Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics
I know we've had this discussion multiple times but a recently deleted thread brought the topic back up.

Plus, we have some new faces so I'm curious: what (in your mind) constitutes bullying, especially here on Cafemom?
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Apr. 18, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Replies (21-30):
romalove
by Roma on Apr. 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting futureshock:


Quoting romalove:

I think people have trouble discerning between discussion, debate, and bullying.

Disagreeing is not bullying.


Exactly.  Disagreeing even when it occurs between the same people frequently is not bullying.

I know.  I have been told I am a bully frequently around here because of my "disagreements" LOL.

TimetoMomUp
by Runt on Apr. 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I think of bullying as name calling or worse (physical) and I have seen it way too many times in online communities.  One community I was part of was the worst.  You could not post anything without having 15 women attack you.  That community was deleted, though I am not sure that was the cause.  I also think we live in a sensative society and we must learn to "get thick skin" and deal with the blows online.  I am not condoning it, I am just saying that we need to learn to adapt to negativity. 

Pema_Jampa
by SxyTaco on Apr. 18, 2013 at 2:48 PM
1 mom liked this

What Is Cyberbullying?

Cyberbullying is the use of technology to harass, threaten, embarrass, or target another person. By definition, it occurs among young people. When an adult is involved, it may meet the definition of cyber-harassment or cyber-stalking, a crime that can have legal consequences and involve jail time.

Pema_Jampa
by SxyTaco on Apr. 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Take what people say on here with a grain of salt. We are all adults, or are supposed to be. If someone is bothering you please do contact the admins. They do a very good job of getting rid of troublemakers.

cjsbmom
by Lois Lane on Apr. 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM
1 mom liked this

Crossing the line into the "real world" is bullying online to me. Also, if someone is clearly stalking you from group to group for the sole purpose of harassing you, I consider that bullying, too. 


Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Apr. 18, 2013 at 3:02 PM
3 moms liked this
Quoting punky3175:

what (in your mind) constitutes bullying, especially here on Cafemom?

In the context of CafeMom?

Repeated personal attacks (in multiple threads, not just one discussion) with the intention of intimidating the victim into fleeing or submitting.

punky3175
by Punky on Apr. 18, 2013 at 3:03 PM
I like that definition.

Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting punky3175:

what (in your mind) constitutes bullying, especially here on Cafemom?

In the context of CafeMom?

Repeated personal attacks (in multiple threads, not just one discussion) with the intention of intimidating the victim into fleeing or submitting.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
diospira
by Bronze Member on Apr. 18, 2013 at 3:05 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting punky3175:

The pictures were not 'ridiculing the OP.' and I have no problems discussing that video but the OP didn't actually pose any discussion topics. She simply posted it as fact and when I read conspiracy theories like that I immediately think 'tin foil' hat so I gave her a wide variety to choose from.

And IMO if that's all it takes for someone to feel bullied - they really should grow a thicker skin because much worse happens in real life.


Quoting diospira:


I think flooding a post with images that ridicule the OP is a form of bullying and a way to avoid exploring issues that may cause discomfort and also to discourage that type of questioning.

Any labeling like that is a way to not to go deeper and actually try to explore what the OP has to say. Like the thought police.






If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free


The video posted did contain facts about the FBI´s foreknowledge of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and its obvious failure to prevent it.

What you say OP "posted as a fact" was a fact.

Tapes were secretly recorded by an informant that proved as much, as the NY Times reported:

Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: October 28, 1993

Correction Appended

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.



No matter what year it was published in, as some suggested, this is an important fact put forth that many of us might not have been aware of.

Since we have this proof about these past FBI actions, it is not beyond the realm of possibility in this case, especially since there were some glaring holes in security despite the fact that eyewitnesses described a security drill that was taking place at the same time and also described bomb-sniffing dogs and bomb spotters on the roofs.


All that can be gleaned from video to do what we may with, but instead engaging in discourse regarding the OP, multiple images were posted that can only be interpreted as poking fun at the so-called "conspiracy theorists". Here you use "conspiracy theory" to refer to a fact about recent history, the FBI´s proven foreknowledge about the WTC bombing.


The OP asked: "Did The FBI Know About The Boston Bombing Beforehand?,a perfectly good discussion topic, given the facts presented. Maybe an uncomfortable one, so it was easier to instead "immediately think tin-foil hat" instead of contemplating the information and answering the question at hand.


momtoscott
by Platinum Member on Apr. 18, 2013 at 3:05 PM
1 mom liked this

Most of what goes on here is disagreement, rude or otherwise, not bullying.  Sometimes I think there's a little too much poke-the-crazy going on.  

I've only seen a couple of instances of what I'd call bullying in this group, where some posters seem to unite to try to drive someone off of the site.  That would be my definition of bullying as it applies to CM.  

punky3175
by Punky on Apr. 18, 2013 at 3:08 PM
Check the other post about the same video where a real discussion topic was posted. I answered. Would you like your own tin foil hat? I have plenty saved for occasions such as this. And yes, I do, in fact believe that anyone who thinks any government agency in the US would allow/endorse/plan such a horrendous act needs a tin foil hat. <----FYI - this isn't bullying. It's me stating my opinion.

Quoting diospira:



Quoting punky3175:

The pictures were not 'ridiculing the OP.' and I have no problems discussing that video but the OP didn't actually pose any discussion topics. She simply posted it as fact and when I read conspiracy theories like that I immediately think 'tin foil' hat so I gave her a wide variety to choose from.



And IMO if that's all it takes for someone to feel bullied - they really should grow a thicker skin because much worse happens in real life.




Quoting diospira:


I think flooding a post with images that ridicule the OP is a form of bullying and a way to avoid exploring issues that may cause discomfort and also to discourage that type of questioning.

Any labeling like that is a way to not to go deeper and actually try to explore what the OP has to say. Like the thought police.






If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free


The video posted did contain facts about the FBI´s foreknowledge of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and its obvious failure to prevent it.

What you say OP "posted as a fact" was a fact.

Tapes were secretly recorded by an informant that proved as much, as the NY Times reported:

Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: October 28, 1993

Correction Appended

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.



No matter what year it was published in, as some suggested, this is an important fact put forth that many of us might not have been aware of.

Since we have this proof about these past FBI actions, it is not beyond the realm of possibility in this case, especially since there were some glaring holes in security despite the fact that eyewitnesses described a security drill that was taking place at the same time and also described bomb-sniffing dogs and bomb spotters on the roofs.


All that can be gleaned from video to do what we may with, but instead engaging in discourse regarding the OP, multiple images were posted that can only be interpreted as poking fun at the so-called "conspiracy theorists". Here you use "conspiracy theory" to refer to a fact about recent history, the FBI´s proven foreknowledge about the WTC bombing.


The OP asked: "Did The FBI Know About The Boston Bombing Beforehand?,a perfectly good discussion topic, given the facts presented. Maybe an uncomfortable one, so it was easier to instead "immediately think tin-foil hat" instead of contemplating the information and answering the question at hand.



Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)