The Evolution of Bullying

[mvir9]

It is emotionally difficult to analyze a bully, because his/her world view directly opposes the ideals of happiness, individuality, independence, intelligence, productivity, and aspirations.

Whom to bully . . . the smart kid, the "loser" kid, or the "different" kid? The answer is subjective based on the bullies' deficient self-esteem. There is certainly a common ground for all bullies, however, and this is the aforementioned parasitical world-view that they hold. So, yes, bullies are second-handers, parasitically feeding off of the pain and/or humiliation of others. As well, bullies tend to be feared, which is a good thing to them, since they view fear as respect.

Unless there is a gene for parasitism that I am unaware of (and a gene that disables free will), bullying is not a product of evolution.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Virginia Murr

[Judith]

Whom to bully . . . the smart kid, the "loser" kid, or the "different" kid? The answer is subjective based on the bullies' deficient self-esteem. There is certainly a common ground for all bullies, however, and this is the aforementioned parasitical world-view that they hold. So, yes, bullies are second-handers, parasitically feeding off of the pain and/or humiliation of others. As well, bullies tend to be feared, which is a good thing to them, since they view fear as respect.

I suspect it's wherever they scent weakness. It's an animal instinct for finding any hint of a lack of self-confidence -- and I mean physical self-confidence, the kind that wins or loses fights, or at least the kind that projects fearlessness in terms of physical danger to one's self -- as well as uncertainty in any metaphysical sense about one's right to exist, etc. One counters it by learning the body language that projects confidence and assertiveness. One can learn it from watching animals -- because it really is an animal behavior.

Judith

[mvir9]

Whom to bully . . . the smart kid, the "loser" kid, or the "different" kid? The answer is subjective based on the bullies' deficient self-esteem. There is certainly a common ground for all bullies, however, and this is the aforementioned parasitical world-view that they hold. So, yes, bullies are second-handers, parasitically feeding off of the pain and/or humiliation of others. As well, bullies tend to be feared, which is a good thing to them, since they view fear as respect.

I suspect it's wherever they scent weakness. It's an animal instinct for finding any hint of a lack of self-confidence -- and I mean physical self-confidence, the kind that wins or loses fights, or at least the kind that projects fearlessness in terms of physical danger to one's self -- as well as uncertainty in any metaphysical sense about one's right to exist, etc. One counters it by learning the body language that projects confidence and assertiveness. One can learn it from watching animals -- because it really is an animal behavior.

Judith

Excellent point. I absolutely agree that body language is a key factor in self-defense (against any type of bully, including the criminal sort).

I do think that each bully is seeking a different weakness, though -- or at least each is doing so to fulfill a very individual "hole". There is a great deal of self-hatred that must exist in bullies: whether they hate themselves for not being intelligent enough, not being lovable, not being "manly" enough, etc. (the possibilities are endless, I'm afraid)

Bullying is such a tragic waste of potential . . .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kat and I were at an event last weekend where we heard Donald Trump speak. He essentially said the same thing there as he did on a recent interview on Fox News,"On the Record ," aired on September 12, 2007. Van Susteren was asking him about his most recent book Think Big & Kick Ass, coauthored with Bill Zanker.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, you've given me the tease that you mentioned something about Rosie. So the viewers are going to want to know, too, is what do you mention about Rosie in this book that comes out in — actually, in a month?

TRUMP: Well, I talk about attitude and I talk about bullies. You know, Rosie is a bully. And a bully, I learned a long time ago when I was going to school, that when there is a bully and you're involved with a bully, you have to hit that person squarely and hard right between the eyes. And that's what I did with Rosie. And you know, she totally — I mean, she didn't even want to comment a couple weeks ago. She was someplace and they asked her, she said, I won't comment. I won't — well, if you look at what she did, she went after Kelly Ripa. And nobody fights back.

I mean, Kelly is a terrific person, but you know, I would have said maybe she should have fought back. And Kelly happened to be right on that. She went after Danny DeVito. She went after Selleck, Tom Selleck, a long time ago. I mean, this guy walks on her show, all of a sudden, she ends up trying to kill him.

Rosie is a bad person. Rosie is a bully. And I talk about bullies because the world is full of bullies, and you have to hit a bully between the eyes very, very hard and very solidly.

Great advice. There are some Objectivist bully guru-wannabees who hate me for the same reason. I relish their hatred.

Incidentally, I have Trumps's book. He has a whole chapter called "Revenge."

