Mitt Romney: Bully?

[silverjon]

Of course the reporter did. But the fact that one of the men questioned worked on Obama's campaign in 2008 makes me question that.

So volunteering makes him too partisan to accurately recall an incident from his school years?

This is the guy who also admits to holding Lauber down to help Romney.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Dude. He was 18. Boys are idiots at 18 -- some just more than others.

Since when did being 18 = being a boy? It's not like Romney was 13 or something. At 18, you're considered an adult: you can vote, you can go to war, if you commit a crime you're tried as an adult. Do people change between the ages of 18 and 50? Certainly. But in my experience, your personality at 18 is pretty damn similar to your personality later in life.

[Combustible Lemur]

Dude. He was 18. Boys are idiots at 18 -- some just more than others.

Sure, I get that. And I didn't say it disqualified him or on its own made him a current douche bag.

However, when did you learn the lessons that made you who you are? If you were confronted with some heinous act you committed in high school, would you take responsibility for it with shame and humility, or awkward mirth and apology for offense it MAY have caused.

Take this example. Guy punches someone. You look in his past, did he used to punch people? Does he have a pattern of punching people? At a certain point an observer has to come to the conclusion that Guy is a puncher.

It's not like we're saying he lit someone on fire and should be punished. We're simply saying that this incident seems indicative of a broader Romney profile. It is not out of character. Was anybody particularly surprised? The outrage meter is wobbled but did not take off. At least that's what I'm saying

[Rip]

Dude. He was 18. Boys are idiots at 18 -- some just more than others.

Since when did being 18 = being a boy? It's not like Romney was 13 or something. At 18, you're considered an adult: you can vote, you can go to war, if you commit a crime you're tried as an adult. Do people change between the ages of 18 and 50? Certainly. But in my experience, your personality at 18 is pretty damn similar to your personality later in life.

Was he holding a bag of skittles during the event?

[Combustible Lemur]

Dude. He was 18. Boys are idiots at 18 -- some just more than others.

Since when did being 18 = being a boy? It's not like Romney was 13 or something. At 18, you're considered an adult: you can vote, you can go to war, if you commit a crime you're tried as an adult. Do people change between the ages of 18 and 50? Certainly. But in my experience, your personality at 18 is pretty damn similar to your personality later in life.

Was he holding a bag of skittles during the event?

Ouch.

[msduncan]

Dude. He was 18. Boys are idiots at 18 -- some just more than others.

Since when did being 18 = being a boy? It's not like Romney was 13 or something. At 18, you're considered an adult: you can vote, you can go to war, if you commit a crime you're tried as an adult. Do people change between the ages of 18 and 50? Certainly. But in my experience, your personality at 18 is pretty damn similar to your personality later in life.

Was he holding a bag of skittles during the event?

Ouch.

Nice

[Chrisoc13]

Of course the reporter did. But the fact that one of the men questioned worked on Obama's campaign in 2008 makes me question that.

So volunteering makes him too partisan to accurately recall an incident from his school years?

This is the guy who also admits to holding Lauber down to help Romney.

Interesting article covering the same time of Romney's life can be found here.

Note there are some complete discrepancies between the two articles.

Because his father was determined "that his sons would not grow up to be spoiled brats," Dearth says, "Mitt didn't get a car at sixteen -- like many Cranbrook kids did. He didn't get to drive special factory cars -- like some Cranbrook boys did."

"He could have been an arrogant, stuck-up, snotty little brat," says Dearth. "But he was a great guy -- an all-American kid with a great sense of humor, very self-effacing." And although it's been documented that Romney played a teenage prank or two -- including once impersonating a police officer in order to scare some female friends -- Dearth remembers Mitt as the most straitlaced kid in the neighborhood.

"Those of us who tested the boundaries in high school still marvel at the self-discipline he displayed," Dearth continues. "With a father who was then governor, Mitt knew where the line was and never crossed it. I think it was a sign of his deep respect for his dad and the way he was brought up. I often tell people he has more personal integrity than anyone I know. And I was raised a Unitarian."

Interesting that they try to play his best friend off as independent when he states in this article:

"I'm a Democrat, so I won't vote for him," says Maxwell.

Whoops. Thought he was independent? Guess it depends on which slant he is going for.

Volunteering in the Obama campaign certainly makes anyone partisan fyi.

