• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Kalnet

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,046
Jim did the right thing. The school didn't helped much and the kid continued to bully his daughter. Jim could've went to the bully's house and confronted his parents right then and there but he didnt. He did the proper thing by having a meeting with the school and the parents instead for equal ground.

He used his threats as his last resort when the school can't do much to assess the situation. So yeah, I'm with him. I wouldn't want to see my daughter come home with bruises knowing a place of education, social, and fun to be ruined by some bully daily.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,176
UK
Weird to see everyone condone violence. You think it's the parents who create bullies? Then Jim is no different. Maybe the parents of kid 2 would have told her off just as well if he remained civil? It was their first meeting. Jim sounds like a chav.
Are you trolling or being a devil's advocate just cause you're bored and want to stand on a moral high ground? You do know he asked the school to intervene, they didn't do shit, then bully assaulted your daughter. You're just gonna let that go?
 

Thunder

Alt-Account
Banned
Jan 11, 2018
314
Jim does not fuck about, he did the right thing. Some parents need to teach their kids not to be assholes
 

Dr. Mario

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,866
Netherlands
I have zero fucks to give about how comfortable the abusers are.

Like, explain to me why the onus is on the abused to be civil and polite to the abusers, who by definition are the ones ALREADY inflicting physical harm?
I think the main difference is, I don't see the parents as the abusers. I don't really know why you do.

Again, we don't know how the conversation went. Maybe the parents came in and were all like fuck yo kid. Then it becomes a lot more understandable, I daresay somewhat right. But OP reads a bit like "Hi we're Stacy's pare..." "Imma fuck you up", in which case, nah, it's obviously effective but not the proper way.
 

VariantX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,886
Columbia, SC
Honestly, that wasn't the last resort. Talking to the parents without threats of violence might have been enough. Now if he did that and the kid was still being a shit to his daughter after that then i wouldn't blame him because he exhausted all the other options available to him.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
I think the main difference is, I don't see the parents as the abusers. I don't really know why you do.

Again, we don't know how the conversation went. Maybe the parents came in and were all like fuck yo kid. Then it becomes a lot more understandable, I daresay somewhat right. But OP reads a bit like "Hi we're Stacy's pare..." "Imma fuck you up", in which case, nah, it's obviously effective but not the proper way.

God, this reads like every "both sides" response ever made.

You are acting like you'd be all hyperrational and stoic in the face of your daughter being bruised and refusing to empathize that maybe, being the father, you wouldn't really give a fuck whether the parents themselves were abusers or not when regardless of the fact, they are responsible for their goddamn piece of shit bullying kid. You are seperating all emotional context of how it would actually feel to be in that situation and grandstanding as a moral superior.

But aside all that, no, you're wrong. There is nothing improper about him responding the way he did in that situation. There are few situations I can think of where the threat of violence is more apt than when your child is in danger. So, in my eyes, there is nothing wrong with his response. It's proper. Not just because it worked, but because that is the sort of anger and outrage that a parent SHOULD feel when their child is hurt by someone.

And this pacifism moralizing act is simply grating. From the way you talk about it, I don't get the impression you have any actual experience with violence and abuse, so you can only think of it as a 'what-if', a hypothetical reality where you try to simulate how you would ideally act and wondering how anyone could deviate from it when you imagine it to be so easy. That kind of naivety is literally the best intentions scenerio I have of why your doing this, because anything else is a lot shittier on your part.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,649
Some people in here sound like Tarkin on the Death Star.

The problem is, what happens if the other parent doesn't back down and it escalates? This can get even more ugly really fast.

On the other hand, it's true that the "official" ways often don't do shit.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,227
He went to the school first. The school did nothing. So he did what he had to do to protect his kid. Violence isn't the answer, usually, but his kid was subjected to violence herself. What other options did he have? Just let his kid get beaten up and hope for the best? The bully's parents did nothing to stop it. They're just as responsible. You can't threaten the kid, so you threaten the parents.

Good on him.

It also raises the issue that schools are still far too forgiving when it comes to bullying. Bullying is a serious problem. Kids commit suicide or have lifelong issues because of it. It's not something to ignore. If the school won't do anything, then what else can you do?

