A person who gets beat up or picked on by a bully decides to get another bully (an MMA fighter) to beat up the bully picking on them. The original bully ends up actually facing up to the MMA fighter and usually getting the crap kicked out of them. The end result is usually the original bully apologizing to the victim.
Is it just me or is the original bully the better person? The victim won't stand up for himself so he has to get someone else to do it. The bully in a similar situation is willing to stand up for himself even though it means pain and injury. A smug victim stands on the sidelines watching two men interact on a higher level than he ever will. A man too proud to call the cops on a possible criminal, yet too cowardly to gain a rival.
If it happens on tv, it's all fake.
Is it just me or is the original bully the better person?
Not according to American history. 'cause it's kinda the story we tell ourselves that we're the second bully in that scenario, stepping in to (supposedly) help the underdog that can't help themselves.
That said, I don't necessarily see any morality in any of that. There can be legitimate reasons for an underdog to play submissive and go along with the bully until they can turn the tables, there can be at legitimate reasons to bully someone else, and there can be legitimate reasons to step in on someone else's behalf.
To say who the "better person" is would require more detail, and even then it's probably not so cut and dry.
Unless, of course, you just mean "better person" to be "stereotypically macho male", in which case yeah, the first bully is the "better person", but that's not really a definition of "better person" that I'd be happy with.
On a side note, how is going to the cops any different then getting someone else to fight your battles for you? The only difference is that one has a badge. But if it's "wrong" to get help to begin with, then that shouldn't matter.
I am not saying beating up the bully is the right thing to do. But I do think your original post somehow twists things around so the victim is to blame, because he either "won't" defend himself or "refuses" to go to the cops. My guess is most bully victims realize doing either of those things just makes it worse. It isn't like the movies where the skinny little kid throws a punch, and the big bully falls down and befriends him. In reality, kids who stand up to bullies often take a serious beating.
Having an easier time in open, 'fair' (i.e. no sensible stabbing from behind), physical confrontations doesn't make you a better person. Being willing to play by the same rules as you set up for others (picking on an easy victim, and then refuse to step back when you're the easy victim in return) makes you better than people with double standards, but not better than people who never agreed to play by your rules (i.e. getting bullied) in the first place.
Is it just me or is the original bully the better person?
Not according to American history. 'cause it's kinda the story we tell ourselves that we're the second bully in that scenario, stepping in to (supposedly) help the underdog that can't help themselves.
That said, I don't necessarily see any morality in any of that. There can be legitimate reasons for an underdog to play submissive and go along with the bully until they can turn the tables, there can be at legitimate reasons to bully someone else, and there can be legitimate reasons to step in on someone else's behalf.
To say who the "better person" is would require more detail, and even then it's probably not so cut and dry.
Unless, of course, you just mean "better person" to be "stereotypically macho male", in which case yeah, the first bully is the "better person", but that's not really a definition of "better person" that I'd be happy with.
On a side note, how is going to the cops any different then getting someone else to fight your battles for you? The only difference is that one has a badge. But if it's "wrong" to get help to begin with, then that shouldn't matter.
I agree that there are some legitimate cases where the victim needs to get a third party. In one case the bully was the son of the victim's boss and the victim didn't even have the option to stand up for himself w/o losing his job.
The big issue I have with the "not going to the cops" option isn't that I think help is wrong, but by not going to the cops the person is admitting to himself that what the bully is doing is not of a criminal/life threatening nature. However he is scared enough of what the bully will do that he is willing to have another person fight his own battle. Standing up for yourself knowing that your ass will be kicked is admirable. Being so risk adverse that you need someone else to take that risk for you is not.
The reason I think the bully is the better person(in most of the situations) is that the bully is willing to personally face risk when he is faced with adversity. I'm sure that most if not all of those bullies know in the back of their mind that the MMA fighter will cause him pain.
I also believe that the victims, by not standing up for themself, are missing the opportunity to gain one of life's greatest relationships: the rival.
I was not a guy that wanted to fight. I just wanted to be left alone because fighting as it turned out just caused me to fight a whole lot more. I should have just told someone but I didn't want to be a "snitch" or "rat" and so tried to take care of the problem myself.
It was just one big headache.
B is not nearly a better person then A or C. it's entirely B's fault for initiating the aggression that C punched his nose in. all B did is suck it up and said sorry because he didn't want another beatdown, not because he actually feels bad about beating up A.
you're not a better person for saying "sorry". you're a better person if you actually mean "sorry" and you're prepared amend your ways. B doesn't mean his "i'm sorry". B will probably punch some other sob at a later date since his "apology" was forced out of him.
-the only thing A learned is say clear of some people/places and you can get other people to solve problems for you.
-the only thing B learned is to not get caught the next time.
-the only thing C learned is... his left hook performs better then expected and you can get paid for breaking legs?
the lot of em are rotten IMO.
I'm pretty sure the 'bullies' are stunt men that do the show cuz, well, it's a show. You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to agree to take an ass whuppin' as 'payback' for pantsin' some chump.
I don't see any reason to assume this. It looks nothing like WWE. These look very much like real fights to me.
The big issue I have with the "not going to the cops" option isn't that I think help is wrong, but by not going to the cops the person is admitting to himself that what the bully is doing is not of a criminal/life threatening nature.
... or that they're too prideful to go to the cops, they fear repercussions if they involve legal authorities, they feel that though the bully is wrong it would be even more wrong to get them put in jail, etc. etc. ad nauseum. You're really simplifying things down to one possible answer, when it's not that simple.
The reason I think the bully is the better person(in most of the situations) is that the bully is willing to personally face risk when he is faced with adversity.