So what good has he done? I saw that he did missionary work. Not bad, probably more of a requirement for him. And he held positions of power or at least administration within his church maybe service but is that much of a sacrifice for someone who is infinitely independently wealthy? He seems to have family values which is good.

On the flip side, he was a bully in highschool, showed poor judgement in transporting an animal on the roof of his car, made a career out of dismantling companies and other peoples jobs, reflects an inability to communicate empathetically with working class either through actual aloofness or just poor word choice, has shown a willingness to take peoples civil rights in order to gain more power. Now, none of these things disqualify him and depending how you interpret them, make him more qualified. but I don't necessarily see reason to think that any his current action indicate that he is different from his previous self. Other than basic age and wisdom.

First of all his missionary work wasn't a requirement. Trust me, I served a mission for the same faith. It is asked of every young man and possible for every young woman but the majority still do not serve missions. I have 4 siblings. Of the 5 of us only 2 of us served missions. Two. And we were raised as staunch in the church as you can be. Of my 30 some odd cousins (all of which are LDS, or were raised LDS) there are 8 of us who served missions. Is it a requirement? No. If you want more info on what serving a mission for the LDS church means feel free to ask, but in a nut shell he gave up his life for two years to serve.

His church leadership positions require an absolutely huge amount of time given, and the service many of them do cannot be understated. Do you really think people get as rich as he got by simply laying around? Don't kid yourself. It wasn't like he was sitting around with tons of extra time on his hands.

In terms of what his company did, you can buy into the rhetoric of him preying on the weak companies and firing people, or you can do a little bit more research into what he actually did. If you really think his job was simply to get rid of jobs you are delusional. His company made money by saving failing companies. Sometimes budgets have to be cut so a company can survive. The hope is that they grow far bigger and eventually that will create even more jobs than slowly letting these failing companies slide out of business where even more people lose jobs. That is the best move the Democratic party has made is villainizing his career, but it is ridiculous to do such.

And lastly many of your other points are simply a difference in ideological belief. You see the taking of civil rights conservatives see protecting jobs and closing the border. Doesn't mean your opinion is wrong, just means that you disagree with his political ideologies.

[silverjon]

Volunteering in the Obama campaign certainly makes anyone partisan fyi.

I'm not suggesting political volunteerism isn't a partisan activity. The nature of volunteerism shows support for an ideal.

What I'm saying is that having been an active Democrat does not automatically mean that this man would lie about the past, particularly when his recollection of it also reflects poorly on his own actions.

And you didn't reply to my other post.

[Combustible Lemur]

I suppose we should just annoint him now? Rainbows and unicorns move over! We've got saint Mitt coming to save us!

Sent from mah Incredible'

[silverjon]

Interesting article covering the same time of Romney's life can be found here.

Note there are some complete discrepancies between the two articles.

Interesting that they try to play his best friend off as independent when he states in this article:

"I'm a Democrat, so I won't vote for him," says Maxwell.

Whoops. Thought he was independent? Guess it depends on which slant he is going for.

Does it say somewhere in the WaPo article that Maxwell is an Independent or are you mixing up the sources? I found this:

The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.

As for how his personality is depicted, different people are going to remember and recount different things, but that doesn't mean they're not all true, or contain some element of the truth (human memory being pretty fallible).

[YellowKing]

What I'm saying is that having been an active Democrat does not automatically mean that this man would lie about the past, particularly when his recollection of it also reflects poorly on his own actions.

It doesn't mean that he wouldn't embellish the past either. Given how faulty human memory is, and how this guy has an active interest in making sure Romney doesn't win, I wouldn't trust his testimony as far as I could throw him.

All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.

Because of course they'd publicly admit that politics DID color their recollections.

[Chrisoc13]

I suppose we should just annoint him now? Rainbows and unicorns move over! We've got saint Mitt coming to save us!

Sent from mah Incredible'

Ha ok, you could say that, or you could simply say maybe he isn't the villain you would like to see him as. You don't have to make someone you disagree with ideologically a villain. In fact that is one part of politics I can't stand. I don't particularly care for some of the things President Obama has done, but in all honesty I think he is a good man doing what he feels is right. But I won't vote for him because I don't think his ideas are what the country needs.