The wives aren't empathetic enough here. They'd feel differently if it were their kid. They have no right to judge. They should be mad at the school instead. Apparently the school wouldn't do much to protect their kids either.
 

RulkezX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,342
Again given the thread has grown a lot - There is absolutely nothing presented from the OP that suggests it was the threat that stopped the bullying and not the meeting with the parents at the school.
 

Dr. Mario

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,866
Netherlands
You are acting like you'd be all hyperrational and stoic in the face of your daughter being bruised and refusing to empathize that maybe, being the father, you wouldn't really give a fuck whether the parents themselves were abusers or not when regardless of the fact, they are responsible for their goddamn piece of shit bullying kid. You are seperating all emotional context of how it would actually feel to be in that situation and grandstanding as a moral superior.
I'm not acting like I'd do anything. At no point did I discuss myself. Maybe I'd go on a straight murder spree. That doesn't make it right, which is what this thread was about. Of course that requires a semi detached view. You want to call me unempathetic and sanctimonious because of that, go right ahead, I'll fantasize you're rationalizing your bad impulses. In the mean time we're getting nowhere.
 

Wackamole

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,935
He should have talked to the parents first and give them a chance to resolve this before treathening with violence but i can understand. As a parent you need to be on this and you need to be very clear you're not okay with this.
 
Jul 3, 2018
1,252
The school should have contacted the parent and talked to them about this.

Jim did do the right thing here. Something similar happened to a colleague of mine and they threatened legal action.
 

Mistouze

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,430
It's certainly not the ideal solution but the dude tried the proper channels. I totally get him being angry about his girl getting bullied.

I'll give him a chaotic good for his actions there.
 

TokyoJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,044
I stand with Jim. Most parents can't see their kids future. Jim could and should be applauded for doing the right thing.

A school director here where I live goes straight after the parents when there's bullying. It's been very effective.
 
Jul 3, 2018
1,252
The school should have contacted the parent and talked to them about this.

Jim did do the right thing here. Something similar happened to a colleague of mine and they threatened legal action.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,618
Spain
Jim did good. It's tough to say this as my mom is an educator, but despite the good intentions of individual teachers, every bullying case I've seen (And experienced myself) throughout my life was fully supported and partake in by the teachers at large in the school. Of course this is a selection bias because a good teacher stops the bullying in many cases, but still, if the school doesn't respond its because they are accomplices and you have to take it on yourself.
Parents of bullying kids are usually bullies themselves, so fuck them and threaten them all you want as far as I'm concerned.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
I'm not acting like I'd do anything. At no point did I discuss myself. Maybe I'd go on a straight murder spree. That doesn't make it right, which is what this thread was about. Of course that requires a semi detached view. You want to call me unempathetic and sanctimonious because of that, go right ahead, I'll fantasize you're rationalizing your bad impulses. In the mean time we're getting nowhere.
On the contrary, I think we are exactly where I think we should be.

Most people here seem to agree that the father did the right thing and you're being...ridiculous, to put it as nicely as I can... You really aren't being standing on any sort of moral superiority here, just pretentiousness and ignorance. All your doing here holding your head high and are proudly tut-tuting the immorality of promoting violence, while ignoring any aspect of reality just to cling to a false idea of moral superiority. And - and this is the important part - you're not going to move on that regardless of what I or anyone else says. This is the trap that many people fall into, because you invite debate with no intention of ever questioning your position that maybe, actually maybe, violence was the answer. Even in this response, you use italics to say it isn't right, when I and many others are asserting that it infact is. So your not here to actually discuss, merely grate and annoy.

So I take a different approach. You're wrong, but I don't need to convince you of your wrongness. It's enough that others see that you're argument isn't credible.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,686
Did the bully's father respond to the threat or to the meeting?
I mean unless he's an asshole he probably could have taken care of it without the need to be threatened. And even if that's what made the difference did he really respond out of fear rather than just taking the threat as an indication of how serious the situation was in the victim's father's eyes?
 

