Mean Spirited v Bullying

The assumption that one scenario can only occur as a single event, while the other is continuous is unrealistic. Perhaps I worded it wrong, but one has to assume there a climate of either one in equal proportion to measure against.

You mention being "hurt", which is difficult to define, however intimidation and harassment are easier to map and pretty much the same thing. Of course the learning environment should be an open one free from harassment/intimidation, but quite how one or more individuals have the time to waste with such dedicated behaviour, away from learning, is a wider question.

Mistakes are the best way to learn, and the time to make them is in the classroom. However, there seems to be a growing pattern of accusations that constructive criticism is a form of "bullying", or that mean-spirited comments could qualify. The point of interest I have is when the tables turn with an inversion of the definition and the pupil employs the same tactics, but are at fault themselves.

While bullying is a niche form of suppression, by comparison mean-spirited behaviour would be the overriding culture of the environment, which would negate on-topic and insightful interaction to the detriment of the overall learning process.

I think that a mean spirited culture is far more of a learning impediment to focussed bullying, overall. And, crucially, it harder to galvanise mean-spiritedness in the flexible way that "bullying" can be.

I think that you've exemplified my point in your most recent response.

I am unsure of the exact situation you found yourself in, but I am quite sure that it would have been received differently by another: the main variable being the attitude of the recipient which counts most.

Feelings matter, but maintaining a thin skin will simply allow the original situation to repeat itself - scar tissue works differently. There is no nice way to say the truth to someone hell bent on running away from it, but when it becomes an issue for another then it must be confronted at its source.

I get the impression that you have given up too easily on this subject, but I think it merits further investigation, else there is nothing to be gained.

I am not familiar with this concept at all.

The need to precursor a statement as if being issued from a position of weakness results in two things:

1. That the assumption of guilt is assumed over innocence.
2. That the issued opinion has been ill thought out.

Your example of the term "lazy" being used to describe a problem(s) is perfectly legitimate, if back up with the example(s) why. The general term can be used of course, and it is expected that the individual(s) would understand their own culpability in the matter. Used in this fashion it is more of a soul searching imperative, if anything to allow the individual(s) to decide for themselves i.e. responsibility.

I understand that there is advantage to managing events to one's own benefit, or to outright deflect responsibility, but I respect more those of whom soul search to take upon themselves the burden of another, if they can see their failings. Most in my experience self-select, the no-nonsense attitude of the private sector is renowned for that, and stronger for it. But where does it recruit from if the education system is stuck in the public sector, and that is perhaps why so much success comes so easily to those from a private educational background ?

A positive attitude is everything, being robust and understanding failure is key to success.

I disagree, any in their right mind would take being called say 'lazy' as rude, in no way is that constructive criticism (just an example).

Bullying involves a power imbalance and is often a repeated action against one target; interacting with someone who is mean spirited usually doesn’t meet that criteria

I could easily imagine a scenario when lazy could be used as constructive criticism - the pupil who isn't doing his work repeatedly, the winger who isn't tracking back to help her defence. Context and specifics always matter.