[Pyperkub]

This incident might have less meaning if (a) Mitt wasn't running as Bully-in-Chief by pandering to the anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-secular wing of the Republican Party and (b) the conservative Talking Points weren't bending over backward over the slightest possibility that Obama might be a closet anti-White socialist Muslim who eats dog.

You cannot complain once you play the silly season.

Gonna hafta agree here. It's not that being a Bully would make him a bad President (in fact, it could definitely make him more effective - Obama should have been a bigger bully when he had majorities in both houses, IMHO), but it definitely reinforces ideas regarding what his stances will be for minorities of all stripes.

Example: He may state that he's in favor of gay adoption, but at best he will look the other way when his party discusses laws to restrict that.

[silverjon]

What I'm saying is that having been an active Democrat does not automatically mean that this man would lie about the past, particularly when his recollection of it also reflects poorly on his own actions.

It doesn't mean that he wouldn't embellish the past either. Given how faulty human memory is, and how this guy has an active interest in making sure Romney doesn't win, I wouldn't trust his testimony as far as I could throw him.

Actually, this is his full statement from the article posted by Chrisoc13.

"I'm a Democrat, so I won't vote for him," says Maxwell. "But he'd probably make a pretty good president. He's very smart, very principled."

And I don't think that statement inherently contradicts remembering the Lauber bullying either. Mitt Romney can be multifaceted. It's just that the bullying incidents reflect an ugly facet.

All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.

Because of course they'd publicly admit that politics DID color their recollections.

No, they probably wouldn't say, "I made all this up because I want to discredit Romney". But if five people in separate interviews remembered the event, why is it so hard to believe it happened?

Edit: quote tags

[msduncan]

Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.

This whole thing is a political hit job. Who is the bully here? Perhaps someone in Obama's campaign office.

[Chrisoc13]

Interesting article covering the same time of Romney's life can be found here.

Note there are some complete discrepancies between the two articles.

Interesting that they try to play his best friend off as independent when he states in this article:

"I'm a Democrat, so I won't vote for him," says Maxwell.

Whoops. Thought he was independent? Guess it depends on which slant he is going for.

Does it say somewhere in the WaPo article that Maxwell is an Independent or are you mixing up the sources? I found this:

As for how his personality is depicted, different people are going to remember and recount different things, but that doesn't mean they're not all true, or contain some element of the truth (human memory being pretty fallible).

It was from the article on CNN.

Maxwell, who told ABC News he is a registered independent who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, said the episode is "relevant" in the campaign as a window into Romney's character.

Yeah this guy isn't mixing up his story at all. And when he told CNN he made sure to say he was independent because even if some on this board won't acknowledge it, he obviously knows that saying he is a Democrat will undermine his story.

Also to add a little more intrigue to this alleged incident, one of the people quoted in the article didn't even know about the even until a few weeks ago. Good person to quote

[Chrisoc13]

Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.

This whole thing is a political hit job. Who is the bully here? Perhaps someone in Obama's campaign office.

Whoops. Good work research team! It doesn't matter though, the piece is out there and nobody will read this response. They did their job.

[Enough]

Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.

This whole thing is a political hit job. Who is the bully here? Perhaps someone in Obama's campaign office.

Whoops. Good work research team! It doesn't matter though, the piece is out there and nobody will read this response. They did their job.

Wait, you absolutely question the negative testimony from the get go but you are willing to take the family or any other positive spin at its word? Even though Romney has apologized for going maybe a bit too far in his pranks? Wary winterwesting.

[Chrisoc13]

Wait, you absolutely question the negative testimony from the get go but you are willing to take the family or any other positive spin at its word? Even though Romney has apologized for going maybe a bit too far in his pranks? Wary winterwesting.

Nope.

Does anybody even read all of my posts before just replying to one? Seriously? Does anyone? Did you enough? Honest question because from this post it seems the answer would be that you skimmed to the last page and found something to hit reply to. I said from the very beginning it was of course possible that it happened. My statement all along has been that I don't think the actions of an 18 year old should be taken too heavily into account when talking about a 65 year old man. But if you had read my posts you would already know this.

I have no idea what happened because I am half the age of Romney and wasn't there. I will tell you the same thing as Ale, go back and read my posts if you want to discuss this seriously.

I think it very well could have happened, I also think it very well might not have happened. Or at the very least it could be blown up. I certainly and 100% question the intentions of Mr. Maxwell.