Kyzer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,709
Would need to know more, from the way you tell it the "meeting" almost seems like it was just immediately a leap to threat of violence when in reality it probably escalated toward that
 

Ortix

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,438
On the contrary, I think we are exactly where I think we should be.

Most people here seem to agree that the father did the right thing and you're being...ridiculous, to put it as nicely as I can... You really aren't being standing on any sort of moral superiority here, just pretentiousness and ignorance. All your doing here holding your head high and are proudly tut-tuting the immorality of promoting violence, while ignoring any aspect of reality just to cling to a false idea of moral superiority. And - and this is the important part - you're not going to move on that regardless of what I or anyone else says. This is the trap that many people fall into, because you invite debate with no intention of ever questioning your position that maybe, actually maybe, violence was the answer. Even in this response, you use italics to say it isn't right, when I and many others are asserting that it infact is. So your not here to actually discuss, merely grate and annoy.

So I take a different approach. You're wrong, but I don't need to convince you of your wrongness. It's enough that others see that you're argument isn't credible.

He's not wrong though, and your accusation of him not being willing to change his opinion sounds hypocritical. You haven't exactly shown you're willing to consider any opinion besides your own either. Nor have you presented any arguments that are likely to change his opinion.
 

Metalix

Member
Oct 28, 2017
883
What an exasperated soul Jim must've been, tearing his hair out with the school's inaction. What then, is the avenue? Desperate times call for desperate measures.

In my experience, parents who don't want their kids to be bullies generally don't raise bullies. It's the ones that don't give a shit that do. You're also ignoring the follow up posts from OP where he explained that this kid has been in trouble for bullying before. The parents clearly don't care that much if this is repeated behaviour.

Not always, I'm reminded of this old Penny Arcade piece. Some people just want to watch the world burn...
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
He's not wrong though, and your accusation of him not being willing to change his opinion sounds hypocritical. You haven't exactly shown you're willing to consider any opinion besides your own either. Nor have you presented any arguments that are likely to change his opinion.
No, I'm not open to discussion because I don't engage in bad faith arguments. The only purpose to doing so is to convince third parties, and given that most of the thread seems to have turned against him, third parties are already convinced. I'm not going to try to change his mind because his mind is unchangeable in the first place. I can't say for sure if he's being intentionally genuine, but I've been in enough of these to recognize a brick wall when I see it, so why talk to it?

This is something I see happen all the time: People come in pretending they're looking for legitimate debate when they have no intention of truly getting out of their fixed position. In this case, he's arguing from the perspective that violence is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD, and I people have pointed out in numerous ways how this is a perfectly reasonable application of threat of violence, and his only response is to circle back to "But violence is BAAAAAAA....AD" again. And in his latest reply he says he has no intention of empathizing with the fathers anger or worry for his daughters safety so he can stay in his bubble of detached hyperrationality instead of actually trying to imagine what the idea of seeing his daughter with bruises would do to a real life flesh and blood human being, and just coming back around to "Vi. Olence. BAAAAAAAAAAD" so...yeah, brick wall.

And people shouldn't waste their time with that. This doesn't deserve intellectual engagement because it's not really an intellectual discussion. At best, it's innocently insensitive abstract naval-gazing philosophical bullshit that doesn't really apply to life in any practical fashion, at worst it's active trolling. It doesn't warrant a response.

For contrast, I can understand people who might worry about escalation as having a reasonable point about maybe not going this route the way he did, because that's a practical concern. But this? Nah.
 

Dr. Mario

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,866
Netherlands
No, I'm not open to discussion because I don't engage in bad faith arguments. The only purpose to doing so is to convince third parties, and given that most of the thread seems to have turned against him, third parties are already convinced. I'm not going to try to change his mind because his mind is unchangeable in the first place. I can't say for sure if he's being intentionally genuine, but I've been in enough of these to recognize a brick wall when I see it, so why talk to it?

