Okay well first I agree that real world consequences are of a different order of importance

Where I disagree is the idea that therefore it doesn't matter on a forum. Maybe some think an online community is a bad idea, I strongly disagree but irrespective of whether we agree or not people spend a lot of time at 2+2 and they clearly do care about what goes on here.

2+2ers are pretty easy going imo, if ten posters are tearing into the same person every day it's likely the target is a real ****. Ten posters arbitrarily attacking some sweetheart every day just doesn't ring true.

Some may believe bullying is justified sometimes, maybe it is. It will still be bullying

So if someone is an *******, posts stupid things intended to piss people off or is willfully ignorant of actual facts they are being bullied when more than 9 people call them out on it? And that is worse than the behavior of the person being "bullied?"

And when someone calls someone racist because they spout racist crap, that person is worse than the person who is saying racist things?

Chez, of course, supports the only actual bully we've seen in politics in recent years

? I'll remind you of what I said. -----

? As it's acceptable in PU and other things aren't it must be pretty clear that it's not always worse.

Putting aside what the Duker and Shame Trolly just pointed out re. none of this constituting actual cyber bullying, is this like a two wrongs don't make a right type thing? A poster being a **** is unfortunate, but others being unkind toward said **** is even worse? Let ****s be ****s and don't stoop so low as to call them out on it. That type of reprisal is a bit much.

That's a reasonable view Oro. Bullying is still bullying just like personal attacks are still personal attacks. They may be acceptable and they may or may not be better or worse than the person being attacked.

10 people calling out a poster on their awful behavior every time they post is bullying? Who is the bully? The first guy or the 10th guy?

lol

Do you understand that these are subjective concepts and not everybody agrees with your definitions?

A. That behavior is bullying
B. That behavior is not bullying
A. You may think bullying is justified, but it's still bullying

In this exchange, person A is being an arrogant *******, and, frankly, a bully. It's not going to be a productive conversation.

I agree kindness is important. Now that we know bahbah considers himself to be the victim of bullying, I'll be ignoring him even more than usual. That's a decision I make for myself, not one I'd seek to impose on others.

Sure but we have two main types of objections:

1) It would be bullying but people choose to post in PU so it's not
2) It would be bullying if there were real life consequences but there aren't.

Which pretty much amounts to it being bullying type behavior which semantic arguments aside can reasonably be called bullying.

Do we need to be told to recognise it? Not having a go at you as you're far from a bully but we can't expect those who feel bullied to easily say so. We can all see what's goes on.

LOL, you're doing it again.
Your use of "we" here (3 times!) is at the root of your problem. You are not the conscience of this community. You are not the arbiter of acceptable behavior. You can only answer these questions for yourself and act accordingly.

Calling bully type behavior 'bullying' is fine. if people want to argue semantics they are welcome to.

That's even accepting the objections as valid and one is very dubious.

? We can all see what goes on - that's a fact. If you need to be told by someone that they feel bullied before you think it sufficiently likely that they do then that's down to you.

I do act accordingly. Presumably so does LG when he carries out his bullying type campaigns - he isn't an arbiter anymore than anybody else.

Err no.

There's a IRL difference, it's not just semantics. Your (1) is a difference between Alta and Baja. Gratuitous name calling is not allowed in Alta, it is allowed in Baja. But name calling by itself doesn't rise to the level of Cyberbullying, as described ITT. What goes on in Baja cannot reasonably be characterized as Cyberbullying.

If you wanna characterize some of what goes on in Baja, that is not Cyberbullying, I really think you (a) need to come up with a shorthand term that doesn't by default conflate with Cyberbullying, for example perhaps "harping", and (b) you really need to explain, in at least a little detail, what behavior you are calling this 'harping'.

What is a reasonable view?

That's ironic. Your posting is so far out there that you're either trolling or are insane.

He's not demanding everybody else join his campaign afaik.

I'm not accusing LG of meeting the legal definition of 'Cyberbullying' but 'bullying'' is an apt and the best available description for what he does.

If you want to come up with a better term then feel free to suggest some. Here are the main synonyms according to google - I don't currently think any are beat the term 'bullying' but what would you pick?

persecute, oppress, tyrannize, torment, browbeat, intimidate, cow, coerce, strong-arm, subjugate, domineer, ...

Nor am I. All the noise that was generated was wailing from LetsGambool and Kerowo at the horror of LG being called a bully. That's all.

Your's was. i was responding to your views by saying they were reasonable.

Thinking your views were reasonable may well make people think that.

OK. I feel we're on the same page here. Nothing that routinely goes on here at 2+2 can aptly be called Cyberbullying.

No. For two reasons. First, it sounds like a superset category that also includes Cyberbullying, which we agree it doesn't. Second, you are not at all disguising the fact you are smuggling in a negative connotation by your choice of words.

My view of not stooping so low as to call out ****s on their bs? That was sarcasm and you think it's a reasonable view. What do you find reasonable about it?

If I post any opinion flywf says I'm racist. Does that count?

Depends if you are racist.

Fly calls everyone a racist, it's his thing.