I also read up on his public brawl with Rosie and he is absolutely right. As I know a little about slander and libel laws, Trump has been setting her up for a HUGE fall. He sticks to opinions, however unpleasant, and facts and baits her into saying factually untrue things on the air about him (like his show tanked, he went bankrupt, etc.). You can only sue for the factually incorrect, not for someone calling you a pig if you are fat. Rosie will probably learn a very hard and costly lesson from this episode.

EDIT: A thought just occurred to me and the tears of laughter are streaming down my face. If you wanted to model yourself after someone in terms of being aggressive, would you KICK ASS like Donald Trump, making billions of dollars in productive achievement and writing a NYT best-seller along the way with KICK ASS in the title, or would you K-K-K-K-K-KASS like a petty little washed up Objectivist guru wannabee preaches on an Internet forum?...

You think our KASSER wants to "save the world" so that people like Trump can have a chance in life? You think Trump will be grateful for all that world-saving KASS? I mean, how on earth could Trump ever make it without KASS to fight for him and protect him?

Heh.

Life sure is a bitch, ain't it?

Michael

[mvir9]

Michael:

Although I'm not Mr. Trump's biggest fan, he states the truth here. Most bullies become quite confused when you fight fire with fire (intelligently, though, of course).

I only dealt with bullies as a grade-schooler. Since reaching black belt at the age of 13, girls and guys (even ones who didn't like me) treated me as if I would drop kick them if they said something against me (amusing, really, since I abhor fighting). However, I have had a number of friends (in high school, mostly) request that I intercede with a bully (keep in mind that I'm 5'4 and weigh around 114 lbs). Never did one of these instances come to violence. By confronting the issue (and the bully) head-on, they always backed down.

[Brant Gaede]

Kat and I were at an event last weekend where we heard Donald Trump speak. He essentially said the same thing there as he did on a recent interview on Fox News,"On the Record ," aired on September 12, 2007. Van Susteren was asking him about his most recent book Think Big & Kick Ass, coauthored with Bill Zanker.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, you've given me the tease that you mentioned something about Rosie. So the viewers are going to want to know, too, is what do you mention about Rosie in this book that comes out in — actually, in a month?

TRUMP: Well, I talk about attitude and I talk about bullies. You know, Rosie is a bully. And a bully, I learned a long time ago when I was going to school, that when there is a bully and you're involved with a bully, you have to hit that person squarely and hard right between the eyes. And that's what I did with Rosie. And you know, she totally — I mean, she didn't even want to comment a couple weeks ago. She was someplace and they asked her, she said, I won't comment. I won't — well, if you look at what she did, she went after Kelly Ripa. And nobody fights back.

I mean, Kelly is a terrific person, but you know, I would have said maybe she should have fought back. And Kelly happened to be right on that. She went after Danny DeVito. She went after Selleck, Tom Selleck, a long time ago. I mean, this guy walks on her show, all of a sudden, she ends up trying to kill him.

Rosie is a bad person. Rosie is a bully. And I talk about bullies because the world is full of bullies, and you have to hit a bully between the eyes very, very hard and very solidly.

Great advice. There are some Objectivist bully guru-wannabees who hate me for the same reason. I relish their hatred.

No, no, no, Michael! We love you!

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I basically think Trump is a conman and thinks bankruptcy proceedings are just another part of business.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I used to be turned off by what I saw as too much vanity and bragging in Trump (and he can be a windbag when he gets talking about himself), but the more I get to know about him, the more I admire him. The guy is a genius. He is a high-end productive achiever. He proudly stands for the highest quality. The Art of the Deal is an industry inspirational classic for entrepreneurship and massive New York Times best seller. I have to admire all that.

I don't know yet what his previous difficulties were since I have not looked them up (according to the Wikipedia article Donald Trump, it involved bankruptcy of the Taj Mahal Casino and Trump Plaza Hotel, mounting debt during the late 80's and early 90's due to involvement with junk bonds used for financing constructions, and some ups and downs with his hotels and casinos—but most everything he had problems with emerged financially sound after restructuring debts, then back to business as usual). I do know that enormously successful people sometimes have spectacular failures. But they get up and go at it again and again and again until they turn a corner of this earth into their own image. And if taxes, racial quotas, government regulations, small business protection laws, antitrust laws and so forth are part of the economy and part of business, I see no reason to fault a person for utilizing bankruptcy proceedings as a resource when he needs to during high stakes productive business ventures.

