity allowed to exist in the world. Can’t have anything that actually makes life worth living. 

Clearly, in your eyes, only people like you have the right to exist, and anyone who is different deserves to be put into a metaphorical “dumpster.”

Without the Confederacy, history is bland and mundane, just a long tale of mindless, conformist people who are all the same, who all think the same, and who all do the same things. And what is the point of that? What is the point of studying that, honoring that, being interested in that? What is the point of living at all?

There is none.

The Confederacy is my special interest. The Confederacy is what makes my life worth living. The Confederacy is magical to me. It is the most beautiful thing in the world, and nothing else can compare. How could you, how dare you, how could you possibly consider my special interest to be something that belongs in a dumpster? 

in conclusion, I hope that you die a slow and painful death, and that once you’re gone no one remembers you. That’s what you deserve for being a mindless bully. That’s what you deserve for having the cruelty, nastiness, and utter moral bankruptcy to claim that my special interest “belongs in the dumpster of history.” In reality, you are the one who belongs in the dumpster of history. You have no empathy, no character, no mind, no capacity for independent thought, and no soul.

bookmark_border“If you plan to make content that isn’t the exact same content that I would make…. just don’t”

Posted on by Marissa

I recently came across a social media post that said the following:

“If you plan to make content on the distinctions between ODD and PDA* but gloss over the racial disparities and intersectional factors, just don’t.”

My response: Excuse me? Who the heck are you to tell me what type of content I can and cannot make?

The author of the post describes themselves as black, “moderate support needs,” and “agender and queer.” Perhaps belonging to demographic categories that qualify them as more “oppressed” than others gives this person a sense of moral superiority. Perhaps their membership in these socially favored demographic categories makes this person feel that they are in a position to determine what others are and are not allowed to do.

Guess what? If someone wishes to make content about the distinctions between ODD and PDA without going into the alleged racial disparities and intersectional factors, they have every right to do so. As a white, high-functioning, asexual autistic person, I have the right to voice my opinion just as much as you do. You have no right to tell other people what type of content they can and cannot make.

* ODD is the abbreviation for “oppositional defiant disorder,” and PDA is the abbreviation for “pathological demand avoidance,” two mental health conditions that share some similarities.

bookmark_borderFour years ago today

Posted on by Marissa

Four years ago today, after spending months lauding, worshipping, and deifying the perpetrators of riots in which the people I love were murdered, society decided to erupt in an orgy of vicious condemnation of a group of people like me who had the audacity to actually hold a protest expressing our views.

For the entire late spring and summer of 2020, in nearly every city and state, intolerant bullies held violent and hateful demonstrations during which they demanded that members of the majority never again have to encounter a person who is different from the norm, that people like me be obliterated from existence, that the only perspective acknowledged be their own, that all voices other than theirs be silenced. My “friends” responded to this by unanimously flooding social media with mindless expressions of solidarity with the bullies. Politicians responded by effusively praising the bullies, groveling at their feet, and falling all over each other in their eagerness to fulfill the bullies’ demands. Our country’s public art, public spaces, place names, and calendars were redone to ensure that people like me could no longer feel included, to erase every possible trace of non-majority perspectives, stories, and viewpoints.

On January 6, 2021, people like me protested. We were hurt and angry at the way that we had been treated, as anyone with even half a brain would be in our situation. After being subjected to months of the cruelest and most appalling treatment imaginable, finally we fought back. Our hurt and anger were 100% justified, as were all of our actions. My “friends” responded to this by expressing their disgust and complaining that it made them sick to their stomachs to see people like me standing up for ourselves and expressing our views. The pro-bullying activists who up until that point had been masquerading as the news media responded by viciously attacking and condemning us in the harshest terms imaginable. Live on air, the disgraceful excuses for human beings who called themselves political commentators called us idiots, morons, “traitors,” white supremacists, and worse.

Four years ago today, one of the people like me who participated in the protest, Ashli Babbitt, was murdered. And society responded not by criticizing the person who murdered her, but by condemning and ridiculing her for having participated in the protest in the first place. Society reacted by blaming her for her own murder.

