Edit: Just to re-iterate again, he has good intentions, there's no denying that but I don't see it working and don't think he's thought it through very well.
Just to reiterate - I don't think you've read the OP, the article or the blog.
He's also stopping them from describing genuine banter as banter. Whatever word the kids will now have to use to describe actual banter will now become the word they use to excuse bullying.
It's all rather pointless although I do commend his intentions.
To be fair on him
"I'm not being draconian about the 'ban'. I just call kids on their use of the term
It does not appear to be a complete ban on the word more of a ban on it being used as an excuse for bullying, it sounds like he pulls them up on it when it appears to be bullying as opposed to good humoured banter and does not allow them to write bullying off as banter.
I got this wrong, I didn't in fact read everything.
I read the headline, and the first couple of paragraphs quoted in the OP where I would expect a good summary of the general gist of what is happening. Upon reading it further I see there is a lot more to it than that and that it's not really a ban at all. Part of me wants to blame the miselading opening to the article although I should have read it in full too.
I now see than rather than it being a ban it's simply him teaching the children that there is a difference between banter and bullying, and that he's making a point of letting the children know that differrence. I can get behind that.
Yes, Fists of Fedor, I do find that posting style of yours annoying. I can't speak for everyone of course. I find it easier to read a person's repsonse if it's all in one block. By that, I don't mean one paragraph, just all the parts written by the same person all together.
The headline is a bit misleading but then it is a newspaper story/article, so I suppose their wanting people to be intrigued by it to read the article.
I
Yes, Fists of Fedor, I do find that posting style of yours annoying.
That is a shame for you.
I can't speak for everyone of course.
Why would you be and what difference would it make if you were?
I find it easier to read a person's repsonse if it's all in one block. By that, I don't mean one paragraph, just all the parts written by the same person all together.
And I find it easier to make sure that each and every point of contention is addressed individually. Now I'm sure that you'll like to move on from discussion of my posting style and any claims that it is "annoying". It's not important and adds nothing to the discussion at hand.
Why would you be and what difference would it make if you were?
And I find it easier to make sure that each and every point of contention is addressed individually. Now I'm sure that you'll like to move on from discussion of my posting style and any claims that it is "annoying". It's not important and adds nothing to the discussion at hand.
I was just putting it out there as an aside.
I wouldn't be speaking for everyone. It's just that when I mentioned it I said it was annoying. I realised that could come across as me stating that as fact when it is only my opinion so I felt that I should clarify that I'm only speaking for myself when I said it.
Why are you sure that you know what I want to do? I am done though as it happens.
Repeatedly it appears. So much so that you go back to edit your posts to comment on my posting style, if my eyes didn't deceive me in the first place.
I wouldn't be speaking for everyone. It's just that when I mentioned it I said "it was annoying". I realised that could come across as me stating that as fact when it is only my opinion so I felt that I should clarify that I'm only speaking for myself when I said it.
Of course subjective opinions can not be considered fact, unless the fact is you actually had that opinion. I'm surprised that you think that I would think you would be speaking, or claiming to speak for everyone.
Why are you sure that you know what I want to do? I am done though.
Because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you'd rather "I'd hope that you are rational and reasonable individual to not drag a thread of topic with your repeated off topic comments about my posting style, which could be considered non constructive and indeed pointless"- let me know.
Why would you be and what difference would it make if you were?
And I find it easier to make sure that each and every point of contention is addressed individually. Now I'm sure that you'll like to move on from discussion of my posting style and any claims that it is "annoying". It's not important and adds nothing to the discussion at hand.
I wish there were more teachers like him that took bullying seriously. Banter is a two way thing, when it's only going in one direction it is bullying.
I'm so fed up with bullying little shits. If I had my way I'd build a big school and send all the horrible kids there to bully each other to their hearts content leaving kids like my son to go to school to be educated in peace.
The kids of the future are going to end up a bunch of fannies.
And single.
When I used to frequent dating websites, almost every females' profile demanded you were good at banter.
Because that's different, they weren't - presumably - seeking men who bully people and then say 'aww, but it's only banter' but people who are humorous, smart, quick-witted, able to banter, if you get my drift.
He's not banning banter, he's banning people excusing their bullying as just banter, he's making them accountable for what they do and say and how they behave towards others.
In my "social circle" banter is prevalent and acceptable but we know our boundaries as good friends.
I have though, in other gatherings, heard inappropriate and offensive digs made by people who, when challenged, invariably resort to excuse themselves with "Oh, FGS, it's just banter, get a sense of humour".
That's when banter becomes mild bullying.
Are they bullying or just determining their place in human dominance hierarchy as demonstrated in the behaviour of other members of the animal kingdom.