I personally don't think the 22,000 people Trump employs, the Miss America and Miss Universe competitions he owns, the best-sellers, the skyscapers, etc., are cons or the product of a con artist. I happen to know some real life con artists and they don't do doodley squat except take money from others. Trump KICKS ASS in the best sense of the word.

Then again, there are those who prefer KASS...

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

If it's true that he has emerged successfully from bankruptcy, of which there have been multiple, and I don't know how his various businesses are arranged, he should as a matter of honor repay his bondholders. I saw him say in an interview that he owed them nothing. People who invest with him are asking to get fleeced.

Jim

Edited November 10, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The answer to a true nonviolent bully in the adult world is to avoid them or get a restraining order. I can't stand either Donald Trump or Rosie O'Donnell so I'll just call them both blowhards.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

So you think that if anyone who owned a dotcom that went bust in the Nasdaq crash recovered financially, he owes the people who lost their money? If so, how do you expect this to work when the whole market was crazy back then and such a burden could destroy a person's hopes of recovery? If not, why hold Trump to a different standard?

Bankruptcy laws exist to give businessmen a second chance. Would you eliminate such laws?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Jim,

So you think that if anyone who owned a dotcom that went bust in the Nasdaq crash recovered financially, he owes the people who lost their money? If so, how do you expect this to work when the whole market was crazy back then and such a burden could destroy a person's hopes of recovery? If not, why hold Trump to a different standard?

Bankruptcy laws exist to give businessmen a second chance. Would you eliminate such laws?

Michael

These laws exist to protect the creditors. The second chance is derivative. The protection is two-way, true, but the debtor's protection is incentive for him to protect his assets. Personal bankruptcy is another matter. The businessman is generally protected by the corporate structure. All this is aboveboard, personal and business, and calculated out in risk/benefit ratios using credit scores and other information. Trump doesn't owe debts discharged in bankruptcy. If he stole money call the police. His investors supposedly did due dilligence.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

So you think that if anyone who owned a dotcom that went bust in the Nasdaq crash recovered financially, he owes the people who lost their money? If so, how do you expect this to work when the whole market was crazy back then and such a burden could destroy a person's hopes of recovery? If not, why hold Trump to a different standard?

Bankruptcy laws exist to give businessmen a second chance. Would you eliminate such laws?

Michael

It depends on the kind of financial instruments they used. Most NASDAQ firms raised money through equities, if those crash, you're out your money. Everyone who lost money in that bubble deserved to lose it. If you issue bonds, I think you are under an increased burden.

US bankruptcy laws are ridiculously lenient. In Japan, people who go bankrupt are only allowed a very small sum every year and rely on charity until their debts are satisfied. Likewise, there should be no relief for homeowners in the current housing downturn.

The US does have incorporation laws which allow you to separate your personal assets from a limited liability company. That's fine, I just think Trump skates around the edge of legality. Neil Cavuto point blank asked Trump about his bondholders and Trump said those who weren't willing to restructure his debts were out of luck. In any rational world, they should have been able to shut down the enterprises in question or take over them to recoup their money.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Jim,

So you think that if anyone who owned a dotcom that went bust in the Nasdaq crash recovered financially, he owes the people who lost their money? If so, how do you expect this to work when the whole market was crazy back then and such a burden could destroy a person's hopes of recovery? If not, why hold Trump to a different standard?

Bankruptcy laws exist to give businessmen a second chance. Would you eliminate such laws?

Michael

It depends on the kind of financial instruments they used. Most NASDAQ firms raised money through equities, if those crash, you're out your money. Everyone who lost money in that bubble deserved to lose it. If you issue bonds, I think you are under an increased burden.

US bankruptcy laws are ridiculously lenient. In Japan, people who go bankrupt are only allowed a very small sum every year and rely on charity until their debts are satisfied. Likewise, there should be no relief for homeowners in the current housing downturn.

The US does have incorporation laws which allow you to separate your personal assets from a limited liability company. That's fine, I just think Trump skates around the edge of legality. Neil Cavuto point blank asked Trump about his bondholders and Trump said those who weren't willing to restructure his debts were out of luck. In any rational world, they should have been able to shut down the enterprises in question or take over them to recoup their money.