This is something I see happen all the time: People come in pretending they're looking for legitimate debate when they have no intention of truly getting out of their fixed position. In this case, he's arguing from the perspective that violence is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD, and I people have pointed out in numerous ways how this is a perfectly reasonable application of threat of violence, and his only response is to circle back to "But violence is BAAAAAAA....AD" again. And in his latest reply he says he has no intention of empathizing with the fathers anger or worry for his daughters safety so he can stay in his bubble of detached hyperrationality instead of actually trying to imagine what the idea of seeing his daughter with bruises would do to a real life flesh and blood human being, and just coming back around to "Vi. Olence. BAAAAAAAAAAD" so...yeah, brick wall.

And people shouldn't waste their time with that. This doesn't deserve intellectual engagement because it's not really an intellectual discussion. At best, it's innocently insensitive abstract naval-gazing philosophical bullshit that doesn't really apply to life in any practical fashion, at worst it's active trolling. It doesn't warrant a response.

For contrast, I can understand people who might worry about escalation as having a reasonable point about maybe not going this route the way he did, because that's a practical concern. But this? Nah.
I mean that's literally what I'm saying, that he shouldn't have gone straight to threatening when the parents may have been concerned themselves. But I think the elaborate strawman is neat too.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
I mean that's literally what I'm saying, that he shouldn't have gone straight to threatening when the parents may have been concerned themselves. But I think the elaborate strawman is neat too.

And I'm saying whether the parents may have been concerned is irrelevant. They could be the most kindhearted people in the world, and it wouldn't matter because their son is being physically abusive and they're responsible for it. Because it's not their comfort that Jim should be concerned about, but his daughters, and he acted accordingly. Which is literally the first point that I made, which you are dancing around. I'm paraphrasing your arguments for the purposes of comedy, but I'm accurate in saying that you are literally walking around the argument I am making, not actually addressing it, and maintaining that it shouldn't have happened for no discernable reason other than ViOLenCE BaAaD, the fixture of your position that you haven't so much as questioned nor will you even potentially do so. So...brick wall.
 

Jokab

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
875
Okay it seems like reading this and the last page was enough. I fully agree with Dr. Mario. Yes the parents are responsible for their kid, but Jim should have firstly actually talked to them like and adult instead of threatening with violence as a primary tool. He's perpetrating the mindset that violence is the go-to solution, just like the bully is. Except Jim is an adult.
 

Eldy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,192
Maryland
Okay it seems like reading this and the last page was enough. I fully agree with Dr. Mario. Yes the parents are responsible for their kid, but Jim should have firstly actually talked to them like and adult instead of threatening with violence as a primary tool. He's perpetrating the mindset that violence is the go-to solution, just like the bully is. Except Jim is an adult.

The mindset behind "holy shit my daughter is being physically abused on a daily basis and the people who are ostensibly supposed to protect her won't do their jobs, drastic action is called for" and then doing something that, from a more remote perspective, might not seem like the best option is very fucking different from the mindset behind "I'm going to make a habit of physically attacking a girl for being gender nonconforming" and the fact that this even has to be stated is mind-boggling.
 

Absent

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,045
The fact that society keeps protecting bullies is infuriating. Instead of confronting it, they take it out on the victim because of reasons. The bully effectively gets rewarded for horrible behavior.

Jim did what most people should do, instead of tiptoeing around the feelings of the bully and his parents.
 

KuroNeeko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,187
Osaka
It's harder to argue that what Jim did was wrong when his actions achieved the desired effect: the bullying has stopped. But the potential for the situation to turn against Jim was there. The parents of the bully could have contacted the police, for example. They could have told their child to escalate the situation and when Jim comes over next time, use force in the form of a weapon or friend to fight him off.

As a parent, I don't know that I would have been any better after seeing those bruises on my daughter's arm, but I feel like Jim could have taken the additional step of confronting the parents in a non-violent, non-threatening manner to affect a positive change rather than rely on fear. If, after talking with the parents, the situation doesn't resolve itself, you could contact the police or threaten legal action. As a teen, I got into no shortage of fights, but I learned quickly that there's always someone bigger or stronger and no one responds well to threats. Jim getting put in the hospital or behind bars won't do his daughter any favors.

Still, I'm pretty convinced that I can only write this dispassionately because it's not my child. I don't know that I could follow my own advice.
 

