Why is bullying frowned upon if it socially weeds out the weak and strengthens social cohesion? Why does science see it as a good but society sees it as a bad?

It's bad, but necessary like chicken pox

>>16719359 (OP)
Since the masses are controllable through their hedonism, (good emotions are most important to them), we can not tell them that bullying is actually good.
Bullying gives negative feelings and that is cruel which we want them all to think is bad.
waking them up on this issue undermines the control over the masses and is therefore not feasible.

In other words, they have to believe bullying is bad.
So it becomes impossible to announce that you think bullying is good. as it will inspire resistance.

The solution is to provide all circumstances that allow for bullying to take place while simultaneously announcing that bullying needs to stop.

>>16719382
>Bullying gives negative feelings
Only to the ones being bullied. Bullies generally think it's very fun to bully somebody.
I don't think your explanation works because victims of bullying are often just different from others and usually are bullied merely for that.
>>16719359 (OP)
> weeds out the weak and strengthens social cohesion
>strengthens social cohesion
How? I really want to know how you view it. Possibly we have different understanding of bullying.

>>16719382
>>16719365
>>16719359 (OP)
It's only good when it weeds out the degenerates, teaching them that their behavior is gross and sending the message to the rest of the tribe that this will be your fate if you go down the same route. Bullying is an advanced form of natural selection.

The problem with bullying is that it is primitive. And like all primitive selection methods, it is inefficient and leaves room for error. Kids don't think on why they bully The Weird Kid or what that will evolve into. If they're bullying a faggot or a tranny then that's good, as it can send the message to the rest of the tribe on an instinctual level not to engage in this degeneracy or there will be consequences. Unfortunately while bullying can send a message of fear, it doesn't really cure the root issue. It's a quick fix that will suppress a problem but let that problem fester for years until it becomes overwhelming. When something is suppressed it's only a matter of time before it explodes in one way or another.

Besides this alot of good kids who are not doing anything degenerate but might just be seen as "strange" can get caught up in bullying. Smart kids tend to have a harder time finding their kin, and they are more vulnerable to bullying, which forces their brains to develop around survival rather than developing around scholarly pursuits. The real tragedy is when a smart young scholar with potential for greatness has that potential beaten out of them because their brain is in too hostile of an environment to develop any erudite skills that would actually help society in the long run.

Bullying is only good for peasant children, i.e. midwits. They only think like animals and so they need to be controlled like animals. But kids of higher birth who are better evolved can't be in that type of environment or we'll never get anywhere.

>>16719359 (OP)
Even disregarding the practical flaws with this idea, it uses a materialistic biological argument that doesn't match up with the experiential nature of the issue. Human beings have consciousness and should interact with each other on that basis. We're not merely organisms, economic units or ragdolls. Any reasonable person can see that love and peace is a superior form of life to brutal darwinism. The "pleasure" of the bully is fundamentally aggressive, deleterious and impure and he shares the same kind of feeling with rapists and torturers.

>bullying damages both the negative and positive aspects of the victim in ways the bully can't accurately control; do you want to bomb a city indiscriminately too?
>you can't trust bullies to choose the right targets and use the right degree of severity; do you want to replace the police with disorganized vigilantism?
>even if you yourself are very sure a certain trait in the victim is dysgenic, it's still up for debate like anything else; healthy uncertainty isn't important to science and math?

Woke cancel mobs are the biggest bullies out there. Are they your vision of strength and the future of humanity? You think their mobs are desirable "social cohesion"?

>>16719359 (OP)
Why are school shootings frowned upon if they socially weed out the weak and strengthen social cohesion? Why does nature see it as good but society sees it as bad?

Do you think a high iq chad with a good moral compass and happy family life would bully someone irl?

>>16719359 (OP)
>weeds out the weak and strengthens social cohesion
No such thing as weak all you need is a weapon.