Dominance hierarchy arises when members of a social group interact, often aggressively, to create a ranking system. In social living groups, members are likely to compete for access to limited resources and mating opportunities. Rather than fight each time they meet, relative relationships are formed between members of the same sex. These repetitive interactions lead to the creation of a social order that is subject to change each time a dominant animal is challenged by a subordinate one.
...
Although mating opportunities are not likely to arise until they reach secondary school. ;-)
Do you think this is going too far or do you think this is fair?. I'd say fair enough, if its (as implied in the article) a case of making kids think about the impact of the term, although its not really the term itself thats the problem but whatever it was that they label as being said 'banter'. I didn't really look at it in the past as specficially legitimising bullying but I can see where their coming from. I tended to think of the term as meaning that your having a bit of a laugh, messing about with a mate, not necessarily being offensive, just talking about unimportant stuff, being a bit silly or what-not.
banter is between equals like an American mentioning they won the war of independence while the Brit mentions that have they got their runners up medal for the Vietnam war yet and finished the repairs to the whitehouse after the last time we visited?
At least this teacher is try to help more than most do
Thing is words can never be banned, even offensive ones, I find it laughable an Aussie trying to ban the word banter, his homeland is infamous for sexixism, racism, bullying and banter.
Thing is words can never be banned, even offensive ones, I find it laughable an Aussie trying to ban the word banter, his homeland is infamous for sexixism, racism, bullying and banter.
Doesn't mean to say they should just ignore bullying and at least he's trying to help bullied students maybe if more tried it would lead to less suicides ect
Comments
Just to reiterate - I don't think you've read the OP, the article or the blog.
To be fair on him
"I'm not being draconian about the 'ban'. I just call kids on their use of the term
It does not appear to be a complete ban on the word more of a ban on it being used as an excuse for bullying, it sounds like he pulls them up on it when it appears to be bullying as opposed to good humoured banter and does not allow them to write bullying off as banter.
I read the headline, and the first couple of paragraphs quoted in the OP where I would expect a good summary of the general gist of what is happening. Upon reading it further I see there is a lot more to it than that and that it's not really a ban at all. Part of me wants to blame the miselading opening to the article although I should have read it in full too.
I now see than rather than it being a ban it's simply him teaching the children that there is a difference between banter and bullying, and that he's making a point of letting the children know that differrence. I can get behind that.
Yes, Fists of Fedor, I do find that posting style of yours annoying. I can't speak for everyone of course. I find it easier to read a person's repsonse if it's all in one block. By that, I don't mean one paragraph, just all the parts written by the same person all together.
That is a shame for you.
Why would you be and what difference would it make if you were?
And I find it easier to make sure that each and every point of contention is addressed individually. Now I'm sure that you'll like to move on from discussion of my posting style and any claims that it is "annoying". It's not important and adds nothing to the discussion at hand.
I was just putting it out there as an aside.
I wouldn't be speaking for everyone. It's just that when I mentioned it I said it was annoying. I realised that could come across as me stating that as fact when it is only my opinion so I felt that I should clarify that I'm only speaking for myself when I said it.
Why are you sure that you know what I want to do?
Repeatedly it appears. So much so that you go back to edit your posts to comment on my posting style, if my eyes didn't deceive me in the first place.
Because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you'd rather "I'd hope that you are rational and reasonable individual to not drag a thread of topic with your repeated off topic comments about my posting style, which could be considered non constructive and indeed pointless"- let me know.
It is annoying though.
I'm so fed up with bullying little shits. If I had my way I'd build a big school and send all the horrible kids there to bully each other to their hearts content leaving kids like my son to go to school to be educated in peace.
Very interesting. Didn't think of that.
He's not banning banter, he's banning people excusing their bullying as just banter, he's making them accountable for what they do and say and how they behave towards others.
I have though, in other gatherings, heard inappropriate and offensive digs made by people who, when challenged, invariably resort to excuse themselves with "Oh, FGS, it's just banter, get a sense of humour".
That's when banter becomes mild bullying.
Although mating opportunities are not likely to arise until they reach secondary school. ;-)
Two words, Massive Bellend.
Most bullies are.
At least this teacher is try to help more than most do
I don't think I've ever read a multi quoted post. My mind clocks one says TLDR and I scroll on by
Thing is words can never be banned, even offensive ones, I find it laughable an Aussie trying to ban the word banter, his homeland is infamous for sexixism, racism, bullying and banter.
Another one who has not read the OP, the article or the Blog it appears.
The irony.
Doesn't mean to say they should just ignore bullying and at least he's trying to help bullied students maybe if more tried it would lead to less suicides ect
Hopefully they won't have to resort to dating websites.