what is an intellectual bully?

[peaccenicked]

Self Defeating Styles of Anger - Part I
by The "Stress Doc"--Mark Gorkin, LICSW



3. Intellectual Intimidation. "Oh, you don't really believe that, do you?" "What's wrong with you?" "You should have done it this way." "You are so disappointing to me!" (Restrain me, please.) Know any one who is into "acc-you-sations"? Are you a "blameaholic"? The intellectual bully's techniques range from finely judgmental observations to condescending characterizations. Probably a graduate from "The Institute for the Compassion-Impaired." There's a competitive edge to the aggressor that's often a cover for self-doubt or a win-lose, dominant-submissive survival strategy. As I once penned:
When battling for position you won't stop 'Cause you know your place -- you're always on top!

"Competition vs. Compassion" reminds me of a "dueling egos" exchange with my younger brother -- a research psychologist, not a therapist. One day, I was telling Larry about some difficult work I had done with a family, some family interventions that I thought were both creative and effective. Upon hearing my description, my brother piped in, "You should have said such and such to the father." I was struck by the witty but pretty insensitive suggestion, and grimaced. Seeing my expression my brother quickly pounced, "What's the matter, you afraid the father would punch you out?" At this point I counter punched. "No, I have a higher standard of plagiarism!" (Definitely a graduate of that Compassion-Impaired Institute. Just kidding, lil' bro.)

[vox]

It's too bad, really, that peacenicked the cowardly Leninist has to resort to starting a new thread everytime he's challenged, rather than replying proper.

Better yet? He just quotes someone else. peacenicked, I think, doesn't know much, but he sure picked up on how to EVADE like a capitalist.

vox (is truly and heartily laughing at peacenicked)

[peaccenicked]

It is a pity you are such an arrogant fool.
You might learn that your intimidating methods are
laughable.
Anyone with an adult mind can see that you are disturbed person with a schoolboyish flair for
pissing about with personal abuse.

[vox]

So why don't you answer me in the other thread, peacenicked? Are you incapable of doing that?

Must you start a new thread? One might suggest that you wish to decontextualize the argument by constantly starting new threads that should properly be answered in old threads and, thereby, insulating yourself.

I won't, of course, abide by it.

Call me any name you wish. The fact remains that, while you call me names and do that only, I call you names and also answer your objections.

I just know more than you, peacenicked.

vox

[peaccenicked]

All this nonsense about threads.
I am raising different subjects when you divert the debate away from its course by your pissing around, and avoidance of the real issues.
What on earth, do you think you are some condescending saviour.
Why do I threaten you so much that you have to resort to personal abuse.
If you want to stop insulting me on this level.
You might find me me not attacking you as an abuser on a personal level.
You have made no argument that logically ties democratic centralism to the suppression of dissent.
You are fabricating your position out of a utterly false reading of mine.
I do not advocate supression of dissent
Ideological unity is a goal not a posited fact to impose.
Material structure is the mode of organising disagreement with full democratic rights.
There is no demand for ideological obedience
anywhere.
You are clearly a bare faced liar.
You seem to think the revolution will happen without
any organisation.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:50 pm on Mar. 7, 2002)

[vox]

"You have made no argument that logically ties democratic centralism to the suppression of dissent."

I've done nothing but this. Indeed, democratic centralism does not heed the voice of the masses, does it? It claims to act in the best interest of the worker as long as the worker CANNOT BE HEARD.

You seem to wish to invoke your own, personal, "democratic" centralism right here.

vox

[peaccenicked]

'Profile of a Bully
Adult bullies, like their schoolyard counterparts, tend to be insecure people with poor or non-existent social skills and little empathy. They turn this insecurity outwards, finding satisfaction in their ability to attack and diminish the capable people around them.

A workplace bully subjects the target to unjustified criticism and trivial fault-finding. In addition, he or she humiliates the target, especially in front of others, and ignores, overrules, isolates and excludes the target.

Regardless of specific tactics, the intimidation is driven by the bully's need to control others. '

It is not undemocratic to not want to engage in a dialogue with an intimidating bully.

[vox]

"I've done nothing but this. Indeed, democratic centralism does not heed the voice of the masses, does it? It claims to act in the best interest of the worker as long as the worker CANNOT BE HEARD."

No argument has been offered to this. Rather, I've been called an intellectual bully.

Fair enough.

It seems a rather weak argument, however, doesn't it?

I'll state my position in a new thread. This one has gone to the dogs.

vox