>>16719359 (OP)
Bullying is a corrective action from society to adhere to the norm. The norm is subjective, changing, and appropriate to the society in a specific period of time. The mechanism for bullying is also dependent on the society and time period.
Wife cheats on you:
>200BC - stoning
>1000 - light violence
>1900 - socially ostracized
>2025 - public shame

You are posing bullying in the viewpoint of a 1950's society of fist fighting and direct confrontation, which today's society views as bad. Bullying still exists and is accepted, just not the type you are describing specifically.

pic related - appropriate bullying in the present. The job market is shit because of the actions of HR roasties that use AI resume filters instead of actually getting the appropriate people hired for the company that needs the help. A meme is generated, spread around to make fun of HR roasties, and some may correct themselves if bullied appropriately. Or better, the actual company manager sees this and realizes the damage and fires their HR team. Society sees this as harmless bullying of a group not adhering to a norm.

>>16719359 (OP)
Because that’s not how it works in practice 90% of the time and anyone who’s had any experience with it whatsoever can tell you so. Yes, light bullying and teasing over things like dressing poorly or having poor hygiene are beneficial for social cohesion but that’s not what people mean when they talk about bullying the vast majority of the time. Bullies target kids for being gay or fat or ugly, traits which have no inherent negative social consequences. Kids are stupid and what the allowance of bullying amounts to is letting the dumbest, biggest kids of whatever age determine the childhood foundations of the social values of their peer group for the rest of their lives. If you spend your entire childhood making fun of ugly people or being made fun of for being ugly it doesn’t just magically go away when you turn 18. You carry deep seated resentments and or prejudices about the world all because some retard you knew had a brain fart 10 years ago. If there weren’t institutions and cultures in place to counteract this then we would just return to tribalism.

>>16720197
but there aren't though. Nowadays bullies don't get punished for anything because people are taught it's wrong to stand up for yourself. Even telling on bullies does jack all at best and makes you a snitch to get picked on more at worst.

I agree with your summary, but we've already more or less devolved to social tribalism in every way that makes a difference: Sure most bullying isn't physical nowadays, but it happens in more subtle ways that destroy young minds slowly over long periods of time. It's honestly worse in many ways. It's social savagery.

>>16720197

>If there weren’t institutions and cultures in place to counteract this then we would just return to tribalism.

but there aren't though. Nowadays bullies don't get punished for anything because people are taught it's wrong to stand up for yourself. Even telling on bullies does jack all at best and makes you a snitch to get picked on more at worst.

I agree with your summary, but we've already more or less devolved to social tribalism in every way that makes a difference: Sure most bullying isn't physical nowadays, but it happens in more subtle ways that destroy young minds slowly over long periods of time. It's honestly worse in many ways. It's social savagery.

>>16719359 (OP)
Because society is the literal exact opposite of natural selection. We form societies to AVOID being at the mercy of nature, biology, and might makes right

>>16719359 (OP)
Why is school shooting frowned upon if it weeds out violent low iq people and strengthens social cohesion?

>>16719556
those are what happens when you don‘t bully people enough

>>16720347
school shootings are a natural consequence of not weeding out those that should be weeded out well enough for too long
thats what happens when people have kids that should never have been parents (bullying is a form of sexual selection because it is less likely for bullied people to be able to participate in society in a way that leads to successful pairing and breeding) plus bullying being so controlled and suppressed that it does not lead to the total destruction of the dangerous and faulty person
it is an instinct meant to kill or expel the danger to the group, make it so that it can never enter again and never reproduce but we artificially keep those cancerous growths in the system

>>16720148
You were looking at the wrong frame of reference when you viewed the situation. The HR woman's job is to reject domestic talent in order to justify importing cheap third world labor. No amount of bullying her will change that because she didn't design the system. She's a cog. Might as well go bully a street sign because you don't like that a politician was bribed by parking lot owners to make street parking illegal.

>>16719359 (OP)
School shootings are a tax people pay for allowing bullying among their children. Pretty legit to me.