Today, Donald Trump will be certified as president. Nothing can bring Ashli Babbitt back, but this day gives me a small bit of satisfaction. Nothing can truly undo the atrocity that was perpetrated against people like me four years ago, but this day does undo it a little bit. This day gives me, and all people like me, a victory. Because what the participants in the protest were trying to achieve four years ago, has actually happened. Donald Trump is going to be president. Today, people like me have won. And the mindless and intolerant society that decided to sadistically attack, condemn, shame, insult, and murder us, merely for expressing views that are different from those of the majority, lost.

To say that it serves them right, would be an understatement.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Rogan O’Handley (@dc_draino)

Rest in peace, Air Force Veteran Ashli Babbitt.

Say Her Name.

bookmark_border“It’s important to lead your life in such a way…”

Posted on by Marissa

“It’s important to lead your life in such a way that when you’re gunned down in public by an anonymous hitman on a New York City street the country at large doesn’t react like the Ewoks watching the second Death Star explode.”

So said an Instagram post that I recently came across.

Translation: It’s important to live your life so that the majority of people approve of you. 

This sentiment makes no logical sense. What is popular versus unpopular has nothing to do with what is right versus wrong. A person could live their life in a way that is 100% right and be disliked by everyone (and therefore have their death celebrated in the way that the author of the post describes), and a person could live their life in a way that is 100% wrong and be universally liked. What the country at large thinks has nothing to do with what is actually true. The majority of the population could have correct ideas about right and wrong, or they could have completely wrong ones.

What the author of the post is saying is that if a person is unpopular, then they must be bad. And that is not only logically incorrect, but also deeply hurtful to every person who is, or has ever been, unpopular. This is a category that includes myself, as an autistic person who has always had difficulty making friends and fitting in with my peers. The author of the post is saying that if a person’s death is celebrated, then that reflects negatively on the person who died. When in reality, it reflects negatively on the people doing the celebrating. 

This post is also deeply hurtful to Brian Thompson, the health insurance CEO who was murdered, as well as anyone who loved or cared about him, because the post implies that he deserved to be murdered. It implies that he, and not his murderer, is responsible for his death. It implies that the public’s celebration of his death reflects negatively on Thompson, when in reality, it reflects negatively on the people who are celebrating. 

The post should read: “It’s important to lead your life in such a way that you don’t murder innocent people.” Or: “It’s important to lead your life in such a way that you don’t sadistically and cruelly celebrate the deaths of innocent people.” Or even better: “It’s important to lead your life in such a way that you don’t make idiotic, mean-spirited posts that are both hurtful and logically incorrect.”

Someone left the following comment on the post: “It’s Christmas season, so what’s a better way to celebrate that to scrooge a bunch of rich people and show them that if they continue to live as they are, people will celebrate their deaths?”

I don’t know exactly what it means to “scrooge” someone (I know who Scrooge is, but I’ve never heard his name used as a verb). Regardless, this comment has the same logical and moral problems as the original post. It implies, erroneously, that the public’s celebration of a person’s death reflects negatively on the person who died, when in reality it reflects negatively on the people celebrating. And it condemns rich people in their entirety, which is cruel, mean-spirited, and bigoted because whether a person is rich or poor has nothing to do with whether they are good or bad. 

So yeah, great job by both the original poster and the commenter… NOT. If you were attempting to be nasty, logically incoherent, and classist bullies, then congratulations! You succeeded. 

bookmark_borderOne of the most despicable social media posts I’ve ever seen

Posted on by Marissa

I had a terrible day at work yesterday.

Some of it was caused by people messing up the displays that I am in charge of, requiring me to change the displays back to the correct products and put the correct signs back, which was more difficult than it sounds due to the fact that the sign storage area was completely disorganized, making it nearly impossible to find the signs that I needed. Some of it was caused by the fact that there were free chips and guac in the break room, causing the break room to be constantly packed with loudly talking people, which made it impossible for me to sit down and flip through the sign folders, made my break chaotic and overstimulating rather than relaxing, and prevented me from even getting any chips and guac, because too many people were standing around them.

