That might be it for some, but it's really not consistent with most observable bullying behaviour. It's easy to deduce that a bully, at their core is acting against feelings of insecurity, and they create a sense of security thru domination. The problem arises when they achieve a very positive payoff from these actions and no negative reinforcement. That latter is extremely important, because they learn to crave the rush that comes from domination, and to insure that rush, they pick their targets the same way a predator picks theirs- the weak, the isolated, the wounded, etc. That's why they go after the non-conforming, because they're more likely to garner popular support for their actions by taking on the role of "enforcer" for the mob. And as they perpetrate their abuse they very assiduously do whatever they can to KEEP their victims in those desirable states. An obvious way is to perpetuate the Myths that keep the victim as a "deserving" class for their abuse. This modus seems to apply pretty equally from the playground all the way up to Auschwitz.
So picking on homosexuals, UNTIL they are more popularly and unilaterally defended is, right now, a no brainer.
And IMHO , I think the quote has it right on for a lot of people, especially the louder mouthed ones. Look closely, and you'll see that by and large, it's not lack of privilege that provides their motivation. The most virulent attacks are going to come from the people who enjoy and actively practice the rights that are being withheld. The rank and file will join in with the bashing, it's true, but the leaders of the charge are going to be wealthy, and powerful, and very likely, married. I'm also predicting that if you study it more, that the non-rich, non powerful who join in this fray AS LEADERS* are going to definitively exhibit a pattern of playing "enforcer" for any societal mores that are easy to pick on. And they will do so ways that are NOT designed to correct so much as PUNISH the behaviour.
*whether it's just mouthing off, or organising local resistance, or thru more violent personal acts.
There are plenty of people with deep convictions and faith, who adhere strictly to moral codes for their personal lives, and who, if asked might tell you what they think is wrong about what someone else is doing. These folks are generally decent, but sometimes are duped into being enablers for a leader who's a bully.
But a *true* fanatic, who you'll find as a footsoldier or general in a moral cause- if you look below their facade, you will find someone whose payoff is the domination of others.
The "self-frustated denyee" definitely exists, but they're not as common as you'd think. And their methods are very different from your average bully.
Most of the most vocal opponents of gay marriage, from the snarky co-worker up to the high paid lobbyists, are going to be VERY into establishing and preserving the "schoolyard heirarchy" because THAT's where the payoff is.
The payoff here, if you peel away the onion layers, are
(no subject)
from maugorn
It's easy to deduce that a bully, at their core is acting against feelings of insecurity, and they create a sense of security thru domination.
The problem arises when they achieve a very positive payoff from these actions and no negative reinforcement. That latter is extremely important, because they learn to crave the rush that comes from domination, and to insure that rush, they pick their targets the same way a predator picks theirs- the weak, the isolated, the wounded, etc.
That's why they go after the non-conforming, because they're more likely to garner popular support for their actions by taking on the role of "enforcer" for the mob.
And as they perpetrate their abuse they very assiduously do whatever they can to KEEP their victims in those desirable states. An obvious way is to perpetuate the Myths that keep the victim as a "deserving" class for their abuse. This modus seems to apply pretty equally from the playground all the way up to Auschwitz.
So picking on homosexuals, UNTIL they are more popularly and unilaterally defended is, right now, a no brainer.
And IMHO , I think the quote has it right on for a lot of people, especially the louder mouthed ones. Look closely, and you'll see that by and large, it's not lack of privilege that provides their motivation. The most virulent attacks are going to come from the people who enjoy and actively practice the rights that are being withheld. The rank and file will join in with the bashing, it's true, but the leaders of the charge are going to be wealthy, and powerful, and very likely, married.
I'm also predicting that if you study it more, that the non-rich, non powerful who join in this fray AS LEADERS* are going to definitively exhibit a pattern of playing "enforcer" for any societal mores that are easy to pick on. And they will do so ways that are NOT designed to correct so much as PUNISH the behaviour.
*whether it's just mouthing off, or organising local resistance, or thru more violent personal acts.
There are plenty of people with deep convictions and faith, who adhere strictly to moral codes for their personal lives, and who, if asked might tell you what they think is wrong about what someone else is doing.
These folks are generally decent, but sometimes are duped into being enablers for a leader who's a bully.
But a *true* fanatic, who you'll find as a footsoldier or general in a moral cause- if you look below their facade, you will find someone whose payoff is the domination of others.
The "self-frustated denyee" definitely exists, but they're not as common as you'd think. And their methods are very different from your average bully.
Most of the most vocal opponents of gay marriage, from the snarky co-worker up to the high paid lobbyists, are going to be VERY into establishing and preserving the "schoolyard heirarchy" because THAT's where the payoff is.
The payoff here, if you peel away the onion layers, are