Jokab

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
875
The mindset behind "holy shit my daughter is being physically abused on a daily basis and the people who are ostensibly supposed to protect her won't do their jobs, drastic action is called for" and then doing something that, from a more remote perspective, might not seem like the best option is very fucking different from the mindset behind "I'm going to make a habit of physically attacking a girl for being gender nonconforming" and the fact that this even has to be stated is mind-boggling.
The effect is that he's teaching his child that the way to stop violence is to do more violence. I can't get behind that.
 

Ortix

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,438
The mindset behind "holy shit my daughter is being physically abused on a daily basis and the people who are ostensibly supposed to protect her won't do their jobs, drastic action is called for" and then doing something that, from a more remote perspective, might not seem like the best option is very fucking different from the mindset behind "I'm going to make a habit of physically attacking a girl for being gender nonconforming" and the fact that this even has to be stated is mind-boggling.

Jim's an adult though. You expect higher standards.
 

Eldy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,192
Maryland
The effect is that he's teaching his child that the way to stop violence is to do more violence. I can't get behind that.

That's nice, it has no bearing on the fact that the moral equivalency you attempted to draw in your previous post is incredibly off-base.

Jim's an adult though. You expect higher standards.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a response to what I wrote...? Jim's actions and the bully's actions are not comparable because their motivations are so different; age is a comparatively minor consideration.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
It's harder to argue that what Jim did was wrong when his actions achieved the desired effect: the bullying has stopped. But the potential for the situation to turn against Jim was there. The parents of the bully could have contacted the police, for example. They could have told their child to escalate the situation and when Jim comes over next time, use force in the form of a weapon or friend to fight him off.

As a parent, I don't know that I would have been any better after seeing those bruises on my daughter's arm, but I feel like Jim could have taken the additional step of confronting the parents in a non-violent, non-threatening manner to affect a positive change rather than rely on fear. If, after talking with the parents, the situation doesn't resolve itself, you could contact the police or threaten legal action. As a teen, I got into no shortage of fights, but I learned quickly that there's always someone bigger or stronger and no one responds well to threats. Jim getting put in the hospital or behind bars won't do his daughter any favors.

Still, I'm pretty convinced that I can only write this dispassionately because it's not my child. I don't know that I could follow my own advice.
This is basically where I stand. The strongest argument I see against this is "this could have gone bad". But so could have talking to them 'nicely', so it's hardly a loss. There is always a risk of greater violence when you try to stop violence, even if you're trying to do so non-violently. And, as you pointed out, there is an absence of empathy to those arguing against it in that they consider the father's feelings of seeing his daughter hurt.

But as you said, when you get down to it, the threat worked. There is no negative consequence except some stupid bullshit abstraction of "perpetuating the cycle of violence" that doesn't have any meaningful real world truth it, atleast in this scenario. The threat got him to stop and now there is no more abuse. There is no downside here.

The effect is that he's teaching his child that the way to stop violence is to do more violence. I can't get behind that.

Oh no! Now his daughter might use violence when she is threatened with violence instead of trying to talk her abusers out of hurting her. Self-defense! How fucking awful.
 
Last edited:

Sloth Guevara

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,332
This is basically where I stand. The strongest argument I see against this is "this could have gone bad". But so could have talking to them 'nicely', so it's hardly a loss. There is always a risk of greater violence when you try to stop violence, even if you're trying to do so non-violently. And, as you pointed out, there is an absence of empathy to those arguing against it in that they consider the father's feelings of seeing his daughter hurt.

But as you said, when you get down to it, the threat worked. There is no negative consequence except some stupid bullshit abstraction of "perpetuating the cycle of violence" that doesn't have any meaningful real world truth it, atleast in this scenario. The threat got him to stop and now there is no more abuse. There is no downside here.



Oh no! Now his daughter might use violence when she is threatened with violence instead of trying to talk her abusers out of hurting her. Self-defense! How fucking awful.


I see this from the perspective of someone who has worked in schools pretty much his entire adult life.
Jim should have targeted the school and even reported them to the police if they aren't doing enough to protect his daughter.

If I had a student with a parent who threatened other parents I'd have to make plans with my principal and colleagues if they show up to school.