Jim

Jim, I take issue with "Likewise, there should be no relief for homeowners in the current housing downturn." Alan Greenspan is most responsible for their plight. He honored the socialist/fascist money system that he headed just by heading it (sanction of the victim, only he victimized)--doesn't he remember John Galt who couldn't be tortured into being dictator?--that sucked these mostly innocents into the trap that they are walking away from by defaulting on their home loans taken out in the last couple of years that he encouraged them to take?--and that now is pushing this country into a recession? He gets to get eight million for writting his memoirs of all this while the victimized homeowner gets to send the keys back to the lender and rent instead of own! Greenspan doesn't have to do that! Greenspan doesn't have to declare bankruptcy! He bankrupted the country (along with that damn fool of a President) and gets to live out his last years in comfortable retirement is his bathtub married to the Washington media insider--natch! He's the insider insider's! 100% politician! He's got the BRAINS! Right? He figured he could still do his job as long as he could do quadratic equations in his head! How many homeowners who were only greedy but not POWER GREEDY who are giving up and losing their homes can do quadratic equations in their GODDAMNED HEADS? If he's going to be the money GOD over us all then he should be GOD HIMSELF or get OUT OF THE WAY! Your intellectualized moralizing here sucks! Welcome to the real world where people live and breathe and bleed! No, I'm not personally bleeding. For while I can't do quadratic equations in my head I'm smarter than most poor smucks. I just don't hold that against them.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

So you think that if anyone who owned a dotcom that went bust in the Nasdaq crash recovered financially, he owes the people who lost their money? If so, how do you expect this to work when the whole market was crazy back then and such a burden could destroy a person's hopes of recovery? If not, why hold Trump to a different standard?

Bankruptcy laws exist to give businessmen a second chance. Would you eliminate such laws?

Michael

It depends on the kind of financial instruments they used. Most NASDAQ firms raised money through equities, if those crash, you're out your money. Everyone who lost money in that bubble deserved to lose it. If you issue bonds, I think you are under an increased burden.

US bankruptcy laws are ridiculously lenient. In Japan, people who go bankrupt are only allowed a very small sum every year and rely on charity until their debts are satisfied. Likewise, there should be no relief for homeowners in the current housing downturn.

The US does have incorporation laws which allow you to separate your personal assets from a limited liability company. That's fine, I just think Trump skates around the edge of legality. Neil Cavuto point blank asked Trump about his bondholders and Trump said those who weren't willing to restructure his debts were out of luck. In any rational world, they should have been able to shut down the enterprises in question or take over them to recoup their money.

Jim

Jim, I take issue with "Likewise, there should be no relief for homeowners in the current housing downturn." Alan Greenspan is most responsible for their plight. He honored the socialist/fascist money system that he headed just by heading it (sanction of the victim, only he victimized)--doesn't he remember John Galt who couldn't be tortured into being dictator?--that sucked these mostly innocents into the trap that they are walking away from by defaulting on their home loans taken out in the last couple of years that he encouraged them to take?--and that now is pushing this country into a recession? He gets to get eight million for writting his memoirs of all this while the victimized homeowner gets to send the keys back to the lender and rent instead of own! Greenspan doesn't have to do that! Greenspan doesn't have to declare bankruptcy! He bankrupted the country (along with that damn fool of a President) and gets to live out his last years in comfortable retirement is his bathtub married to the Washington media insider--natch! He's the insider insider's! 100% politician! He's got the BRAINS! Right? He figured he could still do his job as long as he could do quadratic equations in his head! How many homeowners who were only greedy but not POWER GREEDY who are giving up and losing their homes can do quadratic equations in their GODDAMNED HEADS? If he's going to be the money GOD over us all then he should be GOD HIMSELF or get OUT OF THE WAY! Your intellectualized moralizing here sucks! Welcome to the real world where people live and breathe and bleed! No, I'm not personally bleeding. For while I can't do quadratic equations in my head I'm smarter than most poor smucks. I just don't hold that against them.

--Brant

Many people have benefitted from a rising housing market in recent years, some will lose money in an overdue housing correction. The best way for people to tide themselves through a downturn is to build equity and lock in fixed rate mortgages. That's been sound advice for a long time. Those who haven't done that have live in houses on interest only loans for comparable monthly payments to what it would have cost them to rent. If they walk away, they lose nothing but their credit ratings.

I really find mob psychology about investing hilarious. I'll give you an example: a couple of years ago Biogen IDEC pharmaceuticals suffered an adverse event in the trials for their new MS drug. The stock tumbled $30 in one day and there was a class action lawsuit against the company. 2 years later, the company made all that back and more. Maybe I should sue them for the $18 a share I made on the stock because I actually thought the company had a good drug pipeline.