But some of it was caused by the following Instagram post, which I had the misfortune of coming across before work and which made me feel so hurt and angry that I couldn’t get it out of my head:

“Hi, Lara Beitz. If you are autistic, you are handicapped/disabled. LSN* autistics are disabled, even if they “low support gets.” If autism does not disable you, you are not autistic (by definition). But there are MSN and HSN autistics, and if they “low support gets,” they “psych ward gets” or “death gets” because they cannot survive with your level of support. Do better.”

(link here)

* Instead of referring to autistic people as high-functioning or low-functioning, it has become politically correct to categorize autistic people based on the amount of support that they need. LSN is an abbreviation for “low support needs;” MSN for “medium support needs,” and HSN for “high support needs.” 

Let’s go over all the problems with this post one by one:

First of all, the creator of this post, whom I’ll refer to by his initials of AA, is attacking the autistic comedian Lara Beitz. This is the quote from Beitz that provoked AA’s attack:

“You’re not supposed to say high functioning anymore though. I like the term high functioning because it makes it sound like I’m high functioning, like that’s really positive, so what you’re supposed to call it now is ‘low support needs’ which I’m like that sounds so much more handicapped than ‘high functioning.’ Also I’m not ‘low support needs,’ I’m ‘low support gets.’ I’ve needed help my entire f***ing life, I just haven’t received any.”

As you can see, Beitz did not say or do anything wrong to merit this attack. There’s nothing wrong with the above quote from Beitz; I actually agree with and relate to it. Therefore, AA is viciously and nastily attacking someone for no reason. This is intrinsically immoral and bad for obvious reasons.

“If autism does not disable you, you are not autistic (by definition).” Wrong. Autism is a type of neurology, a type of brain wiring. Autistic people tend to have harder lives than neurotypical ones, because we are the minority, and therefore society is set up in a way that generally does not work well for us. Some autistic people consider themselves to be disabled, and some don’t. Of the autistic people who consider themselves disabled, many do not consider their autism itself to be disabling, but rather the fact that society is set up in a way that does not accommodate our needs. (This is the school of thought that I personally subscribe to.) Regardless of which of these categories one falls into, being disabled is not part of the definition of autism. So this statement is false.

This statement is also breathtakingly hurtful. According to AA’s definition, I would not qualify as autistic. As someone who began researching autism at age 16, received a formal diagnosis from a neuropsychologist at age 26 (I am now 35), has participated for years in social groups and activities for autistic people, worked in a coffee shop dedicated to providing employment opportunities for people with disabilities, and got a job at a grocery store through a state agency that helps people with disabilities find jobs, I’m pretty sure that I’m autistic. But yeah, it totally makes sense that a random person on the internet would be a better judge than a neuropsychologist with a PhD, my boss, my co-workers, a state agency, and myself, of whether or not I’m autistic.

“But there are MSN and HSN autistics, and if they ‘low support gets,’ they ‘psych ward gets’ or ‘death gets’ because they cannot survive with your level of support.” AA is seemingly trying to be clever with this wording, but the only thing he succeeds at is being juvenile and idiotic. More significantly, the point that AA is trying to make with this statement fails to hold up to even the most cursory logical scrutiny. According to Beitz’s account, she needs some level of support, and isn’t getting any. This is something that I really relate to, because it’s what I’ve experienced my entire life as well. Whereas AA, on the other hand, needs a medium level of support and is getting exactly that. It doesn’t take advanced math abilities to see that a person who needs a small amount of support but is getting zero, is actually in a more difficult position than a person who both needs and is getting a medium amount of support.

Even more significantly, AA’s statement completely invalidates, denies, and dismisses the experiences of high-functioning, LSN, late-diagnosed, and/or high-masking autistic people. It is, therefore, an unjust and completely unprovoked attack not only on Lara Beitz, but also on myself. The experience of being an autistic person who is held to the same standards as a neurotypical person is very real. And it’s something that AA knows nothing about, because he’s never had that experience. He’s been thought of as autistic for his entire life, and treated accordingly. The standards that he’s been held to are attainable for him, and he’s gotten the supports that he needs. Being unable to reveal your real self to others, being trapped in situations and relationships that don’t work for you but that you can see no way out of, being crushed under the weight of other people’s expectations… these experiences have caused me decades of very real pain and suffering. But AA doesn’t care about this. He doesn’t care about my viewpoint or my perspective, because they’re not the same as his. I have so much to say about my experiences as an autistic person forced to navigate a neurotypical world with no accommodations and no recognition, that I could easily write an entire book on this topic. But with one short, thoughtless post, AA dismisses my reality. He dismisses my struggles, my joy, my pain, my defeats, my triumphs, my life story in its entirety. Rather than having empathy for those who are different from him, AA has chosen to invalidate and deny our perspectives, viewpoints, experiences, and feelings.