[msduncan]

Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.

This whole thing is a political hit job. Who is the bully here? Perhaps someone in Obama's campaign office.

Whoops. Good work research team! It doesn't matter though, the piece is out there and nobody will read this response. They did their job.

Wait, you absolutely question the negative testimony from the get go but you are willing to take the family or any other positive spin at its word? Even though Romney has apologized for going maybe a bit too far in his pranks? Wary winterwesting.

My point by posting that is that even the family itself is not interested in this story, bemoans the use of their son as a political tool, and now this reeks as someone trying to dig ANYTHING they can up on Romney. Congrats. The worst they could find was that he might have been a bully.

[YellowKing]

No, they probably wouldn't say, "I made all this up because I want to discredit Romney". But if five people in separate interviews remembered the event, why is it so hard to believe it happened?

I'm not saying it didn't happen. *How* it happened is the key. One man's schoolboy prank is another man's "vicious bullying incident."

In this case, the five separate people interviewed all lean Democratic and have a vested interest (consciously or subconsciously) in making sure Romney is not elected. They are all coming out with their story after a highly publicized gay marriage vote and in a time in which bullying is a hot national topic. None of that raises any red flags?

[GreenGoo]

Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.

This whole thing is a political hit job. Who is the bully here? Perhaps someone in Obama's campaign office.

Whoops. Good work research team! It doesn't matter though, the piece is out there and nobody will read this response. They did their job.

Wait, you absolutely question the negative testimony from the get go but you are willing to take the family or any other positive spin at its word? Even though Romney has apologized for going maybe a bit too far in his pranks? Wary winterwesting.

I don't really care what the man did years ago as a kid. I care about bullying, but I don't care about something that happened so long ago that it is ancient history for pretty much everyone involved, including John.

That being said, nothing in that quote refutes the only aspect of this story that could even vaguely matter, and that is the bullying itself. Wether the victim is accurately described or not, or whether the family is unhappy that John's victimization is being used for political purposes, has nothing to do with whether Romney bullied anyone.

1) Who gives a crap about this.
2) For the people who do, how on earth they could take a statement like that and believe that it exonerated anyone? It's completely devoid of any information whatsoever. Factually incorrect?

[GreenGoo]

My point by posting that is that even the family itself is not interested in this story, bemoans the use of their son as a political tool, and now this reeks as someone trying to dig ANYTHING they can up on Romney. Congrats. The worst they could find was that he might have been a bully.

The answer to that is tough shit. Tell any current day "Johns" to not get bullied by future presidential candidates if they don't want to be used for political purposes. This isn't about John and never was. Mitt Romney's behaviour is the only one that matters (for this particular story). John is a faceless, nameless nobody. What he and his family wants is irrelevant.

The discussion at hand is Romney's character, not John's. When someone is subjected to spousal abuse, we still arrest the other spouse even when the victim protests and refuses to prosecute.

Whether this is right or wrong, it's way this shit works. For both sides.

You should be ecstatic that this is what the opposition is focused on. As you said, it's basically nothing as far as presidential candidate negative campaigning goes. It's practically a Romney victory that this is what is being focused on by the opposition.

[Chrisoc13]

I don't really care what the man did years ago as a kid. I care about bullying, but I don't care about something that happened so long ago that it is ancient history for pretty much everyone involved, including John.

That being said, nothing in that quote refutes the only aspect of this story that could even vaguely matter, and that is the bullying itself. Wether the victim is accurately described or not, or whether the family is unhappy that John's victimization is being used for political purposes, has nothing to do with whether Romney bullied anyone.

1) Who gives a crap about this.
2) For the people who do, how on earth they could take a statement like that and believe that it exonerated anyone? It's completely devoid of any information whatsoever. Factually incorrect?

I don't think it exonerated him at all. I think the research by the journalist messed up. And given the political leanings of every source in the article I question it's validity (in the exact way YellowKing described).

I think the family of John deserves to have input. They haven't exonerated Romney but their statement certainly raises a red flag. The family calls into question the accuracy of the story. That seems important to me.

But overall I agree with you that this is a stupid issue. The whole thing is.

[silverjon]

I got the impression that they're coming out with the story now because the journalist was trying to do a profile on Mitt Romney's schooldays, was told about the incident by somebody, and then tried to find others who could corroborate it. And it became bigger than the original intent of the piece.