My advice to people is: live within your means and if you can't afford to lose money in an investment, don't put it there. I don't think people have to be able to do quadratic equations in their head to do that.

Jim

[tjohnson]

This is WAY off the topic but I think the whole idea of making money for doing nothing is retarded.

[Chris Grieb]

Jim;

My brother and sister and I have benefited in a big way from the real estate boom. We also have diversified portfolios.

Jim; I think your advice is sound. You are a very sound person.

I have to say that I am not a big fan of Donald Trump but I don't care for Rosie O'Donnell either. With both of them I am reminded of the man who watched his wife being attacked by a bear and was saying "Go Bear and "Go Wife".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I am slowly becoming a Trump fan. (I have looked up Rosie and he is right. Her main attraction is her bashing of others, not any real value she provides.)

Trump to me is a quintessential Randian hero in real life. He is individualistic, uses reason ruthlessly in his business, PRODUCES high quality values in several fields, is abrasive to those he despises, doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks of him if it is not on his terms, makes the world swallow him through sheer competence, is highly successful at anything he gets into, and puts his name on everything big he does. He makes it all work despite any obstacle, and he has proven that he is GOOD at overcoming obstacles.

So he's a show-off. Who cares in light of his achievements?

His biggest sin to me is promoting professional wrestling, but I am even starting to like that.

Arrrrrgh!!!

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

I don't know a single person who makes money for doing nothing except those who inherit it or find it on the street. Even a thief has to do something.

Are you talking about passive income? (There is a hell of a lot you need to do to get that on a regular basis.)

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

The way to determine whether Trump is a producer and achiever or not (and I haven't done it) is to total up the value of what he has created in his life including the losses to himself and others. He's taken several ventures through the bankruptcy car wash. Do the sum total of those exceed the fortune he has now?

In any case, if I failed investors just once to the tune of issuing bonds that later became worthless, I would be chastened. Trump has no shame.

Jim

[mvir9]

Sorry guys, I need to interject one fact about Donald Trump -- the one fact that ruined my respect for him:

Trump rather second-handedly attempted to use the government and its eminent domain clause to take a woman's private property from her (luckily, it didn't work and Trump lost the case):

Coking Case

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim;

My brother and sister and I have benefited in a big way from the real estate boom. We also have diversified portfolios.

Jim; I think your advice is sound. You are a very sound person.

I have to say that I am not a big fan of Donald Trump but I don't care for Rosie O'Donnell either. With both of them I am reminded of the man who watched his wife being attacked by a bear and was saying "Go Bear and "Go Wife".

Chris,

My congratulations to you on your gains in real estate. I completely misjudged what housing values would do in the 2000's, so my hat's off to you. I'm probably on the very conservative end of the money spectrum. My wife and I are looking to buy our first house in about 8 months to a year when the real estate market bottoms out. I have never taken out a loan in my life, except a small one under 2K from my brother. We will buy our new house in cash.

I have a favorite saying from J. P. Morgan: debt is the slavery of the poor.

Jim

Edited November 10, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Sorry guys, I need to interject one fact about Donald Trump -- the one fact that ruined my respect for him:

Trump rather second-handedly attempted to use the government and its eminent domain clause to take a woman's private property from her (luckily, it didn't work and Trump lost the case):

Coking Case

Virginia,

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of underhanded crap Trump would try to pull.

Jim

[mvir9]

Sorry guys, I need to interject one fact about Donald Trump -- the one fact that ruined my respect for him:

Trump rather second-handedly attempted to use the government and its eminent domain clause to take a woman's private property from her (luckily, it didn't work and Trump lost the case):

Coking Case

Virginia,

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of underhanded crap Trump would try to pull.

Jim

Your welcome, Jim.

I was actually a bit distraught when I discovered this fact about Trump a couple of years ago. Until then, I had heralded him as one of the great entrepreneurs of our time -- I admired him. Disappointment is such an ugly feeling . . .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Virginia,

Nobody would ever try to claim that Trump is without blemishes. However, Objectivists never tire of explaining how the robber barons of old actually helped the economy and how they were heroes. I can't think of one who would not use eminent domain, even for a parking lot.

It is possible in my own heart to fiercely admire Trump for his achievements, yet disagree strongly with the times he crawls into bed with the government (as in this case), or parts of his personal philosophy and behavior.

I don't think that kind of blemish in today's world annuls the good he does. His bad is bad and his good is good. His good FAR outweighs his bad in concrete terms.

(btw - Good on Coking for standing up for her rights against a... er... bully. )

Michael