AA might be interested to know that I spent several years with a level of pain so severe that it would not be an exaggeration to say that I was suicidal. It’s something of a miracle, in fact, that I am alive to tell about it. Therefore, I have two responses to AA’s claim that people like him “cannot survive with your level of support.” The first is that, well, I nearly didn’t. How dare you imply that my existence is a cakewalk when I’ve experienced anguish so severe that I nearly lost my life? The second is that, well, you don’t need to. So why are you complaining? AA does not need, and has never needed, to survive with my level of support (i.e. none), because he is in fact receiving a much higher level. What is the point of complaining that you could not survive with my level of support, when you are lucky enough – privileged enough, to use a term that AA and his ilk frequently throw around – not to need to? AA is getting the support that he needs; he has nothing to complain about.

And honestly, for AA to “psych ward get” or “death get” (as he so eloquently puts it) wouldn’t be the worst possible outcomes. Perhaps the former outcome would enable him to get the help that he clearly needs for the issues that have caused him to demonstrate such an abject lack of empathy for other people. And the latter outcome would at least improve the lives of others by relieving us of the possibility of being subjected to his vicious, callous, and heartless attacks in the future.

When I showed AA’s post to my dad, he was puzzled and asked what the point of making such a post could possibly be. What goal was AA trying to accomplish? I thought about it for a second, and responded that people like AA probably wish to obtain more funding for services and supports. They probably feel that there isn’t enough assistance available for autistic people and resent the fact that any of this assistance at all goes to LSN people, believing instead that all of it should go to MSN and HSN people like themselves.

But then I thought about it some more and arrived at a deeper answer. More than just funding, what people like AA want is for everyone who is not like them to either grovel at their feet, or be obliterated from the earth. They want everyone who has different perspectives, viewpoints, life experiences, and feelings than they do, to shut up. They want others to give up their own perspectives, silence themselves, and dedicate themselves solely to amplifying their voices, giving them a platform, lifting them up. They want their perspectives, viewpoints, life experiences, and feelings to be the only ones voiced, the only ones expressed, the only ones acknowledged. In AA’s eyes, my perspective, my viewpoint, my experiences, and my feelings do not matter. In AA’s eyes, my pain, my suffering, my struggles, and the obstacles that I’ve had to overcome, are nothing. In the eyes of people like AA, the only perspectives, viewpoints, life experiences, and feelings that matter are their own.

And then I thought about it even more and came to an even deeper conclusion. What people like AA want is to hurt other people. Specifically, to hurt other autistic people as badly as possible by insulting us, shaming us, attacking us, dismissing our experiences, and denying the validity of our pain. If you think that sounds messed up, that’s because it is.

This post hurt me. AA’s actions have inflicted real harm and real pain on another human being, namely myself. (But of course, that doesn’t matter, because the only feelings that matter are those of AA and people like him.) This is not something to be proud of, it is not an instance of something that is “uncomfortable to hear” but “needs to be said,” and it is not acceptable. This post demonstrates a lack of logic and a lack of empathy. And there is nothing positive about that. Causing harm and pain to other people who have done nothing wrong is immoral. What is the point of having an online autistic community if its members dedicate themselves to actively and aggressively hurting other autistic people? The autistic community should be a place where autistic people can come for acceptance. support, and, well, community. Members of this community should embrace all of the varied ways that autism can present, and should try to learn from others’ experiences, rather than viciously attacking others whose experience of autism differs from their own.

In conclusion, this post is disgraceful, shameful, and despicable. Both this post and its creator are mean, nasty, vicious, and cruel. AA needs to look in the mirror and really reflect on why he chooses to be part of the online autistic community when his only goal in doing so is, seemingly, to inflict harm and pain on other autistic people. Other autistic people who – I’m going to come right out and say it, because it’s the truth – lead harder lives than he does.

