What literature explains why bullying should be discouraged and not encouraged to weed out the inherently...

do you really think that only small percentage of people have anxiety and depression?

What do you say to the fact that there is a visible trend of higher depression and anxiety rates in whites and those of higher IQ?

Aren't there very few people without one psychological issue or another? Your proposal would lead to a very small population.

Modern day European men are indeed weak compared to those of other societies, is this what you mean to imply?
No large portions of the population of all developed countries are on prescription medication for psychological problems, its an epidemic. Men are weak.
Only psychological problems which directly conflict with masculine traits or are extremely debilitating. Its easy enough to sort between them, garden variety dissatisfaction, dread, sociopaths etc would be ignored, debilitating anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and clinical depression wouldn't.

>is this what you mean to imply
No, I mean to imply that there seems to be a limit to useful intelligence, and those who cross it are much more likely to get depression and anxiety. Truncating off the most intelligent individuals wouldn't be very good for your eugenics plan.

Is it too much to ask for those who influence society the most, borrow it from their children and shape it shouldn't have a basic standard of mental stability?

Why shouldn't males who are weak be punished for their inferiority (mainly psychological predispositions) and learn how much they fail as men? Only then will weak men in society be taken out of the gene pool, learn their place and only then will come good times. This is all corrective behavior to strengthen society.
Mental resilience is the main thing. Getting your test levels up and proper nutrition from an early age etc this all helps of course, but if you're inherently psychologically weak and predisposed to things such as neuroticism, anxiety, submissiveness, lack traits to deal with others, it doesn't matter physically healthy others will always find a way to psychologically abuse you if you are inherently weak at your core.

Males become more resilient through experiencing hardship and struggling against adversity, if those who display signs of weakness are targeted they will either rise to the challenge and develop a mental and emotional resilience to what is being done to them during their developing years and do whatever they're allowed to do psychologically to their abusers or even their weaker peers or they will fold and develop debilitating mental illnesses or other psychological traits that prevent them from ever reproducing or leading a successful life to influence others. It can be a combination of both sure but the main principle being enforced still stands. Institutions of learning are the building blocks of society so these are good lessons to teach young males and why being weak as a man is bad.
This is why men in society are weak today, the institutions encourage males to be docile, conformist and to be tolerant like these are essential qualities for males to have, they aren't even told how much they're failing if they go along with this unless they have guidance from a father figure or discern things easily. Too many men in society are becoming weak. Thanks to a zero tolerance policy the valuable lesson here isn't taught, there is no trial by fire, there is no rite of passage into manhood. Those who could be strong are allowed and even encouraged to grow weak, much of the truly strong are inhibited because there is no real challenge created by these institutions other than to conform.

Why shouldn't males be tempered and hardened from an early age, separating the wheat from the chaff to guide the following generations, crippling those who would've been poor fathers and taking them out of the gene pool?
Why shouldn't it be done psychologically and why shouldn't it mainly be a prolonged test over the entirety of their developing years, a test of willpower and mental resilience?

Could you quote the part of this pasta that is a direct response to what I said? I'm too lazy this morning to read pseud stuff

Just the first sentence, but the rest applies

Cringe

>Is it too much to ask for those who influence society the most, borrow it from their children and shape it shouldn't have a basic standard of mental stability?
No, it's not. But that's a long shot from saying it should be okay to convince/force people to not reproduce because of a "mental illness."
Is it too much to ask to look at the mental health afflictions striking in higher numbers today as a natural result of man - a creature adapted to scarcity and the harshness of the animal kingdom - to find himself feeling scared and confused when there is no scarcity and nothing to run from?

Bullying should be encouraged to weed out weak people etc., or it shouldn't be discouraged for the rest to make sense bruh

Bergson explained why bullying exist and it's utility.
He basically said that bullying occur when somebody behave antisocialy so other people start the "bullying" to try to make the person in question adopt a more sociable behaviour.
In reality if your were bullied you should feel grateful because the people who did it in a way cared about you and wanted you to behave in way that's more congruent to your social norms.

>bullying discourages antisocial behaviour
>people who get heavily bullied shoot up the school in which they were bullied
Really works wonders getting rid of their antisocial tendencies
And besides even if that was right the only utility bullying would have is making everyone totally lowest common denominator, it would allow societies current problems to feed back into itself

All this toughness stuff is dumb. It’s not like we are getting invaded from the tribe in the next valley. We are rotting from the inside out.

Look I'm into eugenics but this is a retard version of eugenics

bullying is mean

itt: bullied kids

>What literature explains why bullying should be discouraged and not encouraged to weed out the inherently psychologically weak and debilitate them as much as possible so they don't reproduce in later life?
None Because the second is clearly the best option.

bullying is torture. Of course it should be discouraged.

>people who get heavily bullied shoot up the school in which they were bullied
Was this supposed causality link ever proven?

>What literature explains why bullying should be discouraged
Took out "What" and that's the answer

You aren’t one of those faggots who think they’re caused by availability of firearms and not mental health are you?

I think that it is mental health of course but I don't see any link with bullying

Systematic bullying can only happen when there's an injunction on self defense. Otherwise one or two confrontations usually lead to the bully dying due to how much intelligence matters in a fight to the death.

midwit

bullying is acceptable by God because someone must bully the bullies, so he gave man literature, and with the stroke of his pen and for all time immemorial people may sit down and laugh at your wretched and miserable life in the best prose imaginable

Your primary assumption is that bullied people are picked because they are weaker than other members of the group, which is quite far from truth. And even if probability that bullied person is significantly weaker is quite high, amount of weak persons among other members of group can still be higher. So your following reasoning is compromised. It's also laughable that you argue against conformism in men, while bullying is one of the most conformist practices ever.
Though, I can agree that all males should face adversaries at some point of their way to manhood. In traditional societies it was institutionalized as initiation.

This