[rorymarinich]

Are you so certain it's hierarchical in nature?

The difference between a jock and a band geek is that the jock will resort to violence to defend himself. I've pranked jocks before with groups of band geeks. It often leads to a scuffle. When band geeks are strong enough to fight back, they don't get bullied either.

You don't torment people because of your own psychological past. Usually it's done out of irritation. The meek, quiet type usually gets ignored in favor of the one who talks too much in class, not because people hate smart people, but because there are certain sorts who are really jerks about it and that irritates people. That's also why bullies tend to be on the smarter side of the spectrum. I knew kids in the studies (low-level) courses and kids in the advanced courses, and the ones who were more likely to mock a kid was all in the advanced courses. I've been in the mocking situation before, so it all works.

[chairface]

> The meek, quiet type usually gets ignored in favor of the one who talks too much in class, not because people hate smart people, but because there are certain sorts who are really jerks about it and that irritates people.

Okay, wait a second. First off, I have a hard time picturing how someone can be that much of a "jerk" by answering a teacher's question. And secondly, are you honestly siding with a bully who beats on a kid for that kind of behavior? I mean, I understand that it can be irritating to hear from the same kid all the time, but frankly, the onus is on the bully to deal with this incredibly minor irritation in a less destructive way. Your implication that those being tormented are more at fault than the tormentors sickens me.

[rorymarinich]

My implication is that the tormented as not wholly innocent.

Of course I don't agree with bullying. I'm not a huge fan of violence, particularly not for stupid shit like school. But there's an attitude amongst this type of person that says they are entirely not to blame for the harassment they get, just because they act smart or whatnot. I don't think that's the case. I used to get mocked a lot in school and looking back on it, I think that I deserved it entirely. Similarly, some people go out of their way to invite harassment, and they use that as a point about how people who harass other people suck. I'd even go so far as to call it reverse harassment. I certainly did that as well: I'd provoke people into making fun of me by going out of my way to be eccentric. It's stupid behavior and while it might not be as bad as actually harassing a person, it's still inexcusable.

First off, I have a hard time picturing how someone can be that much of a "jerk" by answering a teacher's question.

In one of my courses this semester, there's a kid with an irritating laugh and a loud voice who refuses to stop making comments about how Microsoft is dead and dying, how Linux is going to be huge by the end of 2009, how Apple is evil, how Firefox is the best web browser and adheres the best to web standards. Every discussion we have he jumps in on, interrupting students and advocating his own misinformed, sensationalist, frankly stupid opinions, under the guise that he's being a good participant by doing so.

In one of my senior-year courses, there were honors students, kids ranked in the top 10 for our year, who, in round-circle literary discussions, would say things like "I think the pig on the stick is symbolic. I don't exactly know what it's for, but it seems like there's a reason for it being there." In that particular discussion, after I talked about how the pig's head represents in some ways an attempt at order that pretends to itself that it has meaning, that particular person jumped in saying, "Precisely what I was saying. It's that it's symbolic. And there was a reason, just like Rory added on."

There is answering questions because you know the answers - and some people do that, and they're completely fine, and no matter how many they answer nobody seems to mind - and there are the people who are jerks about it. The obnoxious popping-up hand, the calls of "Ooh! Ooh!", the smarmy attitude about all of it. It's a jerk thing to do. It's just as bad as the snobby girl who makes fun of fat kids, or the fashion guru who sneers at people who wear Gap (or whatever fashion gurus sneer at). And just like I don't think teasing and sneering is stuff that deserves violence, being a jackass in class isn't something that you should be beaten up over - but neither is it completely harmless and mild. Being somebody who likes to be scathing at times, I find that I go after those wannabe teacher's pets just as much as I go after other sorts of people.

Your implication that those being tormented are more at fault than the tormentors sickens me.

Just to be entirely clear: my implication is that there is blame to be found on both sides. That is nearly always my implication in these scenarios. I think the tormentors are more at fault, in this case, but I can't bring myself to side entirely with the tormented.

[chairface]

> But there's an attitude amongst this type of person that says they are entirely not to blame for the harassment they get

They _are_ entirely not to blame for what they get. What they _are_ to blame for is their own behavior.

I don't have a problem with you saying that some people are irritating and do annoying things. What I have a problem with is the suggestion that they _share in the blame for what others do to them as a result_. There is a difference there, and it is an important one.

To be clear, I am going on the principle that a person is alone responsible for their actions, and not for those of others.

[rorymarinich]

If I act like an asshole, then when people get mad at me for being an asshole I'm to blame. If I reject people for not being smarter than I am, then if they get mad at me I'm to blame.

I agree. You are responsible for yourself but nobody else. You seem to imply, however, that others' actions dwell in a void entirely uninspired by your own actions. I hold, on the other hand, that everything influences everything else, and so nerds should be responsible for their social hostility because that's what's influencing their persecution.

[chairface]

I am very close to agreeing with your first paragraph. Yeah, in those situations, you're to blame for being an asshole or rejecting people. But if they respond by beating you over it, the blame for _that_ falls on them.

In any case, I think what I wrote in the other thread about how I'm separating the concepts of "cause" and "blame" should clear this up.