[modo_mario]

I can think of only 3 times where i or someone else confronted a bully and made it stop. In 2 of those cases the bully was stronger but such stuff can always carry risks that the bully might not like or scenarios they can't take.

In the first the bully eventually got hit with a school desk (they were fairly light but hard) pretty bad by the victim that finally crashed out and the bully actually looked like a wimpering fool in front of a ton of people. As far as I know he didn't try to get back at the victim.

In the second it was I that flipped out and had some luck. I didn't seriously hurt him but he realized the blind intent in the moment was there. He just seemed shocked and no longer bothered

The 3rd guy had some Moroccan machismo thing going and kept picking on people he couldn't beat and it always happened fairly conventionally without suprise.

[threethirtytwo]

How about the amount of times when the bully didn't stop? That's the useful metric here. When there was resistance, how effective was it?

Judging from your description you didn't lay out any examples of where fighting back failed.

[modo_mario]

Because I can't really think of examples. Mind you that might be biased because people do often have an intuition for when they'd either get their ass handed to them or it would otherwise backfire so I assume there'd be some examples otherwise if they didn't take that into account.

Also these examples were mostly from incidents where the bullying got physical anyway. Much of it isn't and making it physical even as the victim tends to have drawbacks.

[threethirtytwo]

Right so without examples your evidence actually lends credence to my point. 3/3 times is a 100 percent rate of the bully backing down. That is the logical and rational analysis.

Obviously your personal conclusion is different but I would say it’s not an empirical or strictly logical analytical conclusion.

You will also note that I was able to guess and predict where you’re coming from. Not only did I ask for the full metric, I asked for it partly because I can predict it would be 3 out of 3. My response to the other persons reply predicted what was going on in your head quite accurately. Because of this I would say that I have knowledge about this context that you don’t know about it and that you can learn from. It’s natural for you to you to fight for your point but that would be a form of bias.

So here’s something that you can agree with. If the victim wanted to he can go to the kitchen grab a knife bring it to school to try to kill that bully. Another option is to follow that bully home and attempt to slaughter his family.

No matter how small a victim is… any bully will back down if he knew the victim was willing to raise the violence level to these insane extremes.

The point of that example is to show you a level of resistance that will cause nearly 100 percent of bullies to back down. And to also show how extremely possible it is for anyone to do. Anyone can go to the kitchen and grab a knife and raise the stakes. The point is that most victims just don’t have the balls to do it.

From a practical standpoint you only need to go a fraction of that distance in order to cause most bullies to back down. Are you willing to get violent with a bully? Maybe don’t get a knife but be willing to smash his face in with your fists. Or bring a bat to school and try smash down his legs to get him to kneel if your fists are truly too weak. If you don’t do shit then the bully won’t back down and that is primarily what the bully takes advantage of as shown with the 3/3 statistic you presented me with.

The victim definitely has choices. But he’s too scared take charge or even follow through with the right choice. Weakness is not a realistic excuse because the victim has choices in weaponry (rocks, bat) that can even the odds or even bend the odds to extreme levels (knife).

[modo_mario]

>Obviously your personal conclusion is different but I would say it’s not an empirical or strictly logical analytical conclusion. You will also note that I was able to guess and predict where you’re coming from. Not only did I ask for the full metric, I asked for it partly because I can predict it would be 3 out of 3. My response to the other persons reply predicted what was going on in your head quite accurately. Because of this I would say that I have knowledge about this context that you don’t know about it and that you can learn from. It’s natural for you to you to fight for your point but that would be a form of bias.

Sorry but this reads like some pompous peak redditor stuff. I'd say it would be a bad look if you're trying to convince someone or transfer and idea but the other person you agreed with wasn't right about the supposed cases nor did you draw some point we disagree on or draw out some conclusion.

>From a practical standpoint you only need to go a fraction of that distance in order to cause most bullies to back down.

Yes because for most bullies it's social posturing. The whole group dynamic doesn't often make sense if there's expected resistance. Even if the victim can be beat, few bullies feel like getting into a tussle over it let alone repeatedly. Exceptions can be notable of course and probalby bullies trend towards those escalation exceptions a bit more than others.

[selcuka]

To be fair they said "I can think of only 3 times [...] and made it stop", implying that there were comparatively more cases where it didn't stop.

[threethirtytwo]

Yes I think the implication didn’t fully materialize in his head. If he stop to think about it he doesn’t actually have any other cases.

Which sort of explains why there’s no subsequent response.