Thursday, August 22, 2013

Chicken Soup with Izzy Kalman...yet again...

Izzy Kalman is at it again.

His latest criticism of anti-bullying laws published over at Head Shrinkers Monthly (from which I am banned from expressing an opinion by the way) is basically the same badly flawed argument he's been making for years. He's once again arguing that anti-bullying laws increase rather than decrease bullying, possibly because he's confusing an increase in the willingness of victims to complain with an increase in bullying. That's as flawed as equating an increase in the willingness of rape victims to file criminal charges with an increase in the commission of the crime. It's a common misconception, but his readers should expect more from a guy with a masters degree in psychology.

Let's begin with a few basics about human behavior, a subject that Izzy Kalman should be somewhat familiar with.

Laws that are widely perceived as necessary are reasonably effective when enforced. No one argues that burglary increases when victims file complaints with the police and even Izzy Kalman isn't dumb enough to promote a Burglars2Buddies program. Anti-burglary laws are effective because the public does not look upon burglary as a right of passage or some other legitimate activity. Burglars are considered to be criminals...period.

Anti-bullying laws are difficult to enforce effectively because the public is extremely bigoted toward low status individuals. Americans envy, admire, and fantasize about the sort of cocky, belligerent sociopaths who enjoy hurting others, and absolutely despise kids who are physically weak, unaggressive, non-athletic, lacking in social skills, or otherwise different or non-conformist. Americans shamelessly enable bullies and don't give a damn about victims.

And don't let the fact that we elected a black guy to be our President fool you. Bigotry is still alive and well in America. Only the demographics have changed. If the jocks of Columbine concentrated their attention on black students, they would have been expelled and probably subject to criminal charges. But since they primarily bullied students who were simply low status, their criminal behavior was and still is considered to be normal and acceptable.

There was a lot of noise in the media about the claim that one of the Columbine killers referred to one of the victims as a nigger, yet when a high status student sunk a basket in gym class and screamed, "another Jew in the oven," it attracted relatively little attention. In the eyes of the good Christian citizens of Littleton, bigotry is charming, clever, and riotously funny when displayed by a genetically superior member of the gridiron elite but absolutely unforgivable when displayed by a student of relatively low social status.

The American public's tolerance for bigotry obviously varies with the status of the bigot.

Izzy Kalman is correct about one thing. Anti-bullying laws alone will not solve America's bullying problem. Our culture needs to change and Izzy Kalman could inspire some of that needed change if he chose to do so. If you don't like men who want to emulate the behavior of Eric Harris, Timothy McVeigh, and Adam Lanza, then stop creating them. Think of, speak of, and treat bullies as you would treat any other bigot. When you hear someone refer to a victim of bullying as a faggot, pussy, or wimp, just imagine someone in a white sheet referring to someone as a kike, spic, or nigger and you'll have a very accurate assessment of their character and the sort of values taught to them by their family and community.

Perhaps Izzy could add his two cents worth here.


  1. I don't think that Izzy is going to contribute to that change because I can see right through his well-meaning facade. Deep down inside, he's just as mala (bad) as the bullies who he supports.

    Oh sure, Izzy appears to be a well-meaning guy. But if you look past that appearance of his and see what's underneath his well-intentioned exterior, you'll find what a sleazy, conniving, and ruthless sociopath he is.

    Because of Izzy's antagonism and brainwashing is suggested that you turn to Senor Ben Leichtling instead. He's much better at teaching people on how to deal with bullies than Izzy is.

    Remember when Izzy banned you? That goes to show what a cowardly and insecure bigot he is.

    I remember there were two blog websites that complained Izzy. But unfortunately for me and his other haters, they're gone.

    I'm guessing that Izzy reported those blogs because he couldn't stand its makers criticizing him. And that proves how intolerant, hypocritical, and antagonistic. As far as I'm concerned, I don't believe that he practices what he preaches.

    Maybe if Izzy tried his techniques on victimized grown-ups in the outside world, those people might get end up with nothing in their lives or killed.

    Can you believe that Izzy's against self-defense? How horrible that is. If he's so against it, then he shouldn't try and defend himself if I kick his culo.

    Anyway, that's all I can tell you for now. Hopefully, I'll find some websites that criticize la idiota who's known as Izzy.


  2. I don't expect him to actually address the problem of bullying. I expect him to continue counseling victims to stop making the bullies angry with them.

    1. Are you back to supporting Izzy after he banned you from Psychology Today? If so, how could you?

      For your informacion, he's not un bueno (a good) counselor because he expects victims to bow down to bullies and suck up to them. By doing that, the victims allow the bullies to walk all over them.

      And about victims making their bullies angry, it's really the bullies who make their victims angry with by antagonizing them on purpose.

      What I don't understand is why you sound like you're back to supporting Izzy after you criticized him in your Sucker Punch blog.