Ultimately this is a school issue and should be handled by the school.
If the school doesn't do it's job then legal recourse is available.
 

Cokie Bear

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,944
Okay it seems like reading this and the last page was enough. I fully agree with Dr. Mario. Yes the parents are responsible for their kid, but Jim should have firstly actually talked to them like and adult instead of threatening with violence as a primary tool. He's perpetrating the mindset that violence is the go-to solution, just like the bully is. Except Jim is an adult.

He spoke to to school first and they didn't handle it. Kids literally kill themselves over bullying, I don't think we can fault the guy for losing his cool a little when trying protect his daughter for actual, on going physical harm.

I see this from the perspective of someone who has worked in schools pretty much his entire adult life.
Jim should have targeted the school and even reported them to the police if they aren't doing enough to protect his daughter.

If I had a student with a parent who threatened other parents I'd have to make plans with my principal and colleagues if they show up to school.


Ultimately this is a school issue and should be handled by the school.
If the school doesn't do it's job then legal recourse is available.

Why should he wait around for a lengthy legal process when is daughter is still being abused regularly? It needs to be handled immediately and going the legal route of reporting the school and getting the authorities involved is anything but a quick fix.

It was reported to the school and they didn't fix the situation. Jim resolved the situation much faster than it would have been if he'd tried going after the school.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,176
UK
I'm not acting like I'd do anything. At no point did I discuss myself. Maybe I'd go on a straight murder spree. That doesn't make it right, which is what this thread was about. Of course that requires a semi detached view. You want to call me unempathetic and sanctimonious because of that, go right ahead, I'll fantasize you're rationalizing your bad impulses. In the mean time we're getting nowhere.
You going to "murder spree" is pretty telling that you need to create strawmans for your argument. If you wouldn't do anything, then no point in critiquing others' "bad impulses".
 

KuroNeeko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,187
Osaka
This is basically where I stand. The strongest argument I see against this is "this could have gone bad". But so could have talking to them 'nicely', so it's hardly a loss. There is always a risk of greater violence when you try to stop violence, even if you're trying to do so non-violently. And, as you pointed out, there is an absence of empathy to those arguing against it in that they consider the father's feelings of seeing his daughter hurt.

But you said, when you get down to it, the threat worked. There is no negative consequence except some stupid bullshit abstraction of "perpetuating the cycle of violence" that doesn't have any meaningful real world truth it, atleast in this scenario. The threat got him to stop and now there is no more abuse. There is no downside here.



Oh no! Now his daughter might use violence when she is threatened with violence instead of trying to talk her abusers out of hurting her. Self-defense! How fucking awful.

I agree with Jokab, though, to a degree. There were no overt consequences, but there could have been the potential for a more positive ending. I mean, suppose the parents had no idea their child was a bully. Jim brings the situation to their attention and they immediately crack down on the bully's behavior. Now, you have a more powerful ally helping you to achieve your desired result--no more bullying. Good parents trying to teach their children to turn their lives around and applying positive pressure. The child changes his ways, Jim's daughter is safe and hopefully both children learn something from it.

Without knowing more about the bully and his home environment, you can't really speculate past that. We can assume the parents are good and hope that one discussion is all that it takes. They could just as easily threaten their own child to stop, forcing the bully to find a new target. That's great for Jim and his daughter, but not great for the new target and his/her family. The threat of physical violence / fear is a powerful one, and it worked here, but it is rarely a positive one. I agree, the most important goal was achieved and that the victim should absolutely be prioritized over the bully (who may be a victim himself, whether it be by his parents or something else), but that doesn't mean I can't wish the situation was handled differently. You can say, "the ends justify the means" here, but they just as easily could have made the situation worse. I believe in self-defense (especially when the institutions sworn to do so fail) and I'm glad the daughter knows her father will protect her, but there are too many gun-happy, twisted individuals out there for me to advocate violence without considering the alternatives first.

This could all be a moot point. Maybe Jim went over to talk to the parents and they told him to Fack Off. I don't know. I do think I understand where Jim was coming from and there is definitely a thin line in terms of, "Well, let's just wait for those parents to get their child under control while he terrorizes my daughter." It's like, hasn't she been through enough already? Do you really want to ask her to "hang in there" while they get their crap together? Probably not. I know I wouldn't.