Yes, it's topical, but that doesn't make it a calculated conspiracy against Romney.

And if you think it does, then you should probably just stop reading all media altogether, because not a word of it can be credited, no matter the source, the writer, or the political leaning, or your own critical interpretation. It's all spin and bias.

[silverjon]

John is a faceless, nameless nobody. What he and his family wants is irrelevant.

He can't want anything. The man has been dead for years.

[Chrisoc13]

I got the impression that they're coming out with the story now because the journalist was trying to do a profile on Mitt Romney's schooldays, was told about the incident by somebody, and then tried to find others who could corroborate it. And it became bigger than the original intent of the piece.

Yes, it's topical, but that doesn't make it a calculated conspiracy against Romney.

And if you think it does, then you should probably just stop reading all media altogether, because not a word of it can be credited, no matter the source, the writer, or the political leaning, or your own critical interpretation. It's all spin and bias.

I think every piece of media should be critically looked at. You should question the source, the validity, and the accuracy of every single piece you read.

[GreenGoo]

I think the family of John deserves to have input. They haven't exonerated Romney but their statement certainly raises a red flag. The family calls into question the accuracy of the story. That seems important to me.

But overall I agree with you that this is a stupid issue. The whole thing is.

See, I feel the exact opposite. If they wanted to stop this story in it's tracks, they would provide a statement that refutes the hack job. They very specifically didn't. They said "Something in the story was not true". They didn't say "that story is not true". And then they said they don't want to be used for political purposes.

Again, I don't care about 1 specific bullying (nor not) event from his past. That's like getting hung up on the fact that the candidate smoked a doob once. Or shoplifted once.

But their statement makes me think the story is substantially true, with some minor issues. Not that suddenly the whole thing comes into question. The statement reinforces the possibility that it is true, not diminishes it. For me anyway.

[GreenGoo]

John is a faceless, nameless nobody. What he and his family wants is irrelevant.

He can't want anything. The man has been dead for years.

Don't push your belief system on me.

[Chrisoc13]

I think the family of John deserves to have input. They haven't exonerated Romney but their statement certainly raises a red flag. The family calls into question the accuracy of the story. That seems important to me.

But overall I agree with you that this is a stupid issue. The whole thing is.

See, I feel the exact opposite. If they wanted to stop this story in it's tracks, they would provide a statement that refutes the hack job. They very specifically didn't. They said "Something in the story was not true". They didn't say "that story is not true". And then they said they don't want to be used for political purposes.

Again, I don't care about 1 specific bullying (nor not) event from his past. That's like getting hung up on the fact that the candidate smoked a doob once. Or shoplifted once.

But their statement makes me think the story is substantially true, with some minor issues. Not that suddenly the whole thing comes into question. The statement reinforces the possibility that it is true, not diminishes it. For me anyway.

The full article regarding the sisters say they have no knowledge of the incident (but also that they don't think they would even if it had happened), yet it says there are innacuracies in the article. I am guessing those innacuracies would be in describing John or something about him not the incident in particular since they said they have no knowledge of it.

Edit: because my internet grammar is poor sometimes...

[Chrisoc13]

John is a faceless, nameless nobody. What he and his family wants is irrelevant.

He can't want anything. The man has been dead for years.

Don't push your belief system on me.

[GreenGoo]

I assume they are not willing to admit his homosexuality.

Ok, I got nothing. Except that Romney's camp should be chalking this up as a victory and moving on, if they haven't already. Let the other camp bleat about some hazing/bullying that crossed the line a billion years ago. Hell, when I reflect on it, this guy must be as squeaky clean as they come. Which is not to say he'd make a good president. I don't have strong feelings about him, pro or con.

[silverjon]

I think every piece of media should be critically looked at. You should question the source, the validity, and the accuracy of every single piece you read.

I agree with that, but it's also important to acknowledge your own inclination to confirmation bias. (Yes, applies to me as well.)

I don't know if Maxwell is a flip-flopper, or if it's merely that he aligns with the Democrats right now but has felt more affinity for Republican candidates in the past. The way your political party support works can be kinda foreign to me, because it is.