And what makes you think the victim isn't willing to face risk when faced with adversity? Just because they're unwilling to make a meaningless stand on account of their pride? There's a difference between "taking risks" and just being hurt. If there's no reasonable doubt about the outcome, then it's not really a risk.
I don't see any reason to assume this. It looks nothing like WWE. These look very much like real fights to me.
The fights may be real, but they ain't scrubbly bullies.
I don't see any reason to assume this. It looks nothing like WWE. These look very much like real fights to me.
The fights may be real, but they ain't scrubbly bullies.
That might be true. But I am not sure I would put my faith in a blogger who heard about it from a friend who works in production.
That might be true. But I am not sure I would put my faith in a blogger who heard about it from a friend who works in production.
Yeah, I had the same amount of faith in it that you do ... until I saw the part that showed one of the 'bullies' and his friggin' IMDB page. The fix is in, man. The fix is in.
I think in most cases, the bully's participate because they are hung up on appearing macho.
Not so much macho I would think, but more of a pack mentality. It's more like they are trying to establish and maintain dominance. Bullying is a display of power. It's not about actual strength though it's about the appearence of strength. They beat someone up the first time because they feel threatened. After that they only attack if that person is weak (because then they serve as a low risk display) or if they challenge them on some matter.
The end result being you either stand up and fight (to establish yourself as high risk or establish your own dominance) or seperate yourself somehow from the "pack". The victim in this case did the latter and the bully won't bother him for awhile. Personally I think there are better ways to deal with this type of problem but I wasn't there either, perhaps he didn't mean to get the MMA fighter involed and was just complaining when this guy decided to do something. Either way it is not my place to judge.
A person who gets beat up or picked on by a bully decides to get another bully (an MMA fighter) to beat up the bully picking on them. The original bully ends up actually facing up to the MMA fighter and usually getting the crap kicked out of them. The end result is usually the original bully apologizing to the victim.
It depends on the circumstances for me. If the MMA guy was a friend of the originally bullied guy, I don't consider it particularly wrong. Friends occasionally do favors for each other - smart guy can help BSF guy with trigonometrics homework, BSF guy can help smart guy with some other things. If not, it's a bit iffier - then we go into "why did the MMA guy do it anyway?"
Still, getting someone to beat up a bully for you is no worse than bullying someone else imo, and at least the first guy didn't start it. I can't say I have much sympathy for the bully here - if you are going to swagger around pushing people and acting all macho, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences. This is the real world, and your actions have consequences.
I don't like the show for one reason. It does nothing to change the fact that in the bully's eyes you are still a victim. YOU didn't beat him down or have any part in the ass whupping. The only way to get a bully to stop, really stop is to get the point across that frankly you are a much bigger threat than you are victim.
I don't see what makes the bully the better person in this scenario. He's still a **** coward that goes out of his way to make other people's lives miserable. And he's still a **** coward that needs to eat a bullet.
I don't much like the victims much in the show either though. Really is it that hard to get a bunch of friends together bring a couple baseball bats and wait for him to leave his house and ambush him?*
*or somewhere else where the guy is even more vulnerable
Even just one friend with a ball bat would probably be more than enough. Even with the weight difference between the bully and victims and the average muscle amount difference. It's very hard to fight two people armed with weapons out in the open where they can flank you etc.
A bully is never a better person. Ever.
Never a Good person. But unless all bullies are the ultimate concentrated evil, they're going to be the better person compared to some others
Never a Good person. But unless all bullies are the ultimate concentrated evil, they're going to be the better person compared to some others
Not compared to their victims, which was the original question.
Bullies are scum. Period.
I think something got lost here. Namely, THE SHOW IS FAKE. *ahem* Carry on.
Eh. The show may be fake (not that I realized it was a show being discussed to begin with) but the ethical question still stands.
On a side note, that this is the kind of stuff on TV these days makes me glad I don't get cable.
A bully is never a better person. Ever.
Never a Good person. But unless all bullies are the ultimate concentrated evil, they're going to be the better person compared to some others
Yes they will be good compared to people who are worse. But the question is, with only the facts presented on the show, are they better or worse than their victims and the cage fighter.
In my mind bullying is a sign of weakness. I think people who bully hurt others to make themselves feel better, to satisfy some sick desire to harm, or to fill up a void in their life. But whatever their reasons, the impact on the victim is undeniable and bad. Just look at the recent cases of suicide in the US. I am not taking a stance on the politics of it. But it is clear when you have someone who is vulnerable, and exploit that vulnerability to bully them, you are causing serious emotional damage to another human being.
Eh. The show may be fake (not that I realized it was a show being discussed to begin with) but the ethical question still stands.
Of course it does - and it's interesting, too. I just don't think that using this show as any sort of example works for the disussion, however, as it is fake. Scripted scenarios don't really work as examples when you're looking for a real answer. At least that's the way I see it. That said, there's plenty to discuss that doesn't have to touch on the show as any more than the inspiration for the query.
On a side note, that this is the kind of stuff on TV these days makes me glad I don't get cable.
Meh, there's good stuff, too. MTV (where this show airs) is kind of the bottom of the barrel. Discovery, Science, Nat Geo, History, Military, Animal Planet (sometimes), HDT, etc more than make up for it, IMO. There's good ol' fashioned mindless fun to be had, too. Adult Swim, some FX stuff and SciFi are decent examples there. But yeah, there's a ton of crap out there.
You can't tell how much someone's been bullied but it makes me feel there might be situations where that is going tóo far yourself.
But for a serious bully, I do agree that he deserved it and he'd still not be the better person.