WorthlessSlavicShit
There are no happy endings in Eastern Europe.
★★★★★
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2022
- Posts
- 13,491
Seeing that normies have lately been openly admitting to supporting bullying and bullies:
View: https://x.com/SimpNeelix/status/1849539119216755094
With the implicit justification that the bullied children are the real monsters who need to be beaten up and kept under control because they might turn out to be le evil inkwells who will abuse women.
I've decided to see how true those beliefs are, especially when it comes to dating/domestic violence and abuse, which is one of the topics that really riles up normies. So, how do those claims of heroic bullies keeping society going and evil bullied kids wishing to destroy it and harm people hold up to reality? Not at all, it turns out.
School Bullying Perpetration and Other Childhood Risk Factors as Predictors of Adult Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration
An older but golden study showing that frequently bullying your peers as a child is by far the greatest predictor of being a domestic abuser as an adult, completely shaming all the other usual explanations such as being physically or sexually abused as a child, or witnessing domestic abuse in your own household as a child. Sure, those "abused becomes abuser", "cycle of violence" factors do matter, but being a bully is several times more important in this.
Speaking of that, just why are normies so obsessed with the idea that all violence, abuse and so on can be explained as a cycle? That everyone who is aggressive or violent is that way because someone else had harmed them before? That the actual bad thing about abuse is not the immediate harm, but that the abused child will inevitably go on to abuse someone else?
Are they just so terrified by the thought of the world not being just? By the idea that some people are nasty for no reason and dish out much more abuse than they take their entire lives, while some people are just lifelong victims through no fault of their own?
Anyway, let's look at something newer.
Longitudinal Associations Between Bullying and Intimate Partner Violence Among Adolescents and Young Adults
No fairy tale about bullying victims going on to become what they hated and becoming cruel abusers dealing with their mental trauma by traumatizing and hurting others. No bullshit about bullies just being kids who hated antisocial behaviour and worked to keep people normal. Just an admittance that people who were being were, surprise(!), not at risk of abusing someone, but of being abused, while bullies were at """risk""" of being abusers.
And of course, no gender differences were found. Whenever it comes to female violence or aggression, feminists, conservatives, red pillers and so on all agree that it is somehow completely different from male aggression, it is not the norm while the latter somehow is, it isn't as serious, it's not the same, it barely if at all happens, it's completely different and should be treated completely differently and blah blah blah. And then, the closer you look at it, objectively, the less actual differences you find.
Bullying as a Longitudinal Predictor of Adolescent Dating Violence
Jfl, turns out you don't even need to wait for adulthood for bullies to be the ones who become abusers. Also kek at race being over twice as big of a factor for direct bullying as gender. Holy fuck even I didn't expect that, let's see the leftists who on one hand take it for granted that race differences in crime and violence either don't exist, or when they do exist they are completely environmental and cultural, and then have no problem with double standards or misandry because "muh men are violent and a danger to helpless women" try to explain and deal with it.
They even tried selling an r of 0.08 as a significant correlation and predictor, even ChatGPT just dabbed on that when I asked it.
Now, the fact is that there are two different types of bullies. Pure bullies, who only bully and are not victimized themselves, and bully-victims, who bully and are themselves victimized. So is it possible that the myth of the weird bullied loner who then goes on to be a misogynistic monster in adulthood can still be resuscitated?
Lol no.
Examining explanations for the link between bullying perpetration and physical dating violence perpetration: Do they vary by bullying victimization?
It was only pure bullies whose bullying predicted later physical violence against dating/romantic partners. Not bully-victims. "Well, sure, the guy who made fun of you might have deserved being punched, but you've proven that you are just like him, a dangerous male who should stay away from pure, harmless women because you are an inherent danger to them and you will abuse them!" bullshit has once again been proven to be bullshit.
And, of course, once again there were no significant gender differences, the pattern quite clearly held for both boys and girls. But, of course, wait for everyone to minimize bullying and abuse done by girls and fearmonger about the scary lone losers who will never find a dating partner anyway.
View: https://x.com/SimpNeelix/status/1849539119216755094
Normies On Twitter Shit On Bullied Manlet Told Him To Take It Up His Ass
View: https://x.com/T0kkume1/status/1857278532071956982 Told him to grow up as if you could control it what a shitty fallacious argument Society didn't decline because anti-bullying rules stopped people from being bullies. Society declined because anti-bullying zero tolerance rules...
incels.is
With the implicit justification that the bullied children are the real monsters who need to be beaten up and kept under control because they might turn out to be le evil inkwells who will abuse women.
Ugly autistic 17-year old incel stabs manipulative bitch after rejection, normies dehumanize 'people who look like him'
The Rundown: An ugly autistic incel was rejected by some 15-year old slut who said she only 'saw him as a friend' ( AKA as an ugly clown ), he proceeded to take pictures of her while she was asleep, she raged at him to cut off all contact with her, he then went to her house at night and did...
incels.is
I've decided to see how true those beliefs are, especially when it comes to dating/domestic violence and abuse, which is one of the topics that really riles up normies. So, how do those claims of heroic bullies keeping society going and evil bullied kids wishing to destroy it and harm people hold up to reality? Not at all, it turns out.
School Bullying Perpetration and Other Childhood Risk Factors as Predictors of Adult Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration
An older but golden study showing that frequently bullying your peers as a child is by far the greatest predictor of being a domestic abuser as an adult, completely shaming all the other usual explanations such as being physically or sexually abused as a child, or witnessing domestic abuse in your own household as a child. Sure, those "abused becomes abuser", "cycle of violence" factors do matter, but being a bully is several times more important in this.