I don't know how much party affiliation even matters to this story. People who went to this school with Mitt Romney is a fairly small pool to choose from already. People who were in the room when the Lauber incident happened would be even smaller. It can't necessarily be helped that these teens grew up to be Democrats, and it's not exactly uncommon to be an upper middle-class Democrat in the USA.

What I think of Mitt Romney is irrelevant, though. I don't actually believe he's a bad person, because I don't believe that of most people. I think he has demonstrated some propensity for being insensitive, even now.

I assume they are not willing to admit his homosexuality.

This is actually what occurred to me as well, is objection to their deceased brother as being depicted as homosexual. I'm only picking up details piecemeal, so I haven't figured out if he came out at some point, or was straight but subjected to homophobic bullying (because that's what kids do). I saw a statement from one sister saying he bleached his hair right up until his death. Different sister than the "no more statements" sister.

[YellowKing]

The homosexual angle is completely irrelevant, and that's probably why the family is so upset. There is nothing in the reported recollections to indicate that the "bullying" was about anything other than his hair color.

[silverjon]

One man's schoolboy prank is another man's "vicious bullying incident."

I'm coming back to this because I think it needs to be addressed completely divorced from the story. Saying a cruel act or word was a joke minimizes responsibility for your own behavior, and places blame on the victim for not being able to recognize that it was supposed to be funny. Pointing it out can raise outcries of the horrors of runaway political correctness, which is more "it's not my fault you're so uptight" and shunting of responsibility onto others.

School bullying, domestic abuse, and workplace harassment can all contain recognizable elements of this attitude.

[msduncan]

One man's schoolboy prank is another man's "vicious bullying incident."

I'm coming back to this because I think it needs to be addressed completely divorced from the story. Saying a cruel act or word was a joke minimizes responsibility for your own behavior, and places blame on the victim for not being able to recognize that it was supposed to be funny. Pointing it out can raise outcries of the horrors of runaway political correctness, which is more "it's not my fault you're so uptight" and shunting of responsibility onto others.

School bullying, domestic abuse, and workplace harassment can all contain recognizable elements of this attitude.

Note that there has been a huge social shift and an enormous amount of focus placed on bullying and hazing over the past decade. Totally not so in the 1960's.

[Defiant]

The homosexual angle is completely irrelevant, and that's probably why the family is so upset. There is nothing in the reported recollections to indicate that the "bullying" was about anything other than his hair color.

To assume that his homosexuality had nothing to do with bullying is to be naive. But regardless of why he was bullied, it was wrong.

Edit:

Asked if Lauber was targeted because he was gay, as reported by the Post, Maxwell said, “We didn’t know that word in those days … but there were other words that were used. We weren’t ignorant, we just didn’t use the current names for things.”

link

[silverjon]

One man's schoolboy prank is another man's "vicious bullying incident."

I'm coming back to this because I think it needs to be addressed completely divorced from the story. Saying a cruel act or word was a joke minimizes responsibility for your own behavior, and places blame on the victim for not being able to recognize that it was supposed to be funny. Pointing it out can raise outcries of the horrors of runaway political correctness, which is more "it's not my fault you're so uptight" and shunting of responsibility onto others.

School bullying, domestic abuse, and workplace harassment can all contain recognizable elements of this attitude.

Note that there has been a huge social shift and an enormous amount of focus placed on bullying and hazing over the past decade. Totally not so in the 1960's.

Absolutely, and it's a huge positive.

But, YK putting quotation marks around bullying but not around prank indicates that he's prepared to take one view seriously and not the other. Maybe unintentionally indicating it, but it's a visible imbalance.

How we choose to phrase our thoughts is important.

[YellowKing]

I actually put the quotes around "vicious bullying incident" because I was paraphrasing the gist of what Maxwell was claiming. It wasn't my intent to single that out as being not serious.

[silverjon]

I actually put the quotes around "vicious bullying incident" because I was paraphrasing the gist of what Maxwell was claiming. It wasn't my intent to single that out as being not serious.

Impromptu language lesson: It's not appropriate to use quotation marks when paraphrasing, because in that case they're a visual cue that this is a precise statement of somebody else's words. If you have to alter something to make it grammatically correct within your own sentence, use [] to indicate your changes and ... to indicate words left out.

It's also important to make the source of a quotation clear so that it doesn't look like you're using "textual air quotes" (see what I did there?).

And thanks for clarifying.