[oldmanjay]

Because there is a lot of money and power, which attracts politics, of which "crybullying" is a tactical maneuver.

Also, it's a terrible word in an aesthetic sense. People don't try to bring much elegance to neologisms these days. Such a pity.

[defen]

How about instead of crybullies we call them Corinthians.

> And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

[EdSharkey]

I think that was an affirmation of God's saving grace. It describes the ease of putting one's faith in God when suffering under great stress or pain or loss.

The 'grace' comes from the fact that God won't judge us for our sins because Jesus took our place in the courtroom. So rather than our being damned, Jesus saved us through His perfect sacrifice.

Crybullies are the persecutors, no? They're the ones to pray to God for deliverance FROM!

[defen]

Well it's obviously not the originally intended message, but the idea is that "crybullies" get their strength from weakness, in the sense that it gives them a feeling of moral superiority due to victimhood. They then use this as a platform to attack opponents. "Punching down" is the worst sin in the modern liberal conception of morality, so if your peer group consists of those people (and that means, nearly everyone in the middle and upper classes of modern western society) then you can very effectively have someone shunned by the group if you paint them as an oppressor. It doesn't appear to matter how tenuous those claims are, if the purported victims are sufficiently weak.

[EdSharkey]

I don't agree with your original analogy, but everything you've got here sounds spot on.

[cgcardona]

I'm generally interested in why you think it's a terrible word in the aesthetic sense? thx.

[oldmanjay]

Because it conflicts with my sense of English aesthetics. Sorry for not supplying anything more interesting than that but it is what it is.

Edit: I thought a little further about it, and I can expand a bit. It's in the unhappy valley between too clever and not clever enough. Sort of like referring to Comcast as comcrap.