I think "bully" is actually overblown for someone typing mean words into a comment field.
The tendency for people to get super aggressive over minor divergences from accepted tribal orthodoxies is... baffling and appalling. It should be addressed from within their own in-groups as the rude, antisocial, and, most importantly, ineffective behavior it is.
Partisan duckspeak does not reinforce the ingroup, does not educate or enlighten the outgroup, and ultimately does little but waste time.
If we were just talking mere personal attacks or incivility I'd agree, but we're talking about getting people cut off from their support networks, their livelihoods, etc. That goes a lot farther than reading some unpleasant words on a screen. If you can't escape it by turning the screen off, we're talking about something much more serious and harmful.
> cut off from their support networks, their livelihoods, etc.
Yeah, but that's all legal, and those doing the cutting are doing so voluntarily. That's freedom of association working as intended.
To me, to cross into "bullying", someone has to do something beyond their rights. Saying that someone is bad for having certain opinions is in-bounds, even if you say it loudly to a lot of people. You're within your own rights to express an opinion of disgust.
You ultimately aren't forcing anyone to do anything, and thus aren't "cutting off" anything.
Consider that broadcasting the crimes someone was arrested for has a similar negative impact, and is seldom remedied by acquittal. Similarly, consider how this blasé attitude works when incorrect accusations are getting thrown around.
If you weaponize social networks against someone, you don't get to stand back, wash your hands of the matter and shrug with "freedom of association" as if it's some force of nature where you had nothing to do with what happens next. You lit the fuse or helped burn it.
You can't "weaponize" social networks, as they are comprised of living, thinking human beings each with their own agency and decisionmaking ability. They're not passive objects.
The fact that laws on things like libel and slander and blackmail exist means that the legal system has recognized that living, thinking human beings with agency still react in certain harmful ways when told certain things. "Agency" is not an escape hatch from the responsibility of understanding the reasonably predictable consequences of your actions.
Libel and slander are, at least in most of the USA, largely a civil matter, and aren't actually illegal, FWIW. The twenty-odd states that do have laws on the books about it don't frequently enforce, and it's usually just a misdemeanor. The civil liability is what keeps most large public lies in check.
We aren't talking about lies, though, we are talking about negative opinions, which aren't lies and thus aren't slander or libel.
Spreading your own negative opinions about someone or someone's actions is not illegal.
The tendency for people to get super aggressive over minor divergences from accepted tribal orthodoxies is... baffling and appalling. It should be addressed from within their own in-groups as the rude, antisocial, and, most importantly, ineffective behavior it is.
Partisan duckspeak does not reinforce the ingroup, does not educate or enlighten the outgroup, and ultimately does little but waste time.