I see this from the perspective of someone who has worked in schools pretty much his entire adult life.
Jim should have targeted the school and even reported them to the police if they aren't doing enough to protect his daughter.

If I had a student with a parent who threatened other parents I'd have to make plans with my principal and colleagues if they show up to school.


Ultimately this is a school issue and should be handled by the school.
If the school doesn't do it's job then legal recourse is available.

Yes, I agree you are right in that it is a school issue, but when the school fails to protect your child it's hard to wait for them while your daughter continues to suffer physical and emotional abuse. We get stories about children, victims of bullying, killing themselves, on the news way more frequently than is right; it's not that rare. It's hard to tell if Jim gave the school a chance, but just how long are you supposed to wait until you personally get involved?

edit: spelling
 
Last edited:

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
I see this from the perspective of someone who has worked in schools pretty much his entire adult life.
Jim should have targeted the school and even reported them to the police if they aren't doing enough to protect his daughter.

If I had a student with a parent who threatened other parents I'd have to make plans with my principal and colleagues if they show up to school.


Ultimately this is a school issue and should be handled by the school.
If the school doesn't do it's job then legal recourse is available.
It might not be, either because he doesn't have the cash to get proper representation or else he isn't familiar enough with the legal system to know that he can sue the school for not handling a student or perhaps doesn't simply doesn't trust the legal system to do it's job any more than the school system. Legal recourse is just far more complicated than simply showing up at the other parents doors. That said, I will also concede to your point in that he had another recourse, in theory, available to him and also that is another way in which the confrontation could have gone bad.

But again, if I concede that is the proper course of action, it's because of it's practical applications. The posters I'm replying to aren't offering anything like that, just bland moralizing over a situation where the father has every right to be outraged without offering real solutions like you are. That is simply disgusting to me.

I agree with Jokab, though, to a degree. There were no overt consequences, but there could have been the potential for a more positive ending. I mean, suppose the parents had no idea their child was a bully. Jim brings the situation to their attention and they immediately crack down on the bully's behavior. Now, you have a more powerful ally helping you to achieve your desired result--no more bullying. Good parents trying to teach their children to turn their lives around and applying positive pressure. The child changes his ways, Jim's daughter is safe and hopefully both children learn something from it.

If it were me, and I had a parent come to my house and threaten me because my child was bullying another to the point of leaving injuries, ESPECIALLY if it was for a reason like non-conforming to gender rules, I would speak politely to the outraged parent, let them know I clearly did not know what was going on, and promise to have a long talk with my child. And then I'd go and have that talk with my child.

I wouldn't even be offended at being threatened over this because I'd have the empathy to know exactly the kind of feelings that father was going through. So, in my view, nothing that Jim did would preclude what your describing from happening. Atleast with me.

Without knowing more about the bully and his home environment, you can't really speculate past that. We can assume the parents are good and hope that one discussion is all that it takes. They could just as easily threaten their own child to stop, forcing the bully to find a new target. That's great for Jim and his daughter, but not great for the new target and his/her family. The threat of physical violence / fear is a powerful one, and it worked here, but it is rarely a positive one. I agree, the most important goal was achieved and that the victim should absolutely be prioritized over the bully (who may be a victim himself, whether it be by his parents or something else), but that doesn't mean I can't wish the situation was handled differently. You can say, "the ends justify the means" here, but they just as easily could have made the situation worse. I believe in self-defense (especially when the instutions sworn to do so fail) and I'm glad the daughter knows her father will protect her, but there are too many gun-happy, twisted individuals out there for me to advocate violence without considering the alternatives first.

This could all be a moot point. Maybe Jim went over to talk to the parents and they told him to Fack Off. I don't know. I do think I understand where Jim was coming from and there is definitely a thin line in terms of, "Well, let's just wait for those parents to get their child under control while he terrorizes my daughter." It's like, hasn't she been through enough already? Do you really want to ask her to "hang in there" while they get their crap together? Probably not. I know I wouldn't.
Guns are not what I think of when I think of situations like this. The guy wasn't threatening to kill anyone, just wreck their shit, near as I can tell. Like you said, that could have escalated to greater violence pretty fast, and that's most definitely a concern....but also like you said, the alternative is to let things continue to be in hopes that they'll get better.

