[Dewie]

> I meant they are somewhat correct in their belief that bullying is a part of our social fabric. But I don't endorse bullying, rather I think that there is something wrong with our society.

Of course it's part of the social fabric of wherever it happens and goes unpunished. This seems like saying "this is a thing that happens", which feels like a truism.

Like you're saying, it isn't something that should be encouraged or that should go unpunished. If there is something beneficial about it, then that is probably just a symptom of something else that is wrong with society, which forces/enables the bullying.

[yetanotherphd]

Well it's not surprising it seems like a truism to you, since a big part of conservatism is maintaining the status quo.

But to be more precise about the benefit that conservatives see in bullying: bullying can be thought of as a social pressure not to be (1) weak and (2) different. I know some people will think that I am blaming the victim with (1), but I'm not. I was bullied in school, and I was physically weak and tended not to stand up for myself. Many of my friends were the same. Anyway, many people see discouraging (1) and (2) to be good things. (1) because society needs people (at least) men to be strong and vigorous in order to prosper and fight external enemies, and (2) because if there is no pressure to conform, people might do anything they liked and completely ignore societal norms.

[Dewie]

> Well it's not surprising it seems like a truism to you, since a big part of conservatism is maintaining the status quo.

Even conservatives have to give convincing arguments as to why the status qou is good.

> I know some people will think that I am blaming the victim with (1), but I'm not. I was bullied in school, and I was physically weak and tended not to stand up for myself.

Having been a former victim does not preclude one from blaming current victims. In fact, it can be a badge of honour; that the fact that they are not a victim any more is because of their own volition.

> (1) because society needs people (at least) men to be strong and vigorous in order to prosper and fight external enemies

That's what conscription is for. Or, if society can't be sold on slavery, encouraging activities that foster strength.

The concept of bullying is the direct opposite of something like a military organization. Bullying is, at least in the school yard, more like a disorganized and "wild habitat"; people who are "strong", either by social status or physical strength, pray on the weaker. A military organization is highly hierarchical and rank is based (ideally) on merit within the organization. It is also based on submission to your superiors orders, not seizing every opportunity you can to take them down a peg by putting them in a headlock and assuming their former status (rank).

What kind of person is more likely to be sent to a disciplinary institution; a bullying rebel, or a meek and weak individual? Probably the former.

(And I could tell you some things about bullying in the military. But let's just say that it isn't terribly good for morale, nor for anyone's safety when there is a lot of ill emotions and everyone has weapons at their disposal.)

> , and (2) because if there is no pressure to conform, people might do anything they liked and completely ignore societal norms.

When people that violate social norms in a way that upsets others are taught a lesson or shamed into correcting their behaviour, that is called reprimanding, not bullying. It is, if successful, a one time affair. Bullying is more of a regular thing, sustained over a time period, in the same general location.

If people get reprimanded for silly things that does not hurt anyone, but is just part of who they are... then yes, that's bullying. But then we're back in the silly domain of conformity-for-conformities sake. An argument that you have presented, but supposedly does not agree with, because you're doing that whole devil's advocates thing I guess. Nonetheless, I don't agree with it, nor do I find anything much to be agreeable with it, even if I were to be a so-called conservative.

[yetanotherphd]

On my motivations, society does allow bullying to happen, and the discrepancy between what it allows to happen to children in the context of bullying, and what it allows in most other cases, requires an explanation.

This requires putting oneself in the shoes of the people responsible for this situation, including people who minimize the importance or harm of bullying, people who justify it outright, and people who silently ignore the issue.

In doing so I am going to argue that given certain assumptions (both positive and normative), bullying should be permitted or justified. That is the inevitable outcome of being intellectually honest.

You claim there is a difference between upholding social value through reprimand, and bullying. I couldn't tell if being "taught a lesson" referred to violence so I won't assume either way. If it didn't refer to violence, then in an individualistic society like ours, people could just ignore it. Maybe in Scandinavia a verbal reprimand is enough, but not in the rest of Europe or the English speaking world.

And yet a free for all of violence would not work either (which seems to be the straw man of bullying you are using in your argument). Bullying is not only violence and the establishment of a pecking order, and also not only punishing violators of the social code. Rather it is doing these things together in a complementary way. The social code is respected because it comes from the most dominant people, and the violence is justified because it also helps cement the social code.

This explains why schools and prisons punish people who defend themselves against bullies more than the bullies themselves. To defend yourself is anti-social violence. Furthermore, as students get older, this social order morphs into the actual social order of the adult world. It is not only a pecking order that teachers tolerate because it makes the school easier to manage. It also gains the gloss of society's actual moral code.

For example, students might be bullied because they exhibit middle class speech and behavior, and are unwilling or unable to adopt "cool" working class behavior. A teacher might be sympathetic, but also consider that without this kind of bullying, middle class student could be as snooty as they liked, and that forcing middle class students to respect working class students (even out of fear) would help societal cohesion in the bigger picture.

The values that bullies enforce are arbitrary, but not entirely arbitrary. If they only punished the truly snooty, or the truly degenerate, would progressives or conservatives respectively complain? I see many people encouraging bullying tech workers in SF because they claim those workers really don't respect the values of the communities they live in. And (this was a while ago) I read a Time magazine article about the bullying of the Columbine shooters, which claimed precisely that their bullying was justified because they violated social norms (as the article said quoting a footballer "they were a bunch of fxxxxts", and this was in the 1990's so the implication wasn't that the footballer was in the wrong!).

I am not saying that society will fall apart without bullying, but that people who want to maintain social norms that aren't enforced by law, logically have little choice but to accept that experiencing an environment with bullying is an imperfect but necessary precursor to knowing your place in society.