Speaking of that, just why are normies so obsessed with the idea that all violence, abuse and so on can be explained as a cycle? That everyone who is aggressive or violent is that way because someone else had harmed them before? That the actual bad thing about abuse is not the immediate harm, but that the abused child will inevitably go on to abuse someone else?
Are they just so terrified by the thought of the world not being just? By the idea that some people are nasty for no reason and dish out much more abuse than they take their entire lives, while some people are just lifelong victims through no fault of their own?
Anyway, let's look at something newer.
Participants (N = 5,279) reported past-year bullying when they were 14–20 years old and reported lifetime experiences of IPV when they were 20–27 years old. The results indicate that participants reporting being bullied more than twice were at elevated risk of IPV victimization compared to participants reporting no bullying victimization, adjusting for bullying perpetration and covariates. Participants reporting bullying others once or more were at elevated risk of IPV perpetration compared to participants reporting no bullying perpetration, adjusting for bullying victimization and covariates.
There was no evidence that the associations differed by gender. Results suggest that adolescents carry forward behaviors from their peer relationships to their dating relationships.
Longitudinal Associations Between Bullying and Intimate Partner Violence Among Adolescents and Young Adults
No fairy tale about bullying victims going on to become what they hated and becoming cruel abusers dealing with their mental trauma by traumatizing and hurting others. No bullshit about bullies just being kids who hated antisocial behaviour and worked to keep people normal. Just an admittance that people who were being were, surprise(!), not at risk of abusing someone, but of being abused, while bullies were at """risk""" of being abusers.
And of course, no gender differences were found. Whenever it comes to female violence or aggression, feminists, conservatives, red pillers and so on all agree that it is somehow completely different from male aggression, it is not the norm while the latter somehow is, it isn't as serious, it's not the same, it barely if at all happens, it's completely different and should be treated completely differently and blah blah blah. And then, the closer you look at it, objectively, the less actual differences you find.
Direct bullying, defined as hitting, slapping, or picking on another kid in the sixth grade, predicted the onset of physical dating violence perpetration by the eighth grade, controlling for indirect bullying and potential confounders.
Boys reported significantly more direct bullying than girls (r = .08, p < .001), and black adolescents reported significantly more direct bullying than white adolescents (r = .18, p < .001).
Bullying as a Longitudinal Predictor of Adolescent Dating Violence
Jfl, turns out you don't even need to wait for adulthood for bullies to be the ones who become abusers. Also kek at race being over twice as big of a factor for direct bullying as gender. Holy fuck even I didn't expect that, let's see the leftists who on one hand take it for granted that race differences in crime and violence either don't exist, or when they do exist they are completely environmental and cultural, and then have no problem with double standards or misandry because "muh men are violent and a danger to helpless women" try to explain and deal with it.
They even tried selling an r of 0.08 as a significant correlation and predictor, even ChatGPT just dabbed on that when I asked it.
Now, the fact is that there are two different types of bullies. Pure bullies, who only bully and are not victimized themselves, and bully-victims, who bully and are themselves victimized. So is it possible that the myth of the weird bullied loner who then goes on to be a misogynistic monster in adulthood can still be resuscitated?
Lol no.
Bullying perpetration in the fall semester predicted physical dating violence perpetration in the spring semester when there was no bullying victimization, but not when there was any bullying victimization.
Bullying perpetration predicted dating violence perpetration when there was no bullying victimization (b ¼ 0.0303; P ¼.0296) but the association was only marginal when bullying victimization was at the mean (b ¼ 0.0229; P ¼.0602), and there was no significant association when bullying victimization was high (b ¼ 0.0081; P ¼.4950) (see Fig. 2). The Johnson Neyman technique indicated that when the adolescent had been victimized by one or more peers, bullying perpetration did not predict physical dating violence.
Although prior research found that bullying was correlated with (Pepler et al., 2006) and predicted (Foshee et al., 2014) physical dating violence perpetration by both boys and girls, because Connolly et al. (2000) found that bullying perpetration was more strongly associated with dating violence perpetration for boys than girls, this model initially included interactions between bullying perpetration, bullying victimization and sex of the adolescent. None of the interactions with adolescent sex were significant and, therefore, they were dropped from the model and sex differences were not examined further
Examining explanations for the link between bullying perpetration and physical dating violence perpetration: Do they vary by bullying victimization?
It was only pure bullies whose bullying predicted later physical violence against dating/romantic partners. Not bully-victims. "Well, sure, the guy who made fun of you might have deserved being punched, but you've proven that you are just like him, a dangerous male who should stay away from pure, harmless women because you are an inherent danger to them and you will abuse them!" bullshit has once again been proven to be bullshit.
And, of course, once again there were no significant gender differences, the pattern quite clearly held for both boys and girls. But, of course, wait for everyone to minimize bullying and abuse done by girls and fearmonger about the scary lone losers who will never find a dating partner anyway.
Society when it does its best to demonize low-status bullied boys to protect people from them, only for it to do nothing because the high-status Chads and Stacies turn into abusers after growing up having bullied weaker people their entire lives:Bullying perpetration was positively associated with anger at all levels of bullying victimization and with social status when there was no or low amounts of victimization; it was negatively associated with social status at high levels of victimization.
@anandkonda @Regenerator @Mortis @Gendocel @VintageCarCoper @ItsovERfucks @Kina Hikikomori @Mecoja @prajeet88 @GeckoBus @DarkStar @sultryloser @Stupid Clown @Sloth Vs Kanga @weaselbomber @reveries @Epedaphic @KING NOTHING @Incline @Anarcho Nihilist @Nordicel94 @fatass30000 @Chudpreet @Left4DeadKoala @based_meme @Subhuman Trucel @LeFrenchCel @Da_Yunez @Grodd @The Scarlet Prince