AA, and not Lara, is the one who truly needs to “do better.”

bookmark_border“Actually, they were! Hope this helps!”

Posted on by Marissa

Take a look at the below comment by “maddieelam”: 

“Actually, they were! Hope this helps!”

Excuse me?

Maddie appears to be stating that, in fact, Benny Johnson’s ancestors were evil. 

What an abhorrent, despicable, and brainless thing to write. 

How dare someone state that another person’s ancestors, in their entirety, were evil?

It is unclear exactly what Benny’s ancestors did wrong to merit such a harsh condemnation. It’s possible that an individual ancestor, or even several individual ancestors, did something sufficiently bad to merit the designation of evil. But for each and every one of Benny’s ancestors to have been evil is statistically extremely unlikely, to say the least, and is not something that Maddie could possibly have evidence to prove. Therefore, Maddie is falsely, and without justification, condemning people as evil.

To criticize, let alone condemn as evil, a person or group without justification is cruel and mean-spirited. And to state that a person’s ancestors, in their entirety, were evil, is an act of intolerance and bigotry.

Does Maddie think that the ancestors mentioned in the post are evil because they came from Europe? Because they had light skin? Because they lived in a different time period than she does, and therefore dressed differently, talked differently, and thought differently than her? Regardless of the exact reasoning, Maddie is cruelly condemning people as evil for the “crime” of being different from her. This is the epitome of intolerance and bigotry. 

Maddie’s intolerance and bigotry become even worse if one interprets Benny’s post as being about the ancestors of Americans in general, rather than just his own personal ancestors. If one interprets the post this way, then Maddie is stating not only that all of Benny’s ancestors were evil, but that all Americans of the past were evil. The bigotry and intolerance inherent in such a statement are appalling. 

“Actually, they were! Hope this helps!”

Um, no. Actually, they weren’t. And you are a bigot and a bully for making this racist comment. Hope this helps, Maddie!

bookmark_borderApril Ajoy is a bully

Posted on by Marissa

I came across the below Instagram post which, to put it bluntly, really pisses me off:

I am not sure what Ajoy means by “temper tantrums.” It does not constitute a “temper tantrum” for people to express a view that differs from her own. Evangelicals may be opposed to pride month, and may indeed be expressing that opposition. They may even be expressing their opposition in a vehement and passionate manner. But expressing opposition to something, no matter how vehemently or passionately, does not constitute a “temper tantrum.”

It’s ironic that Ajoy ends her post by writing, “You’re just a bully,” because in reality, it is Ajoy who is the bully. It is the epitome of bullying to characterize beliefs that differ from one’s own as “temper tantrums.”

If Ajoy disagrees with the views of evangelicals regarding pride month, then she needs to actually argue against those views, rather than insulting, ridiculing, and dismissing those views as “temper tantrums.”

A differing perspective is a differing perspective, not a “temper tantrum.”

Making things even worse, the comments on Ajoy’s post anger me as much as the post itself.

“They eat pork and then hate on LGBT people,” writes a stuck-up, contemptuous jerk called downtoearthqueen. “They literally pick and choose which OT laws they believe Jesus fulfilled.”

Well, excuse me for breathing. I absolutely despise this contemptuous use of the word “they,” which is ubiquitous in posts and comments from people on the left-hand side of the political spectrum. This usage indicates that the person views people who are different from them as “less-than,” as things to gossip about and analyze, as opposed to actual people with thoughts and feelings. It is infuriating and enraging.

A commentator named Sandi Joy repeats the same infuriating use of the word “they” when she asks “that they stop using Veterans as a pawn in their bigotry.” And then she ridicules people whose views differ from hers with the infantile “OuR vEtErANs OnLy GeT oNe DaY” and “trooooops.”

What is so incredibly infuriating about Ajoy’s post and the comments on it, is not the views themselves (although these are certainly wrong), but rather the way in which Ajoy and the commentators express their views. Instead of simply expressing their perspectives, they express contempt towards those who feel differently. Instead of making counterarguments, they mock and ridicule. Enough already. This behavior hurtful and mean. And then, making things even worse, these very same people, in the same breath that they express contempt towards people who are different from them, claim that the targets of their contempt are bullies. Not realizing that the truth is the exact opposite. Not realizing that in reality, the bullies are themselves.