Lets say this then: there are more efficient ways that Jim could have handled this. Practical ways in which he could have better protected himself because he took a risky route where he could have gotten in trouble.

But the parents of the bully, even if they are well intentioned, should feel bad, because they failed to teach their child to be a good person. And we keep supposing that they are these well intentioned, good parents that just somehow ended up with a shitty son, but a lot of the time, people are just banally shitty. Not evil, not intentionally malicious, but not willing to work up the muscle to be actually good. That;'s what I imagine the bully kids parents to be like, especially if we're supposing that them telling him to stop it is just gonna result in him finding a new target.

When you get down to it, I have to say I kinda do believe ends justify means in this case because the ends are genuinely good, and the criticism of the means tend to lean on them being risky rather than them being wrong. The school system failed Jim's daughter and he protected her in a way he thought was best. Maybe it wasn't best, but he protected her. And if it had gone wrong and Bully kid's parents were gun totting maniacs or that he got in legal trouble, then yes, that wouldn't have been good, but I'd still see the fault largely in the school system and the bully parents long before I saw it in Jim.
 
Last edited:

Jokab

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
875
It might not be, either because he doesn't have the cash to get proper representation or else he isn't familiar enough with the legal system to know that he can sue the school for not handling a student or perhaps doesn't simply doesn't trust the legal system to do it's job any more than the school system. Legal recourse is just far more complicated than simply showing up at the other parents doors. That said, I will also concede to your point in that he had another recourse, in theory, available to him and also that is another way in which the confrontation could have gone bad.

But again, if I concede that is the proper course of action, it's because of it's practical applications. The posters I'm replying to aren't offering anything like that, just bland moralizing over a situation where the father has every right to be outraged without offering real solutions like you are. That is simply disgusting to me.
Do you think "talk to the parents without issuing threats" is not a practical solution?

edit: wording
 

Symphony

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,361
The only way I eventually stopped being bullied at school was not by asking the school for help (it sure as hell made it worse), but lashing back out at the bullies to let them know that I wouldn't take any more shit and if they continued they'd get as good as they were giving. So, 100% support for "Jim", schools and teachers just like to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that "our school has no bullying", leading to either their weak little chat with the bullies making this 10x worse, or victim blaming - had my arm broken once when I was shielding myself from repeated attempted blows to the head and the school decided I was at fault.
 

Deleted member 22407

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
534
As a parent it would be hard enough to stand by and let the school try to sort this out in the first instance without getting involved. Finding out that their what they did was ineffectual or they just don't bother doing anything would have me seething.

When it comes to the safety of my child I wouldn't be playing the waiting game for very long, sitting around hoping that the school/parents of the bully start taking their responsibilities seriously. Jim did good by his kid.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
Do you think "talk to the parents without issuing threats" is not a practical solution?
It could be or it could not be. How effective that is is 100% dependent on what kind of people the bully's parents are. All we know is that the threat approach was the practical solution to this case.

Regardless, that wasn't the reason you were propping up the non-threat approach, so it doesn't matter. You were arguing for it's merits on abstract morality bs like "teaching his daughter that violence is a solution", which is what I was replying to.

Edit:it's like 5am here so I'm gonna go to sleep now
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 15311

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,088
I would talk to them first on that reunion and i would keep an eye on the situation, if things continued the way they were before, i would prosecute them and the kid, i don't give a shit. Even if it didn't work that way, then i would just skip the threat . I'm sorry but if my son is being treated like shit, i would fucking take care of it and not look at it like a pseudo-intellectual trying to teach morals, when basically everything is gone to crap. The only single reason i wasn't bullied at school, was because my older cousins were fucked up in the head and the other guys were afraid of them.

Although i would do things differently, i will say that i totally understand Jim and the action he took. It's not easy to see your kid suffer and don't do shit about it.