You and onli are talking about different situations.

At the low end of the spectrum, onli's advice is correct. At that end, trying to call in authorities is useless and fighting back is highly effective; even if you lose the fight, it'll probably convince the bully that picking on you is more trouble than it's worth.

Further up the spectrum where the power disparity is too extreme or the level of violence is life-threatening, yes, fighting back becomes less of a good strategy - it's still better than just sitting there and taking it, but better still is, as you say, seeking backup - and if that fails, leave the situation permanently.

As long as one of the bullies is sufficiently bloody, maimed, or dead, you'll have accomplished your purpose.

Plus you can chose when to retaliate, every member of a group bullying you can't be with overwhelming numbers all the time, especially at their home and the like.

I too was "different", brilliant, and bullied to more than a small degree early on into junior high (8th grade) ... but I had over the years, starting in elementary school, established a reputation that while I was a generally very nice and good guy, if you crossed various lines there was absolutely no limit to what I'd do to retaliate (note, with a continuum of force, just no upper limit to it). Oh, yeah, I started learning how to shoot in 1st grade, and was very good at it, although I'm not sure if that was clear to others until high school when I was on the rifle team (I certainly never made threats, especially of that nature).

The key, of course, is deterrence. Perhaps it's a Southern (USA) thing; I grew up in a culturally Southern area, one parent raised in it, another from the Deep South, although a skewed version of it, Louisiana and Cajun (French settlers who were forced to leave "Arcadia", a formerly French part of Canada). So unlike this victim, once a line was crossed, I did care about getting my adversaries hurt, that was the objective after all. Let it be cost free and you can see what happens.

Strange anecdote: one day when I was a senior it did come very very close to serious violence, the closest ever, but the adversary ran into a closed off for that period area where teachers were. His complaints that I was armed with a dog choker chain around my right fist fell on deaf ears as I silently and casually put it in my pocket.

I was later told by a school authority that the school would have done nothing to me if I'd beaten him up (!). Back then, at least (1979), I guess it made a difference having a perfect record of good behavior and being college track etc., vs. being a notorious trouble maker and not so bright (come to think of it, pretty much all the other bullies had given up by then).

If you can't bring yourself to retaliate, and it's clear to your adversaries ... don't know what to say or advise. But that you'll lose big time, as this victim did.

> As long as one of the bullies is sufficiently bloody, maimed, or dead, you'll have accomplished your purpose.

Unless it's you who ends up bloody, maimed, or dead, which I submit is the more likely outcome when faced with multiple bullies who are not all stupid and can lay ambushes for you as easily as you for them.

> I had [...], established a reputation that [..] if you crossed various lines there was absolutely no limit to what I'd do to retaliate (note, with a continuum of force, just no upper limit to it).

You got lucky that you never went up against someone with the same philosophy. A continuous escalation of violence is something you need to avoid at all costs.

Retalitate, sure, but not using violence, at least unless you have exhausted all other options. And kids suck at judging whether they have, because they misjudge risks and will e.g. consider reporting to the police and being judged a sissy a greater risk than entering a violent confrontation that could leave them permanently disabled.

"A continuous escalation of violence is something you need to avoid at all costs."

Absolutely, and my continuum didn't have all that many points.

E.g. while I never faced a multiple bully situation as you described above (the one in college wasn't of that nature), if the first exchange went as you posit, if and when I recovered from the ambush, I'd have "gone nuclear". In my case, methodically shot them dead from distance until inevitably stopped (if I didn't have those skills and weapons availability, command detonated IEDs).

Each level must be met 10 fold at bare minimum, e.g. the 50th time a stocking cap is stolen, push the bully into busy moving traffic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7646592

Or just "get the hell out of town" one way or another; for more than a few respondents in this discussion that would have been the best option. E.g. if a credible threat of death is not something that fazes them, it's not much of a threat....

"As long as one of the bullies is sufficiently bloody, maimed, or dead, you'll have accomplished your purpose."

Life is not Ender's Game. If you kill another kid, you might get taken out of your current environment, but it will be to prison: full of many more aggressive people, callous power figures, and an inability to be safe even in the shower.

Actually, that sounds exactly like Ender's Game.

That's why I emphasized the deterrence factor. If you have to go beyond the occasional punch of a bully, you've already failed.

Also, "kids" are not to my knowledge generally put into such situations in "prison", although I'm sure it does happen.

And, yeah, I do identify with Ender quite a bit.

I think what people are missing is it's the mindset of "willing to defend one's self, no matter the cost" that deters most people from messing with you. I was raised in the rural south and was brought up with the thought process "If they're bigger than you, get an equalizer." I was an openly nerdy loner, but I was not bullied, and only had to throw a couple of punches, generally to people outside my class who didn't know me and quickly backed off.

I find this mindset has served me well in adult life as well. Funny story, a few days ago I was at a dinner party and someone jokingly threatened me with a case knife. I immediately drew my knife and fork into "combat positions" without even thinking, which drew a "just kidding man" response and respect for the rest of the night.

Some people think they can act like we live in a totally "civil society" in some sort of "pretend you're in the world you dream of" practice, but it ignores the reality that there are bad actors in this world that will take advantage of that. Some times you just have to stand up for yourself, legally of course.

Could be. But I know I'm a much happier person.

> YOU will most likely end up being suspended and arrested

Note that I'm not in the USA. That consequence doesn't exist in my country, not if you are provoked.

And note that I agree. Allies and Authorities are a good mean of fighting back.

> That consequence doesn't exist in my country, not if you are provoked.

Oh, but there are 5 well-respected pupils who all say that you started that fight without provocation.

The problem is that you get removed from school and given a label of "potentially violent" which will follow you around for a while.

Some countries will prosecute youths involved in violence. Even if prosecution is avoided there might be something like the English "caution" where the person accepts their guilt and accepts a caution (which is kept on record) in order to avoid prosecution. This could also follow you around. Being arrested could make travel to another country tricky.

Finally, beating one or two bullies might not be sufficient. If there is a group of people around you could end up very badly beaten, perhaps hospitalised, and potentially even dead.

Valid point. It make me think that perhaps sousveillance isn't a bad idea.