In conclusion:

If you characterize other people’s perspectives as “temper tantrums,” you are a bully.

If you treat other people as objects to gossip about and analyze – “they” do this, “they” do that – you are a bully.

If you caricature other people’s opinions with the puerile alternation between capital and lowercase letters and deliberate misspellings of words, you are a bully.

No, April. Evangelicals are not bullies. It is you and your mindless, sycophantic followers who are bullies.

P.S. I have no idea what you are “tired” about, given that your beliefs are shared by the entire political establishment, media establishment, and all major sports teams, companies, and brands. It is posts like yours that make me exasperated, demoralized, mentally exhausted, and, yes, tired. You have nothing to be tired about. I do.

bookmark_borderThoughts on the article, “Avoiding the Last Straw in Cases of Bullying”

Posted on by Marissa

I came across this article, titled “Avoiding the ‘Last Straw’ in Cases of Bullying,” by Joni E Johnston Psy.D. in Psychology Today. The article explains how professionals can intervene with victims of bullying to prevent the victims from becoming bullies themselves. 

What struck me about this article was that it places the responsibility for preventing bullying on the victims, rather than on the original bullies. The article outlines the interviewing, questioning, and interventions that bullying victims should be subjected to, while failing to advocate that bullies be subjected to any type of consequences for their behavior. 

“Let’s pretend that a school counselor is concerned that a bullied teen might become violent to get revenge,” the article hypothesizes. “They call in a threat assessment professional to conduct an interview.” The article discusses the types of questions that should be asked during the interview and encourages adults to “intervene early,” to develop “an appropriate intervention plan,” to provide “comprehensive, compassionate care,” and to “guide them toward healthier, nonviolent coping mechanisms.” Johnston also characterizes bullying victims who are angry about their bullying as having an “aggressive behavior problem.”

But bullying victims do not deserve to be grilled by a threat assessment professional. Bullying victims do not need intervention. They do not need “care.” They do not need to be guided towards different coping mechanisms. Being angry that one has been bullied is not a medical problem, it is not a psychological problem, and it is not a behavior problem. It is completely justified. By targeting victims for intervention, Johnston is treating victims as if they are the ones who have done something wrong. But victims haven’t done anything wrong; bullies have. It is the bullies, not their victims, who have an aggressive behavior problem. And it is the bullies, not their victims, who should be subjected to intervention.

The article discusses the personal characteristics of bullying victims that allegedly make them more likely to turn into bullies. For example, victims who “are socially awkward,” and who lack “protective factors, such as abstract thinking abilities, empathy, and self-regulation skills.” But it is wrong of Johnston to scrutinize victims’ personal characteristics at all, because this sends the message that victims are somehow to blame for being bullied, due to a lack of positive traits and skills. In reality, the only person to blame for bullying is the bully. It is the bully, not the victim, who should have their personal characteristics subjected to scrutiny.

The article lists potential events that could trigger a bullying victim to turn into a bully, including:

  • A new, severe bullying incident that feels like the “last straw”
  • Seeing their bullies receive acclaim or reward, which feels profoundly unjust
  • Feeling publicly humiliated by their bullies
  • Perceiving that adults have failed to protect them or take the bullying seriously

It is interesting that by listing the potential triggers above, Johnston is actually admitting that the things that cause a victim to turn into a bully are entirely within the control of the adults in the situation. This further supports the idea that the burden of change shouldn’t be placed on the bullying victim. If adults actually handled bullying correctly – namely by punishing the bully – then no one would have to worry about bullying victims turning into bullies.

Going down the list of triggering incidents: if adults actually punish bullies significantly, including by removing them permanently from the environment if necessary, then bullies will not be in a position to perpetrate any additional bullying incidents or to publicly humiliate their victims. If institutions don’t bestow acclaim or rewards on bullies, then victims won’t have to see their bullies receive acclaim or rewards. And if adults protect victims and take bullying seriously, then victims will not perceive that adults have failed to do these things. 