      If you ask me, you're better off depending on Ben Leichtling because his counseling works better than Izzy's.

    2. I'm anything but supportive of him. He'll continue to tell victims to stop making bullies angry, which is about as civilized as telling rape victims to stop dressing provocatively.

    3. Oh, bien (alright). Lo siento (I'm sorry) for accusing you of supporting that hombre (man). I truly am. To make up for my false accusation, I'll warn you more about Izzy and his mindless followers in this website:

      If you want to, you can also check out this site in which Ben criticizes Izzy:

      If you go to those websites, show those blind Izzy supporters who's boss, side with la personas (the people) who are against Kalman, and blog about those subjects, then le deseo la mejor de las suertes (I wish you the best of luck).

    4. Gracias for not supporting him anymore. Y sí (And yes), you're right about that sentence about what he'll do. Honestly, lo idiota (what an idiot) he is.

  3. I think a better analogy would be that Izzy is telling rape victims to not view what happened to them as rape and learn to see their rapist from a different perspective and learn to love him and get married.
    Izzy isn't helping anyone not become victimized but with his anti-anti-bullying beliefs, he is trying to make it possible to bully and rape not punishable by the law.
    Americans criticize barbaric countries that force rape victims to marry their rapists but people like Izzy are allowed to be an authority on healthy thinking via practicing psychology and inciting/condoning violence in his writings?

    1. I couldn't you agree with you more, Sir or Ma'am. If you ask me, I'm really ashamed of Izzy. Since he's anti-anti-bully, I'm anti-anti-anti-bully.

  4. Izzy Kalman places the burden on the victim. This relieves everyone else, especially the assholes who raise their kids to be bullies of any responsibility to address the problem.

    1. How right you are. But you know? I did notice in one website in Izzy claimed that he doesn't place blame on victim's shoulders. What a liar that guy is.

      If you want me to show you the website, feel free to ask me and I'll see if I can find it. If I do, I'll paste it on here.

      And if you want to know what my e-mail address is, I'll give it to you like typed that I would:

  5. You are doing very good by writing all of these essays about bullying. I was wondering in the topic of approaches for victims, where we understand doing what Izzy Kalman types say is completely wrong, can you say what the right steps for escaping bullying are. I know that a lot of this blog's content talks about punishing bullies (which is also important) but am still wondering at the same time, while bullying exists, can the victims escape in some way? is there someone they can contact? who can they trust? are there shelters? is it possible to get homeschooling and how? Thank You in advance for any information you may know about.

    1. There is very little that the victim, acting alone can do. The victim cannot stop the bully with his bare hands...and everyone knows it. The victim cannot escape the bullying without dropping out of school or taking his/her own life...and everyone knows it. And on those rare occasions like Columbine where the victim uses a weapon to pull heads out of asses, most of the public pushes their heads further up their own asses and refuses to believe that bullying had anything to do with it. Getting caught doing something destructive appears to make the public even more stupid than it already is.

      I have no advice for those currently being victimized except perhaps to pretend that they're in a prison under the control of a callous administration and their objective is simply to survive long enough to finish their sentence and get out. Once out of high school, it's a good idea to move every couple of years, get involved in as many social activities as possible, and listen more than you speak. You've been deprived of the opportunity to develop social skills for years and you have a lot of catching up to do.

  6. Did you read Izzy's essays after you made this blog post? For example, the one about not telling police on criminals because the criminals will get angry and the criminals will do the punishing of the victim, which is justifiable in Izzy's sick head because he thinks people should abide by the gangster creed of snitches get stiches. This man is allowed to be a psychologist? It sounds more like a lunatic stole the doctor's wardrobe and impersonating a psychologist snuck out of the asylum and kept posing as one to this day. Can someone explain to me why this type of article by Izzy does not get him committed? He along with all bullies should be separated from the rest of society. Even though what he wrote is infuriating but is humorous at the same time because of the pathetic logic and extreme hypocrisy he always shows, saying that it is always reasonable anger from the bullies’ side when he preaches that bully victims should never be angry no matter what and be happy at the honor of being tortured. Of course this is beside the point that he is basically saying that bullies are the ultimate authority and we should not dare to not abide by their rules and will get punished, and here I was thinking that it was us who should be angry with criminals and it is they who should be punished. It is disgusting not only because Izzy does this but because there are many like him; all of these types are degenerate scum.

    1. You're right about everything except about Izzy's writing being humorous. It's like you can't make up your mind whether to side with him or be against him. If you're a true Izzy hater like I am, then you wouldn't think of his false logic as humorous.

      For your information, humor's an excuse for bullies to use when antagonizing their victims. And they're the reason why my sense of humor differs from most people's.

      If I'm you, I'd go out of my way to be against Izzy and refrain from thinking of his stuff as humorous.