Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I can't really think of examples. Mind you that might be biased because people do often have an intuition for when they'd either get their ass handed to them or it would otherwise backfire so I assume there'd be some examples otherwise if they didn't take that into account. Also these examples were mostly from incidents where the bullying got physical anyway. Much of it isn't and making it physical even as th…
Right so without examples your evidence actually lends credence to my point. 3/3 times is a 100 percent rate of the bully backing down. That is the logical and rational analysis. Obviously your personal conclusion is different but I would say it’s not an empirical or strictly logical analytical conclusion. You will also note that I was able to guess and predict where you’re coming from. Not only did I ask for the ful…
Sorry but this reads like some pompous peak redditor stuff. I'd say it would be a bad look if you're trying to convince someone or transfer and idea but the other person you agreed with wasn't right about the supposed cases nor did you draw some point we disagree on or draw out some conclusion.
>From a practical standpoint you only need to go a fraction of that distance in order to cause most bullies to back down.
Yes because for most bullies it's social posturing. The whole group dynamic doesn't often make sense if there's expected resistance. Even if the victim can be beat, few bullies feel like getting into a tussle over it let alone repeatedly. Exceptions can be notable of course and probalby bullies trend towards those escalation exceptions a bit more than others.