In other words… instead of providing “care” to victims to help them cope with seeing their bullies receive acclaim and rewards, maybe we should, I don’t know, not give acclaim or rewards to bullies. Maybe the reason why seeing a bully receive acclaim and rewards “feels profoundly unjust” is because it is profoundly unjust. 

In conclusion, the approach recommended in this article makes victims the target of intervention and places the onus of change on them, when in reality, it is the bullies themselves who should be subjected to interventions such as interviews with threat assessment professionals and scrutiny of their personal characteristics. Victims of bullying don’t need care, they don’t need monitoring, and they don’t need to be guided toward better coping mechanisms. They need, and deserve, justice. Instead of subjecting victims to various interventions in an effort to help them cope better with being bullied, our society needs to actually punish the bullies. 

Returning to the title of the article, the way to avoid the “last straw” in cases of bullying is to avoid committing it, and to prevent bullies from doing so. This means for our society to punish bullies severely, to unanimously condemn them, to refrain from giving them awards of any sort, and to prevent them from committing any more bullying incidents by any means necessary, including by removing them entirely from the environment.

One final note: I noticed that throughout the article, the author equates seeking revenge with becoming a bully. A few examples: 

  • “some seek revenge and become bullies themselves”
  • “the victim’s internal world differentiates those who seek revenge from those who don’t”
  • “being frequently bullied ups the odds for a desire for revenge”
  • “it’s the latter type—this angry rumination—that fuels the desire for retaliation”
  • “a bullied teen might become violent to get revenge”

But seeking revenge and becoming a bully are not even remotely the same thing. For a victim to seek revenge on their bully does not make them a bully; it makes them someone who defends themselves and stands up for themselves. Taking revenge on a bully is completely justified, because bullies deserve punishment. For a victim to turn into a bully, on the other hand, involves harming innocent people who have done nothing wrong, which is unjustified. Harming the original bully (justified) and harming innocent people (unjustified) are two completely different things. 

Just as Johnston ignores the distinction between justified and unjustified violence by equating revenge with becoming a bully, she ignores the fact that bullies deserve to be the targets of intervention while victims do not. To lump all violence together goes along with the mentality of placing the burden on the victim to fix the situation. Johnston clearly values preventing violence and making schools safer, which are worthy goals, but she is ignoring something even more important: the entire concept of fairness versus unfairness, justice versus injustice, right versus wrong. 

Perhaps this article isn’t about preventing victims from turning into bullies, after all. Perhaps the entire article is actually about preventing victims from taking revenge on their bullies, something that Johnston inaccurately characterizes as victims turning into bullies. If this is the case, then not only do I object to the idea of placing the burden for change on victims, but I object to the entire goal. For victims to take revenge on their bullies isn’t something that should be prevented at all, because revenge is exactly what bullies deserve.

bookmark_borderThe return of the bills whose sole purpose is to hurt people as badly as possible…

Posted on by Marissa

I could not believe my eyes when I saw this. The Virginia bills whose sole purpose is to hurt people as badly as possible are back. Governor Glenn Youngkin has seven days in which to either veto or sign them.

I heard about these bills through the social media posts of people / organizations who are fighting against them, and have not read any coverage of them in the news media, but the mere thought of what the news articles might be saying about them makes me sick to my stomach. The Instagram post linked above says, “the left is pushing hard for [Youngkin] to sign these bills.” The idea that anyone would push for these bills is absolutely sickening, and it makes me sick to my stomach to imagine the arguments that proponents might be making in favor of them.

I cannot wrap my head around why someone would think that either of these bills is a good idea and should be enacted into law, particularly after the indescribably horrible atrocities that have been committed unendingly and relentlessly over the past four years. It boggles my mind to think that anyone would favor inflicting additional suffering on people who have already been tortured by the infliction of unbearable, indescribable, relentless pain. “Left” isn’t even the correct term for someone who supports these bills, in my opinion. The desire to make the world as bad a place as possible, and to inflict the maximum possible amount of pain on other people, can’t accurately be categorized as a political ideology at all. A person who considers this to be a worthy goal, which must be the case for anyone who supports bills HB 812 and SB 517, is so filled with brutality, cruelty, meanness, and nastiness, and so completely devoid of morality and devoid of a soul, that such a person doesn’t even deserve to be categorized as a person at all.

“I’m so sick of this,” wrote one commenter on the Instagram post.

“Unbelievable,” wrote another. “I spent 4 years in Virginia and I loved it there. It’s been a shame to see legislation like this, the desecration/removal of monuments, etc..”

Amen. My thoughts are the same as these comments, but multiplied by 100.

I am so incredibly sick of things like bills HB 812 and SB 517. So, so incredibly sick of it. More sick of it than I ever thought it was possible for a human being to be sick of anything. My soul has been beaten down by the brutal, cruel, mean-spirited nastiness that is bills HB 812 and SB 517. Brutal, cruel, mean-spirited nastiness that just keeps occurring again and again, relentlessly. Where the people who hold 100% of the power just keep hurting the people who hold no power, as badly as they possibly can. For no other reason than inflicting pain and suffering. As if inflicting pain and suffering on people is somehow noble, or honorable, or morally good. I am so incredibly sick of it that there are no words to convey the extent of my exhaustion. It is soul-crushing.

To say that legislation like this, and desecration/removal of monuments, are a shame is an understatement. Legislation like this, and desecration/removal of monuments, completely defeat the purpose of Virginia. They completely defeat the purpose of the US. They completely defeat the purpose of life, because they erase from the world the very things that make life worth living.

The actions that have been committed, and that continue to be committed, are absolutely soul-crushing. People who support bills HB 812 and SB 517, and/or any policies even remotely like them, have inflicted indescribable agony. My soul is sick, aching, and in pain.

This is the email that I sent to Governor Youngkin about these bills:

Dear Governor Youngkin:
I am writing to express my opposition to bills HB 812 and SB 517. In my opinion, these bills are mean-spirited, destructive, hurtful, and without any redeeming value. I am on the autism spectrum, and my special interest is history. I really admire Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee, and Confederate history is extremely important to me. I have been severely hurt by the attacks on history and statues that have taken place over the past few years, and these bills are just a continuation of the same attacks. It is extremely upsetting to me that these bills have a chance of becoming law. I feel that these bills have no purpose other than hurting people who love Confederate history, such as myself. I have already suffered tremendous pain due to the relentless and cruel attacks on Confederate history and statues, and inflicting additional pain on people like me, as bills HB 812 and SB 517 would do, is the absolute last thing anyone needs.
Therefore, I respectfully urge you to please, please veto these mean-spirited and hurtful bills.
Sincerely,
Marissa

bookmark_border“F*** your dead” – the atrocity done to the Lion of Atlanta

Posted on by Marissa

It’s been several years since the atrocity that was done to the Lion of Atlanta, but I saw this Instagram post about it recently, and I felt the need to share my thoughts.

“F*** your dead,” wrote the excuses for human beings who committed this atrocity. And of course, “BLM.” 

The excuses for human beings also crossed out the word “Confederate” from the phrase “unknown Confederate dead” on the monument. 

Translation:

F*** anyone who differs from us in any way. F*** anyone who differs from the norm, from the majority.

Only our lives matter. No one else’s. No one’s feelings, perspective, or viewpoint matters, other than ours. 

Anyone who differs from us in any way needs to be erased from existence, as if they never lived at all.

Only bland, mundane people who conform to social norms and mindlessly comply with authority should be allowed to exist. 

The only people who deserve to be honored, memorialized, or respected are those who look and think like us.

Those are the attitudes of the excuses for human beings who committed the atrocity towards the Lion of Atlanta. 

And those attitudes are the antithesis of diversity, the antithesis of inclusion, the antithesis of tolerance. 

I say: 

F*** you, excuses for human beings who wrote these things.

F*** your contempt, hatred, and intolerance for anyone who differs from you in any way. 

F*** your bigotry.

F*** your authoritarianism.

You demonstrate that supporters of the BLM movement are the real bigots, the real racists. 

Our society should have unanimously and unequivocally condemned this movement the instant its slogan was found graffitied, alongside profane insults, on the Lion of Atlanta. 

Yet despicably, our society did the opposite. 

Society’s embrace of the movement responsible for this and countless similar atrocities is an injustice worse than words are able to convey; it is the worst injustice imaginable.